• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. David M

    Creationists please define Kind

    In the 1920s it was not possible to achieve pregnancy with humans, so that fact that this technology did not manage a human/chimp pregnancy is meaningless.
  2. David M

    Circumcision should be banned

    There are. Apart from the risk of death arising from the circumcision itself the procedure can produce its own medical complications.
  3. David M

    Creationists please define Kind

    In the 1920s we could not even manage a single pregnency from human/human IVF, why should the failure of human/chimp IVF mean anything.
  4. David M

    Evolution: ask your questions here

    Oh, this one was a mistake. Ater all we only have 9 Genera of devonian early tetrapods :) To Tiktaalik I will add: Acanthostega - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Panderichthys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ichthyostega - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia We can do the same for...
  5. David M

    Evolution: ask your questions here

    Further to this there is a mechanism of evolution called genetic drift, this is where a mutation is not under selective pressure and just through the effects of random sampling neutral mutations at can become fixed in a population over time. The effect is greater in smaller populations than...
  6. David M

    Evolution: ask your questions here

    Precisely. The Theory of Evolution is "Darwinist" in the sense that it grew out of Darwin's original work on the subject and includes the parts of his work that were found to be valid. It is not "Darwinist" or "Darwinism" in any sense that implies an adherence to only Darwin's original theory...
  7. David M

    Circumcision should be banned

    Banned except for adults (who can give consent) or when done for actual medical reasons to correct a medical problem you mean? Other studies contradict this, but so do condoms and the don't involve surgery. But the main reason this argument fails is that it provides no reason to circumcise...
  8. David M

    Creationists please define Kind

    Yes, we all understand why you arbitrarily picked that number, it was so you could deny that humans and chimps are related and place humans in their own special kind. Of course the huge problem with your definition is that it contradicts the bible, now you have so many kinds that there is no...
  9. David M

    Creationists, please provide evidence

    Source? Because you are flat out wrong on this. No the paper doesn't use the term analogue, it says they are homologous. The word analagous/analogue does not appear anywhere in the paper. Feel free to check if you want. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome : Article ...
  10. David M

    Evolution: ask your questions here

    I'd say it more slow...slow...slow...Fast...slow...slow...slow. With slow periods being mainly minor changes that don't affect morphology very much and rarely lead to speciation while fast often causes speciation and can cause larger changes in morphology. Its a much debated topic but the last...
  11. David M

    Creationists please define Kind

    Thats the one, and the number 24 only appearsin that paper as a link to the footnotes. So exactly where does this claim of a 24% difference come from?
  12. David M

    What does the fossil record say?

    How typical. Creationists always pick the definitions that don't apply to the field of science.
  13. David M

    Another Creationist Teacher Bites The Dust

    That would be an very impressive feat by Lamark as he died 30 years before Origin of Species was published. Your sites are lying to you.
  14. David M

    Creationists, please provide evidence

    Then you are not going to like this post either, so I'll proceed to rip this ignorant twaddle apart shall I? The article you are pasting from is at Mouse genome home The whole thing provides a good explanation of why the sequencing of the mouse genome provides great evidence FOR common...
  15. David M

    Creationists please define Kind

    Newhope is misrepresenting the fact that if you count things in different ways you come up with different numbers, the 30% is based on an alleged 24% difference in the alignment of chromosomes plus all the other differences added together (which is dishonest because things like SNPs are the...
  16. David M

    macroevolution is not observable

    lol, misrepresentations of the Antikythera mechanism. You realise that it works based on a geocentric model of the earth and celestial bodies which would make the "aliens" who passed on the technology it particularly unobservant. And it is not beyond the technology of the period. The egyptian...
  17. David M

    Creationists, please provide evidence

    Its not, you are misrepresenting the facts. They do not say the chromosomes are comparable,they say that the rates of evolution are comparable (and in fact I probably need to go back to the paper to find out what they actually said about 310 million years rather than what you think they meant)...
  18. David M

    macroevolution is not observable

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong Right. Wrong Wrong. Wrong. The only statement that was factually correct is one that you meant as sarcasm. Either your sources are lying to you or you are ignorant about evolution and the evidence for it. Speciation has been observed (and by the way...
  19. David M

    Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

    Nearly all fossils are trans fossils. Just for humans there are hundreds of trans fossils, i.e. every single hominid fossil. Scientists get most excited over the ones that are transitional for large portions of the lineage, such as for tetrapods and aves.
  20. David M

    Creationists, please provide evidence

    Where does it show 24% in that paper? You are once again misrepresenting the facts, if you compare things using different methods you get different numbers. Here's what the paper actually says. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature...
Top