Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

[McBell]

I am beginning to wonder about you outhouse. All you do is make negative comments and hold up the education of evolutionists as if they are beyond reproach and infallible in their interpretations. Not one single shred of evidence has been presented in a simple fashion for the uneducated to understand. Science, of course uses ignorance to their own ends, just as Christendom has done through the centuries.

Do all the experiments in speciation result in producing a new creature? Or are all the "proofs" simply adapted forms of the same "kind" of creature. If that is the case, then simple logic has to tell you that there is no "hard evidence" for what you believe. You have to take the word of man for what they claim is true. Yet without the "hard evidence" what you have is supposition, not fact.

You accuse Bible believers of what scientists do themselves. That is clearly the pot calling the kettle black.

Can you take the cases presented in the link and answer them? Or is that too difficult? Were there frauds in evolutionary science designed to deliberately mislead the public and fellow scientists, just for the accolades? Was this theory promoted by unscrupulous men who were only after the acclaim?

More bold faced lies.

 

[outhouse]

hold up the education of evolutionists as if they are beyond reproach and infallible in their interpretations.

Evolution is FACT

You keep perverting and refusing evidence any ole way you wish. But evolution is here to stay, and creationism is still outlawed from public schools. While evolution is taught in every single credible university in EVERY civilized country in the world! as higher education and fact.

 

[JayJayDee]

Evolution is FACT

You keep perverting and refusing evidence any ole way you wish. But evolution is here to stay, and creationism is still outlawed from public schools. While evolution is taught in every single credible university in EVERY civilized country in the world! as higher education and fact.

Not hard to see who your gods are, is it?.....everything they say is truth because they say so.??? Really?

How are you promoting your "religion" in any way that is superior to the way I promote mine? My teachers tell me the opposite of what your teachers say. We as individuals choose who to believe.....that is the only difference. Faith is required for either, as is demonstrated in your responses.

Your teachers tell us that all life started as one single cell organism and "somehow" evolved into all the diverse creatures that we see on earth. Even with the interdependency seen in the eco-systems of all the various nations on earth there is no design or purpose, they just appeared out of nowhere with no designer or purpose for their existence in sight.

My teachers tell me that all life is designed and produced by an intelligent Creator who gave all living things the ability to adapt to changing environments. He has a purpose for our existence and tells us all about it in a book that he inspired humans to record.

You accept what your teachers tell you, and I will accept what my teachers tell me....because it is clear that no actual "proof" is possible for either except what is right under our noses.

Yelling that it is FACT doesn't make it FACT because by any definition of the word...MACROevolution never happened. MICROevolution is what they have evidence for and we have no problem with that. This is where the REAL evidence is. One does not prove the other, however....no matter how educated the 'guessing' is.

Please address the frauds in the link I provided and tell me how your idolised "educated" ones don't lie when they have an agenda to uphold at all costs.

 

[outhouse]

Evolution is FACT

You keep perverting and refusing evidence any ole way you wish. But evolution is here to stay, and creationism is still outlawed from public schools. While evolution is taught in every single credible university in EVERY civilized country in the world! as higher education and fact.

 

[McBell]

Not hard to see who your gods are, is it?.....everything they say is truth because they say so.??? Really?

How are you promoting your "religion" in any way that is superior to the way I promote mine? My teachers tell me the opposite of what your teachers say. We as individuals choose who to believe.....that is the only difference. Faith is required for either, as is demonstrated in your responses.

Your teachers tell us that all life started as one single cell organism and "somehow" evolved into all the diverse creatures that we see on earth. Even with the interdependency seen in the eco-systems of all the various nations on earth there is no design or purpose, they just appeared out of nowhere with no designer or purpose for their existence in sight.

My teachers tell me that all life is designed and produced by an intelligent Creator who gave all living things the ability to adapt to changing environments. He has a purpose for our existence and tells us all about it in a book that he inspired humans to record.

Nothing more than a sad attempt at bringing your beliefs up to the level of science.
The only ones buying it are your choir members.

You accept what your teachers tell you, and I will accept what my teachers tell me....because it is clear that no actual "proof" is possible for either except what is right under our noses.

Bold face lie.
There is mountains of proof for evolution and nothing for creation.

Yelling that it is FACT doesn't make it FACT

I agree.
It is the fact that the fact is a fact that makes it a fact.
Your denial has no bearing on it.

MACROevolution never happened.

Bold faced lie.
I am seeing a pattern here.
Sad that you faith requires so many lies.

Please address the frauds in the link I provided and tell me how your idolised "educated" ones don't lie when they have an agenda to uphold at all costs.

Please be so kind as to reveal who outed the frauds.

I bet it was the Watchtower, wasn't it?

 

[shawn001]

I am beginning to wonder about you outhouse. All you do is make negative comments and hold up the education of evolutionists as if they are beyond reproach and infallible in their interpretations. Not one single shred of evidence has been presented in a simple fashion for the uneducated to understand. Science, of course uses ignorance to their own ends, just as Christendom has done through the centuries.

Do all the experiments in speciation result in producing a new creature? Or are all the "proofs" simply adapted forms of the same "kind" of creature. If that is the case, then simple logic has to tell you that there is no "hard evidence" for what you believe. You have to take the word of man for what they claim is true. Yet without the "hard evidence" what you have is supposition, not fact.

You accuse Bible believers of what scientists do themselves. That is clearly the pot calling the kettle black.

Can you take the cases presented in the link and answer them? Or is that too difficult? Were there frauds in evolutionary science designed to deliberately mislead the public and fellow scientists, just for the accolades? Was this theory promoted by unscrupulous men who were only after the acclaim?

"Not one single shred of evidence has been presented in a simple fashion for the uneducated to understand"

This sums up your posts. You are certainly uneducated on the matter.

So how do we present "the uneducated" that would be you, so you understand.

Viruses 2006


Unintelligent Design
A monstrous discovery suggests that viruses, long regarded as lowly evolutionary latecomers, may have been the precursors of all life on Earth.

"Few things on Earth are spookier than viruses. The very name virus,from the Latin word for "poisonous slime," speaks to our lowly regard for them. Their anatomy is equally dubious: loose, tiny envelopes of molecules—protein-coated DNA or RNA—that inhabit some netherworld between life and non-life. Viruses do not have cell membranes, as bacteria do; they are not even cells. They seem most lifelike only when they invade and co-opt the machinery of living cells in order to make more of themselves, often killing their hosts in the process. Their efficiency at doing so ranks them among the most fearsome killers:Ebola virus, HIV, smallpox, flu. Yet they go untouched by antibiotics, having nothing really biotic about them.

Unintelligent Design | DiscoverMagazine.com



2010

• 20 Things You Didn't Know About... Viruses

The one with its own satellite, the ones that made you, and the Mama of them all

1 Viruses are not alive: They do not have cells, they cannot turn food into energy, and without a host they are just inert packets of chemicals.

2 Viruses are not exactly dead, either: They have genes, they reproduce, and they evolve through natural selection.


14 In fact, scratch the whole concept of “us versus them.” Half of all human DNA originally came from viruses, which infected and embedded themselves in our ancestors’ egg and sperm cells.

20 Things You Didn't Know About... Viruses | DiscoverMagazine.com


Then you go on to ask questions about how evolution works?


"Can you take the cases presented in the link and answer them?"


Caterpillar's evolved, unless you can show otherwise there is extensive information on their evolution.

"Butterfly evolution is the origin and diversification of butterflies through geologic time and over a large portion of the Earth's surface. The earliest known butterfly fossils are from the mid Eocene epoch, between 40-50 million years ago.[1][dubious – discuss] Their development is closely linked to the evolution of flowering plants, since both adult butterflies and caterpillars feed on flowering plants. Of the 220,000 species ofLepidoptera, about 45,000 species are butterflies, which probably evolved from moths. Butterflies are found throughout the world, except in Antarctica, and are especially numerous in the tropics; they fall into eight different families."

Evolution of butterflies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and as it say's above


"Their development is closely linked to the evolution of flowering plants"

The First flower

"
Flowers Modern & Ancient

• Archaefructus liaoningensis would never have made the cover of Better Homes & Gardens. But this 125 million-year-old plant, discovered in fossil beds in northeastern China, did grace the cover of Science. It’s heralded as the earliest known angiosperm, or flowering plant. Here, explore what makes Archaefructus a flowering plant and how it compares to blooming beauties of today.

NOVA | Flowers Modern & Ancient


Pick the Pollinator

• Flowering plants represent about one-sixth of all Earth's known living life-forms. How did these immobile organisms manage to spread so far? One answer is pollination, or plant sexual reproduction. Pollinators—typically wind, water, and animals—carry pollen from one flower to another. In this game, match seven plants with their pollinators and learn why flowering plants have come to dominate the botanical world.

NOVA | Pick the Pollinator

 

[shawn001]

JWs, evolution and fossils

JWs, evolution and fossils

Jehovah's Witnesses and Evolution

Jehovah's Witnesses and Evolution

 

[JayJayDee]

Please be so kind as to reveal who outed the frauds.

I bet it was the Watchtower, wasn't it?

Would you like to address the accusations in the link instead of all this empty speech Mestemia?

It isn't from JW's at all but interesting none the less.....

Evolution frauds | Evolution is not science

Anyone want to address these accusations about the many frauds in science? Are they true or not?

 

[Bunyip]

Well, in Googling "frauds in evolutionary science" there were several websites but this one was interesting.

Evolution frauds | Evolution is not science

Perhaps you''d like to address some of the "frauds" mentioned there?

Sure, they have all been addressed here a zillion times anyway. Pick one.

And honesty has great value to me, which is why I reject the pseudo-science of organic evolution.

Quite the opposite, you have proven that you have no regard for honesty because you demonise evolution whilst demonstrating a complete ignorance of it.

It is people like yourself who have swallowed the lie.....hook, line and sinker.
The "archbishops" of the evolutionary science world, firmly planted in their temples of higher learning, have led the masses into unbelief. They have substituted one "religion" for another with no more real "proof" than the ones they ridicule from their ivory towers.



Since the definition of a primate is......."any of various omnivorous mammals of the order Primates......especially distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability, we may qualify as primates.

Since we are omnivorous mammals and we have opposable thumbs which make our hands very dexterous, and we fit the rest of that definition, it makes us "human" mammals. Humans are a distinctly different creation to the rest of the animal "kinds". The gulf between man and his closest "relative" in the animal kingdom is enormous and unbridgeable.


Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one. Christians do not compromise on truth....nor do they substitute popular opinion for Biblical truth.



To whom? To those who don't believe in conspiracies?

You know what happens with conspiracy theories? A lot of them are flat out hoaxes, but some of them are the genuine article. What they hope is that you will write them all off, rather than use your own brains and common sense to weed out the fakes. The real conspiracies are hiding in among the frauds.



The scientific community is lying to you. They are passing off supposition as fact.
If you believe that lies are truth, that fiction is fact, then how do you prove anything else after that?



We tell the truth about real science, not about speculation masquerading as science.

We both have a "belief system" that relies on its teachers to form the basis for what we accept as truth.

Since no one has answered the very simple questions I have asked, it seems as if its almost beneath the dignity of some to address a simple approach to the subject of life on this planet like the Bible does. Can you tell me how Moses knew the order of creation? Genesis states that life began in the oceans and then to winged creatures, then to land animals and finally to man. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is the order that science also presents, is it not?

It is not, you are wrong.

If the big question of how life originated

How life originated is not evolution - you have been told that many times. So much for honesty again.

, has an intelligent Creator as its answer, then the whole "theory" goes up in smoke. You all know that and I think it scares you.....or it should. If what the Bible says is true, then what you have sacrificed by accepting the wrong "religion" will be deeply regretted.

Your beloved science for all its marvels of discovery, has been responsible for more harm perpetrated on this earth than all the religions put together.
They will answer for this. (Rev 11:18)

You might want to worship the fraud, but I'll pass thanks.

You are the fraud in this case.

 

[Bunyip]

JayJayDee

Notice how the first time you mistook evolution for the study of how life began (abiogenesis) you were corrected - and yet just keep repeating the same falsehood that you know is a falsehood anyway. You do so in order to argue that evolution is a fraud.

Now acting in a way that proves you have no regard for honesty, while happily repeating what you know to be falsehoods only makes you look like a fourth rate con artist - it does not challenge science.

 

[Bunyip]

Would you like to address the accusations in the link instead of all this empty speech Mestemia?

It isn't from JW's at all but interesting none the less.....

Evolution frauds | Evolution is not science

Anyone want to address these accusations about the many frauds in science? Are they true or not?

They are all creationist lies that were addressed many decades ago.

 

[Bunyip]

JayJayDee

Just looking at your page on evolution frauds, a great example is the article claiming Neanderthal was a hoax. They have found more than 400 specimens, and sequenced the Neanderthal genome - your publication is a fraud. Same goes for the following article on Lucy - dozens of specimens of Australopithecine have been found. The article on the archeoraptor is also full of lies - yes, the fossil in question was a fake. It was discovered to have been made by joining TWO previously unknown fossil birds together.
Check out any of those long dead lies on talkorigins.

 

[JayJayDee]

He said...she said....who do you believe?

I know who makes more sense to me and I don't have to relinquish my natural intuition to accept their teachings.

And concerning abiogenesis......that is a poor response Bunyip. If evolution was as concerned with how life began as they are with trying to prove their phoney claims, perhaps we might get to the real truth of the matter.

You can believe whatever you like. That this thread is causing some concern to evolutionists is a bit telling.
You know that Christendom's "creationism" is wrong....so do I. But creation by an intelligent designer cannot be ruled out by any evolutionary scientist....can it? If it isn't concerned with abiogenesis, then it could very well be all undone by the next discovery in that field....or even by the direct intervention of the Creator himself.

 

[Bunyip]

He said...she said....who do you believe?

Who do we believe? You? You have no respect for honesty - so I would rather believe the evidence than a person who I know is dishonest.

I know who makes more sense to me and I don't have to relinquish my natural intuition to accept their teachings.

And concerning abiogenesis......that is a poor response Bunyip. If evolution was as concerned with how life began as they are with trying to prove their phoney claims, perhaps we might get to the real truth of the matter.

Evolution is not about how life began, that is why it does not discuss it - it is a different field.

You can believe whatever you like. That this thread is causing some concern to evolutionists is a bit telling.
You know that Christendom's "creationism" is wrong....so do I. But creation by an intelligent designer cannot be ruled out by any evolutionary scientist....can it? If it isn't concerned with abiogenesis, then it could very well be all undone by the next discovery in that field....or even by the direct intervention of the Creator himself.

No nothing abiogenesis discovers could do that, it is a seperate field. A point you seem unable to grasp - another great reason to discount your position.

 

[Bunyip]

JayJayDee

The reason why your position is less believable than that of mainstream science is simply because your position evidently can not be argued for honestly - whilst the mainstream scientific position can be.

 

[`mud]

WordPress.com: Create a free website or blog
Create your own website here.....
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. The Freshy Theme.
~
right or wrong
~
'mud

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is evolutionists who shoot themselves in the foot because whilst pointing fingers at those of us who believe in an intelligent designer, they themselves have their own 'fantasy' about how life began. "Poof"...it just popped out of nowhere. No scientific explanation......because there is none. There is just a dubious theory about how life changed as if the big question about how life got here in the first place, doesn't matter.

Show me where the theory of evolution makes even a single reference, or even suggestion, as to how life on earth began or got here.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Show me where the theory of evolution makes even a single reference, or even suggestion, as to how life on earth began or got here.

Speaking of which, the funny thing about the term "evolutionist" (a term only creationists ever use) is that it carries with it a bunch of hidden assumptions. It sounds like a religious designation, as if "evolutionists" practiced a religion called "evolutionism." And you can imagine that "evolutionism" has its own creation myths, as most religious cultures seem to do. It also gives the impression that "evolutionism" is an all-encompassing worldview, complete with specific ontological, ethical, and even metaphysical stances. So then if a person is an "evolutionist" you can tell all sorts of things about them and what they value and believe.

It's natural for people to want to project their own tendencies onto others, but all of these assumptions are impediments to understanding. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not a worldview; it's a model of how a certain set of phenomena appear to work. It contains no creation myth or list of ethical precepts. Nor does the theory of gravity, whose adherents are not known as "gravs," nor have they constructed their worldview simply in order to deny that it's God's power that is pushing everything downward.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You can believe whatever you like. That this thread is causing some concern to evolutionists is a bit telling.

I can assure you that no one who understands the scientific process of discovery is concerned, least of which by your citing of repeatedly falsified arguments and flawed logic.

But creation by an intelligent designer cannot be ruled out by any evolutionary scientist....can it? If it isn't concerned with abiogenesis, then it could very well be all undone by the next discovery in that field....or even by the direct intervention of the Creator himself.

By your own reasoning then, belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation of the Universe is equally as legitimate as your claim of Intelligent Design, right?

 

[Vishvavajra]

You can believe whatever you like. That this thread is causing some concern to evolutionists is a bit telling.

People are just exasperated after having to confront yet another in an endless stream of fabricated assertions, like the one you linked to earlier, including false claims about what is taught in science classes and where the evidence comes from. The level of distortion is such that many people figure it must be intentional. And you can imagine how that would be frustrating.

You know that Christendom's "creationism" is wrong....so do I. But creation by an intelligent designer cannot be ruled out by any evolutionary scientist....can it? If it isn't concerned with abiogenesis, then it could very well be all undone by the next discovery in that field....or even by the direct intervention of the Creator himself.

The theory of evolution by natural selection does not have anything to do with the existence of a creator one way or another. It simply describes the processes on the microscopic and macroscopic levels that result in the specific forms that organisms take, which includes speciation, adaptation, the existence of maladaptive or vestigial traits, etc. And those processes are shown to function without the need for divine intervention. That's really it. It's just like how meteorology explains how weather occurs through natural processes in the atmosphere, without the need for supernatural intervention to create storms etc.

Evolutionary theory does not tell us whether there's a creator god. It doesn't tell us how the first living organisms formed from organic molecules. It does tell us how we got the biodiversity evident today and at various other times in the fossil record (whose biodiversity was often very different from our own), as well as how very complex organisms have evolved from less complex ones. If people are stubborn Biblical literalists and insist that all "types" of animal and plant must have existed as they are from the very beginning, since the Eden myth says Adam named them, then they aren't going to like evolutionary theory very much. Or if they think the lists of "begats" can be used to turn the Hebrew Bible into a literal history textbook and that the world is consequently only a few thousand years old. But they should probably stay away from a host of academic subjects in that case, as well as hobbies like gardening, rock collecting, etc., since their worldview isn't going to hold up to exposure to anything outside of a very small bubble. Other people have no reason to have a problem with it.