Genes

[VxDx]

what would be the point in asking people what they think when they have no personal experience or research in the matter? anything that they said would basically be what they were taught or their own baseless theory, thus instead of posting something that is thusly worthless, some people may direct you to the source of their knowledge.

if someone on a message board can change your opinion on something that neither they nor you have any practical experience with, then maybe you should change the way you develop opinions.

[aleco]

Aleco, you have shown no proof, so you shouldn't be talking. You didn't even say any specifics. Science is proving evolution right but wrong? What? You said evolution is wrong but Evolution is right? Show me the difference.

Evolution (E) is the theory that we all evolved and how we were created. evolution is that we adapt, ect. evolution is fine (e). I might have been confusing, blah blah. And you haven't shown any proof either.

We have the history of humans traced all the way back multiple species to the point when we left the forest. How can you tell me that we did not evolve from primates when we ARE primates?

We may be similar, that doesn't mean we evolved. Science is proving it wrong, though. I'll try to come up with some sites later. Did you know even Darwin repented before he died?

we are primates you retard

Did you realize developing science is constantly proving evolution to be wrong?

Who's the retard now?

you have no fucking clue...evolution has nothing to do with us being primates...the group is comprised of simliar structured species...you go ahead and prove where science proves we're not part of an arbitrary group we made up to help classify species

I have plenty of clue, probably more than you. I never argued that we weren't the same kind of organism as primates. I SAID WE DID NOT EVOLVE. Got that?

Did you realize developing science is constantly proving evolution to be wrong?

I'd really really really like to see your support for this. I mean, I understand if you don't believe in evolution as the basis of creation, but what you said is just ignorant.

Ignorant, righttttt. Prove that it isn't, smart one.

[VxDx]

Did you realize developing science is constantly proving evolution to be wrong?

I'd really really really like to see your support for this. I mean, I understand if you don't believe in evolution as the basis of creation, but what you said is just ignorant.

Ignorant, righttttt. Prove that it isn't, smart one.

prove that what isn't? I didn't say that anything "isn't". if you mean science contradicting itself, than there is no way to prove that something isn't doing something except by exhaustion, in which case I'd like to cite all scientific publications ever.

You've offered no proof of your wild theories and you did not answer my request. All you retort with is retarded sarcasm. If this is such a fundamental truth, why is it that you can't paraphrase what your source is? why do you stall by saying that you will find sites later? why not just tell us why you believe it? granted, whatever you say will probably be false anyways, but you've offered no support of your point. none at all.

[aleco]

I just have a bunch of random thoughts I put together and don't bother having everything make sense sometimes, sorry.


"Wild" theories? Why did you even call it a theory if you think of it as you do?
The answer was that I will find sites, and that is not stalling.
But why should I even bother though with people like you here?

Edit: Okay, here's some sites.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/basics/sld012.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/basics/sld017.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/basics/sld018.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/basics/sld019.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/basics/sld020.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/basics/sld022.htm

[jewpinthethird]

It says

Basically, there are only two choices. 1. God exists and created us 2. There is no God, so natural processes must explain how we got here

But why do those have to be the only two Choices?

[VxDx]

You say that science proves that evolution is incorrect and yet you cite a religious site that goes so far as to cite the bible in it's support of why science disproves evolution. Please find a scientifically accredited source next time.

[Anonymous]

Just because the recessive gene doesn't show in the creature... doesnt mean its not there... a bb parent also means ALL KIDS WILL HAVE THE RECESSIVE GENE... just show the dominant...

sigh, is it worth the effort to explain?

[User6773]

What's ironic is that nothing in Catholic belief (to which I subscribe) decries evolution.

As for genetics, y'all need to play Metal Gear Solid.

[SUSUGAM]

*shudders* catholic...

Anyway, guest = me...

and yes, metal gear had a nice explanation... although not sure of the absolute truth of it

[makaveli121212]

ok, i will attempt to find everything worng with aleco's link

However, CHANGE AT THE SPECIES LEVEL IS UNIMPORTANT in the big picture, as NO INCREASE IN COMPLEXITY (no upward evolution) is taking place

right, we are not any more complex than monkeys

Macro-evolution has never been observed

that seems a little hypocritical coming from a religous supporter

The other key is to realize that the controversy is less about scientific fact than about promotion of a theistic versus atheistic world view

Finally, true evolution is really an atheistic philosophy and has no need for any type of God, even an impersonal one. Proponents may still use "God-talk", but their "god" is some type of creative force that is an (as yet undiscovered) property of matter (like the "force" in the Star Wars movies).

this is just total ignorance, and i cant stand that...evolution has nothing to do with religion, and many scientists have religions

The "peppered moth" example is probably the best known, or most often cited proof of "evolution is action". As explained by Menton: "The Peppered moth (Biston betularia) is typically a whitish moth covered with black spots. This coloration provides an effective camouflage for the moths as they rest on certain Birch trees. Like humans, however, these moths can be found in a range of pigmentation from very black to very white and all shades in between. In a much touted study in England it was found that when the white trees, on which the moths rested, became dark from industrial pollution, birds ate more of the lighter moths (missing the darker ones). It came as no surprise that the population of darker moths increased while the lighter ones decreased. It was further observed (but rarely mentioned) that when cities cleaned up their air, the trees got lighter and the lighter moths again predominated." This is NATURAL SELECTION in action.
The problem is that there is NO EVOLUTION occurring (no increase in complexity)! At the start of the story there are both light and dark colored moths present. At the end of the story there are both light and dark colored moths present. No new trait has been acquired. The only difference is a shift in the color distribution in the population.

Development of resistance to antibiotics by bacterial strains is another frequently heard story along the same lines. These are simply cases of recombinations of existing genetic characteristics selectively preserved in a changed environment, not examples demonstrating an increase in complexity

no one is calling this evolution...its natural selection and that is much different, im failing to see the sources point on this one

Organizations such as the "Institute for Creation Research" (ICR), the "Creation Research Society" (CRS), and "Answers in Genesis" (AIG)

are these your 'scientific' resources

Many people believe in evolution because it is what they were taught and are ignorant of the actual facts

again, how hypocritical is that...everyone knows and recongnizes the church's brainwashing...and i would really like to see their so called facts that the evolutionists are ignorant to believe

when things are left to themselves, they always become LESS complex (they decay), the opposite of what evolution requires. This is known formally as the Second Law of Thermodynamics

their defenition of entropy (2nd law) is worng...entropy isnt things becoming less complex it is things becoming more random, which could lead to complexity, so disregard everything the site says about the second law of thermodynamics

Almost all known mutations are harmful. The best (only?) "beneficial" mutation cited is sickle cell anemia (it can provide immunity to malaria). Also, natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present - it cannot create anything new!

that is true most mutations are harmful, but what is the point of that statement...sickle cell is not nearly the only beneficial mutation...mutations do not create anything new and evolutionists know that and dont argue for it, the site is missing a point again

The gap from non-life to life is very big. It requires both DNA and RNA to be present, working cooperatively, at the same time

well that proves that this site really has no scientific backing at all...life uses one or the other, amd only in very rare occasions both

10,000 generations of fruit flies have been bred and exposed to many times a naturally-occurring amount of mutation-inducing radiation, with no indication that any type of increase in complexity (upward evolution) is happening

again mutation is not what causes genetic variation in the popultion

The near-oldest rocks, so-called "Cambrian" rocks, contain many complex creatures, like Trilobites (now extinct). They are fully-formed, and there is not the slightest trace of a more primitive ancestor to be found in the older, "Pre-Cambrian" rocks

yup, yup there is...this site is pretty old, but there is no excuse to bend the truth like that

For those who place trust in the Bible, it should be noted that the Bible always speaks of special creation by God as a fact. If evolution were God's mechanism there would be no reason for Him to hide it in His revelation. Even Jesus Himself refers to the creation (and the global flood of Noah's time) as facts. The listed scripture references (NIV) include:


Col 1:16 "For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers of rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."


Heb 1:2 "… He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe."


Heb 1:10 "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."


Jesus said: Mk 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.'"


Also: Mt 24:37-39 "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

well i guess these are stone cold facts then...so, whatever the bible says is true huh? i'll come back to that later

If evolution were true, there should be so many intermediates that we could not even categorize them. In fact, it should not be possible to tell where one type of animal "ends" and another "begins".

in fact that is the case, but we cant find all of the fossils...fossils are only created under very rare circumstances and even then, it is equally unlikely for us to dig them up

So-called "imperfections" in nature are cited. For example, why would God give the Panda bear a thumb that appears to be fairly useless? Or why do men have nipples? One answer is that just because we don't understand why something is the way it is, doesn't mean it doesn't have a good purpose or aesthetic value. This is a weak argument at best.

the answer is that these 'imperfections' did, at one time, have a function but as animals continued to evove their functions deminished

The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have.

Detailed study of Carbon-14 dating results provide a date for the flood of around 5,000 years ago, which agrees fairly well with the Biblical chronology (see Whitelaw, "Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates", in "Speak to the Earth").

well, thats consistency for you...radiometric dating cant be used to prove evolution but it can to back creationism...

Is there evidence that there was once a flood which covered the entire earth? If this were the case you would think the result would be obvious, and creationists say it is

what does this have to with evolution? are they assuming the evolutionists debate there wasnt one? that would be quite the generalization

Yet, the task outlined on the previous slide HAS been performed. It is a "robot" we call an "ant". And even though an ant is marvelously designed and has many capabilities, it is trivial and unimportant compared with man. If the intelligence and planning needed "just" to build an ant/robot is so great, how much greater intelligence and planning must have been required to create the universe, the earth, and all living things! Evolution and naturalism, having no designer to supply intelligence, following no plan, is absolutely, totally incapable of having produced the world we know

why, because ants arent as sophisticated as us?

First, the Biblical revelation provides the only claimed "eyewitness account" of the creation of the universe

really? someone was jotting down notes as god created everything? i was under the impression that he was the only one around...you cannot say that creation was an eyewitness account, im sorry

Third, complexity never arises through the results of random, chance processes. This is a common sense observation consistent with known scientific laws. Living things are complex machines

if something is random it doesnt ever do the same thing consistently right? so then why would everything always become less complex? that doesnt seem like its very random? a bad definition by the site and a wrong observation as well

Fourth, nature exhibits a tremendous amount of design. The universe, the earth, and living things are not only highly complex, but have function and purpose. The ecosystem of the earth is finely tuned with every part of it related to the rest in a delicate balance

that suppossed to be supporting creationism?

Ultimately, evolution/naturalism is man's attempt to eliminate the need for God, and thereby His rule over us

i really cant believe the ignorance of whoever made this site

ok, so they were using the bible as fact, because everything in it is true...so then, by the bible, the earth is how old? well if you remember a while back i made a thread about how old the earth is based on the bible, so i ask you do you believe that this is true?

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...ewtopic&t=7959

[aleco]

No matter what I come up with, you're just going to go "OH THAT SUXXORS I CAN FIND A MILLION THINGS WRONG WITH IT!!!111!!!!!!11!!"
Soooooo the other thread yeah it was something like that BUT who knows how long the days when he created the earth were? Who says they were 24 hours? I don't.

I can find as many things wrong with evolution as you can with creation. I didn't even really read that site, I just came up with something quickly.
So we have differences. They won't be solved.

Good day.

[makaveli121212]

cant you see my point...answer the question was that when the earth was created yes or no

[aleco]

I did say "soooooo the other thread yeah it was something like that"
No one can determine the exact time, really. It was probably somewhere 4000-6000 BC when they were forced out of Eden.
No one knows how long the days of creation lasted. I don't think they were regualar days, but I really don't know.
So my point is when the Earth was created depends on how long the days of creation were, which no one knows.

[makaveli121212]

ok, so you agree that the bible may not have accurately measured the time the earth was created...the thing is, that site used the bible as fact, and if the earth's time in the bible is not a fact then the rest of the bible can not be assumed to be either

[aleco]

Where you getting that the Bible says the exact time the earth was created? It doesn't. If the site says it does, then that is way off.