Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

[micrurus]

Touche wrong and you know it.

I do know what I am talking about and the fact is you can have all the bones and DNA you want but all you have is assumption (I won't say you are wrong and definitely wont say you are 100% correct).

yes, everything is an assumption.
examples: Unicorns, Gravity, God, ToE

the trick is to accept the assumptions that are based on logic
every thing that you drop supports the ToG and every thing studied in biology and archeology supports ToE

Gravity and ToE: based on logics
God and Unicorns: not based on logics

Here is part of it and why you get so much resistance from the churches and Christians. When evolution was proposed many jumped on it as fact and used it as a tool against the church. In the beginning evolutionists were going on an educated guess and passing it off as fact and it was nowhere near provable back then.

I don't think that any scientist "jumped on it"
and it wasn't provable back then, it was supported back then. it is proven today, so why still fight it?

So what I am saying is there is really no precedent for the formation of a mammal. There is evidence that recent evolution happened, last several hundred million years, where a fish turned to a land crawler that turned to dino that turned to reptile and mammal. There is evidence that cells and bacteria can mutate rapidly and pass on\retain traits (evolve).

dinos ware reptiles
mammels did not evolve from dinos
precedent for the formation of mammels?
I can even explain you how scales turned into hairs.

The trick is how do the two go together. I guess one thing that could be looked at is embryonic development. DNA combines in the nucleus of the egg and replication of stem cells begins. This mass of cells goes through a series of programed mutation, replication and change. Kind of like evolution, though this is preprogrammed.

Biologists don't like to compare the similaritys between the embryonic development and the evolution af a species because there is no evidence that links the 2.

Our code was written in a very specific way. I am saying that chance was not the writer; God was.

why god? you think that we are perfection?
thats just and ego supporting theory IMO

 

[McBell]

I am saying that chance was not the writer; God was.

Wait.
Who is saying that it was chance?
I mean other than you?

Not the ToE.
But then, you know that it is not the ToE that claims it was chance.
At least you claim to know it.
I mean, you flat out said that you understand ToE better than Autodidact.

Does this mean you are a self confessed liar?

 

[Archer]

Well help me out, I would also like to consider alternative scientific explanations for how life developed. Do you have any you might like to share with us?

I just look at the same evidence you do and I see programming not just randomness.

Where are the two and three celled organisms? Now I admit this is from the ID playbook which much of creation science is simply speculation and baseless at that but many of the things that they bring up are too far out there for me.

I have seen many documentaries on CS and find many legitimate claims but I also view it like I view Christians. If they make up just one thing then they hold no legitimate view at all; they are trying to manipulate.

Speculation is a good thing as it causes one to think and perhaps solve the riddle and honestly not a lot of thought has gone into some id the ID argument. Furthermore when one tells a lie the others cover it up or defend it unlike science where the liar is discredited and humiliated.

I accept that things change and that is not counter to the Bible and it actually shows real intelligence in design. I also see evidence of cohabitation and now proven interbreeding between man and neanderthal.

I will put it this way. I am not so ignorant to accept the premise that God may not exist but I am also convinced that he is real. I have said this before and I will say it again: I am basically an Agnostic Christian.

–noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.


–adjective 3.of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.

4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

I believe there is much more to the universe than we will ever know. Even in 10 billion years we will be infantile in knowledge compared to the greatness of creation.

I have several issues with the denial of God. I believe in God and I live the Christian philosophy. I guess that is why I am so hard on them (Christians). I read the Bile without the Dogmatic pressures and find that what is taught in many Churches it counter to the Bible and there is much that is not taught that should be.

 

[Archer]

Wait.
Who is saying that it was chance?
I mean other than you?

Not the ToE.
But then, you know that it is not the ToE that claims it was chance.
At least you claim to know it.
I mean, you flat out said that you understand ToE better than Autodidact.

Does this mean you are a self confessed liar?

You can call it what you will friend but when it comes down to it chance is the best word for it. HMMMM? This adaptation worked and if I can live lone enough to spread my DNA I will evolve. (I being my genetic line)

 

[Archer]

yes, everything is an assumption.
examples: Unicorns, Gravity, God, ToE

the trick is to accept the assumptions that are based on logic
every thing that you drop supports the ToG and every thing studied in biology and archeology supports ToE

Gravity and ToE: based on logics
God and Unicorns: not based on logics



I don't think that any scientist "jumped on it"
and it wasn't provable back then, it was supported back then. it is proven today, so why still fight it?



dinos ware reptiles
mammels did not evolve from dinos
precedent for the formation of mammels?
I can even explain you how scales turned into hairs.



Biologists don't like to compare the similaritys between the embryonic development and the evolution af a species because there is no evidence that links the 2.



why god? you think that we are perfection?
thats just and ego supporting theory IMO

Learn to use spell check. Dinos were not reptiles. Discoveries are pointing at warm blood and some discoveries point to a closer relation to birds.


Hell walking with Dinosaurs teaches a lot.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I just look at the same evidence you do and I see programming not just randomness.

Where are the two and three celled organisms?

Diplomonads and many pollen grains.

 

[micrurus]

Learn to use spell check. Dinos were not reptiles. Discoveries are pointing at warm blood and some discoveries point to a closer relation to birds.


Hell walking with Dinosaurs teaches a lot.

being cold blooded does not define a reptile
Dinos are not related to birds, birds are related to dinos.
infact, firds are direct descendants of dinos
some biologists wil even argue that birds are dinos
and I wil misspell whatever I want.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Learn to use spell check. Dinos were not reptiles. Discoveries are pointing at warm blood and some discoveries point to a closer relation to birds.


Hell walking with Dinosaurs teaches a lot.

Dinosaurs are classified as Reptilia in the taxonomic system. Although all known modern Reptilia are cold-blooded, their ancestors may have diverged into both cold blooded modern reptiles, and warm blooded aves, as new evidence indicates.
In other words, it seems both the crocodile and the finch are descended from Dinosaur ancestors.

 

[Onlooker]

It is false that ID is a scientific concept. If you say it is science, you are saying something incorrect, that reflects either ignorance, dishonesty, or incompetence. Should university departments have to hire people who are ignorant, dishonest or incompetent?

What part of science are you talking about? You can study anything objectively.

 

[micrurus]

Dinosaurs are classified as Reptilia in the taxonomic system. Although all known modern Reptilia are cold-blooded, their ancestors may have diverged into both cold blooded modern reptiles, and warm blooded aves, as new evidence indicates.
In other words, it seems both the crocodile and the finch are descended from Dinosaur ancestors.

no warm blooded reptile?

take a look at the letherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), its core temperature about 6-8 degrees celcius above the temperature of its environment.

O and crocodiles are not descendants from dinosaures but they are closely related.

EDIT
maybe I should provide a source for that last one
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/crocodilians.htm

 

[Onlooker]

Quote:
In summary, your science beliefs are valid or not valid. They are not true or not true.
Currently, your arguments are valid but not provable.
Are you saying you have found the Nobel prize winning proof for evolution?
That was done over 100 years ago. You must have missed it.
Okay, bs flag thrown.
Stop everything.
What proof do you have professor?
Let's be scientific and give me references and I will read it with others to finally put this argument to rest.
Finally, we can stop. We have proof!

 

[Archer]

being cold blooded does not define a reptile
Dinos are not related to birds, birds are related to dinos.
infact, firds are direct descendants of dinos
some biologists wil even argue that birds are dinos
and I wil misspell whatever I want.

Willful misspelling and you want me to listen to you? "Dinos are not related to birds, birds are related to dinos." is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

related [rɪˈleɪtɪd]adj1. connected; associated
2. connected by kinship or marriage

Birds are descendants of the Dino. Descendants are related and relation works both ways.

Warm blooded and the heart seems to be closer than human than reptile. At least the Dino (fossilized heart) I saw was that way.

You can call them reptile all day long but they were dinosaurs not reptiles.

 

[micrurus]

Willful misspelling and you want me to listen to you? "Dinos are not related to birds, birds are related to dinos." is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

related [rɪˈleɪtɪd]adj1. connected; associated
2. connected by kinship or marriage

Birds are descendants of the Dino. Descendants are related and relation works both ways.

Warm blooded and the heart seems to be closer than human than reptile. At least the Dino (fossilized heart) I saw was that way.

You can call them reptile all day long but they were dinosaurs not reptiles.

"Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia (unranked): Sauria Infraclass: Archosauromorpha (unranked): Archosauriformes Division: Archosauria"
Archosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Archer]

"Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia (unranked): Sauria Infraclass: Archosauromorpha (unranked): Archosauriformes Division: Archosauria"
Archosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The dinosaurs are not in the same class as the reptile. They were not reptiles and you should look up some of the latest research.

 

[micrurus]

The dinosaurs are not in the same class as the reptile. They were not reptiles and you should look up some of the latest research.

Il accept that statement if you can give me a descent article that supports it.

 

[Onlooker]

When we talk about the theory of evolution we are talking about Darwinian evolution (or neo-Darwinian evolution). If you were even slightly familiar with the theory you would understand that according to this theory environmental stressors do not affect the DNA. Whatever characteristics an organism may acquire do not get passed down to their offspring. Acquired characteristics are not inherited. It doesn’t matter how much you work out, your future children are not going to be any stronger because of it.

(btw the theory that you are refuting here is called Lamarckian evolution, which pre-dates Darwin and has long been rejected by the scientific community).



You are correct. Unfortunately this type of interaction is brought up during discussions about point mutations and age-old convergent evolution arguments. The typical argument goes on about how numerically it would be impossible to have random mutations come up with convergent evolution ( 2 species end up with the same organ). Then the other side talks about how the envirionment may influence these random mutations.
So I use the direct comparison, as you correctly point out, but the end is the same when it comes to the arguments. Either complete random mutations with mind boggling numbers to get a functional organ; or the retro use of envirioment.
I am more interested in the proof someone has for evolution. That is the bomb.

 

[Archer]

Il accept that statement if you can give me a descent article that supports it.

The points of contention are all over the place. I would have to link many articles because they are not sure what they were. Some say more like a bird and some say more like a mammal but the thing is the look less and less like reptiles. I am jumping ahead a little because we know what they were not but can not figure out exactly what they were.

The body is not designed like current reptiles and they are also different from their fossil ancestors which fossilized skeletal remains resemble modern reptiles.

Because of the information gathered from the fossilized heart the dinos have also been compared to mammals.

To be honest one link will not do it because everything is in contention. Hell by the time they are done they may decide that Dinos were human

There is a lot of information out there on the subject and the one thing we do know is they were not reptiles and unless we radically change the definition of reptile they will never be reptiles.

 

[tumbleweed41]

no warm blooded reptile?

take a look at the letherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), its core temperature about 6-8 degrees celcius above the temperature of its environment.

O and crocodiles are not descendants from dinosaures but they are closely related.

EDIT
maybe I should provide a source for that last one
Crocodile Evolution - The Story of Prehistoric Crocodiles and Crocodile Evolution

Thank you, unlike Archer, I am quite willing to admit my mistakes.

 

[McBell]

The points of contention are all over the place. I would have to link many articles because they are not sure what they were. Some say more like a bird and some say more like a mammal but the thing is the look less and less like reptiles. I am jumping ahead a little because we know what they were not but can not figure out exactly what they were.

The body is not designed like current reptiles and they are also different from their fossil ancestors which fossilized skeletal remains resemble modern reptiles.

Because of the information gathered from the fossilized heart the dinos have also been compared to mammals.

To be honest one link will not do it because everything is in contention. Hell by the time they are done they may decide that Dinos were human

There is a lot of information out there on the subject and the one thing we do know is they were not reptiles and unless we radically change the definition of reptile they will never be reptiles.

One wonders why you are dancing around the bush instead of just supporting your claim...

 

[Archer]

One wonders why you are dancing around the bush instead of just supporting your claim...

Because it would actually require you to use that space between your ears. You must research it, I can't do it for you.

I can provide dozens on links and you would have to read every one and then put 2 + 2 together which you evidently can't do.