outhouse
Atheistically
semetic speaking people were heavily influenced by all the culture in the levant.
the storys they used by my opinion were the best at that time and thrown into a hebrew melting pot
-
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!
The Strange Thing about Creationism
- Thread starter Many Sages One Truth
- Start date
semetic speaking people were heavily influenced by all the culture in the levant.
the storys they used by my opinion were the best at that time and thrown into a hebrew melting pot
camanintx
Well-Known Member
You're not seriously suggesting that evolution cannot produce new genetic information, are you? That argument died years ago.
How do evolutionary processes create information? - The Panda's Thumb
Unless they happen to leave footprints.
Tetrapod footprints - their use in biostratigraphy and biochronology of the Triassic
CaptainBritain
Active Member
soon or later they lie or present half facts, a truth that needs this sort of defence is no truth, they make more christians become atheists than we can ever dream, hope they carry on in truth.
Shermana
Heretic
1. I am suggesting that much new information can be formed but not the type that radically transitions to something completely outside of the Order, let alone Phylum.
2. Do these footprints show transition and what looks like could have formed from a fin?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So to recap:
Shermana owes me $100.
He can't say how new traits or species arise, if not by evolution (same post as above).
He kept going back to ID creationist blogs for rebuttals, even after they were shown to misrepresent published research.
He admits he cites papers he disagrees with (but only after the contradiction is pointed out).
He thinks that because more than one type of virus can become endogenous, that means all shared ERV's between taxa are coincidental.
He was wrong about "macroevolution" not being used in biological research.
When presented with a virtually complete fossil record of forams, showing Darwinian-style gradual evolution over millions of years, he moved the goalposts to "they're not reptiles and birds".
He first claimed "Tiktaalik couldn't bear any weight", but after it was shown that it could, he moved the goalposts to "it couldn't walk on land like a modern salamander".
He blatantly misrepresents the journal articles he links to.
And that's just the stuff I've been paying attention to! Shermana, you're not doing very well and in reading through this thread, your constant appeals to "let the reader decide" seem to be working against you. There's a very clear consensus here about you and your arguments. Wanna take a guess what it is?
Shermana owes me $100.
He can't say how new traits or species arise, if not by evolution (same post as above).
He kept going back to ID creationist blogs for rebuttals, even after they were shown to misrepresent published research.
He admits he cites papers he disagrees with (but only after the contradiction is pointed out).
He thinks that because more than one type of virus can become endogenous, that means all shared ERV's between taxa are coincidental.
He was wrong about "macroevolution" not being used in biological research.
When presented with a virtually complete fossil record of forams, showing Darwinian-style gradual evolution over millions of years, he moved the goalposts to "they're not reptiles and birds".
He first claimed "Tiktaalik couldn't bear any weight", but after it was shown that it could, he moved the goalposts to "it couldn't walk on land like a modern salamander".
He blatantly misrepresents the journal articles he links to.
And that's just the stuff I've been paying attention to! Shermana, you're not doing very well and in reading through this thread, your constant appeals to "let the reader decide" seem to be working against you. There's a very clear consensus here about you and your arguments. Wanna take a guess what it is?
Shermana
Heretic
If so, I can make up bets and then charge people whatever I want.
What part about "Programmed activatable" genes didn't you understand? New subspecies can be formed, as for new transitional species, they don't form on their own. That's what I'm saying. They had a Guiding Hand to work with the genome possibilities available. But there is no transitional species across phylums and orders as you define it, it doesn't happen. Bats don't come from rats which don't come from fish. New kinds of snakes with different kinds of poison can develop. Fish don't start walking on land. If so, show how. Transitions occur on the Micro scale. A Designer is necessary to explain the modern gaps. That's my Hypothesis.
I demonstrated how independent insertions can yield similar effects and how Parvoviruses which are single-stranded DNA can become Endogenous.
He admits he cites papers he disagrees with (but only after the contradiction is pointed out).
The word "Coincidental" should be replaced with "Due to logical outcome of similarities to target-specific viruses".
More proof when I say that the bounds of "Macro-evolution" and what should be identified as "Micro" are muddied.
When presented with a virtually complete fossil record of forams, showing Darwinian-style gradual evolution over millions of years, he moved the goalposts to "they're not reptiles and birds".
Then I replace the words "Couldn't bear any weight" with "Couldn't bear any weight on land". Let the reader decide if pushing against the bottom will eventually form the "hand" structures necessary to bear weight on land.
Let the reader decide who's misrepresenting the facts described.
[/quote]
Let the reader decide. The concensus here is by the posters who are already biased to their decision.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So I'm not getting a check? Dang.
Everything? Programmed by whom?
Where is this "guiding hand"? What is it? When exactly did it do whatever it did? Can you point to a specific trait that this "guiding hand" caused and provide empirical evidence to support its role?
That's funny. You still totally don't understand the material you linked to. I guess I can't accuse you of dishonesty when you don't even understand your own argument.
Same as above. If you don't understand, and don't want to understand, there's nothing else that can be said.
I bet it's frustrating when you try and redefine standard terminology to suit your agenda and no one else follows along. Oh well, maybe if you tried this at an elementary school the kids would fall for it?
Yup. The very definition of "moving the goalposts".
Yeah, we are the "readers" and we have decided. Who else do you think the "readers" are?
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Oh, and let's not forget your "Where have I posted anything that is evidence of macroevolution" fiasco.
Shermana
Heretic
So I'm not getting a check? Dang.
Everything? Programmed by whom?
Where is this "guiding hand"? What is it? When exactly did it do whatever it did? Can you point to a specific trait that this "guiding hand" caused and provide empirical evidence to support its role?
That's funny. You still totally don't understand the material you linked to. I guess I can't accuse you of dishonesty when you don't even understand your own argument.
Same as above. If you don't understand, and don't want to understand, there's nothing else that can be said.
I bet it's frustrating when you try and redefine standard terminology to suit your agenda and no one else follows along. Oh well, maybe if you tried this at an elementary school the kids would fall for it?
Yup. The very definition of "moving the goalposts".
Yeah, we are the "readers" and we have decided. Who else do you think the "readers" are?
Guided and Programmed by The Great Spirit, it's not possible if left to its own devices.
If you can't see how what I've posted shows that there are limits within the extreme abilities of what Prions can activate, you're welcome to believe that bats develop the "rogue finger" out of something other than Random mutation among the other gaps the reader can pursue.
You and the posters represent a fraction of the readers even if you each count as 20 clicks.
Shermana
Heretic
Where did it get proven that they didn't develop independently? You didn't even bother why I mentioned the word "Specific", you just mentioned that I mentioned it.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Sorry, that's not empirical evidence. That's the false dilemma fallacy (If not A, then B).
???? That's not even a coherent sentence.
Again, exactly who are these "readers" you keep referring to?
OMG!!! That was the entire point of the paper! As far as entertainment value goes, you are absolutely priceless. :clap
Yet another incoherent sentence. Very funny.
CaptainBritain
Active Member
Sorry, that's not empirical evidence. That's the false dilemma fallacy (If not A, then B).
Always boils down to pixie dust and magic:yes:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Which one? There are dozens of fossils, mostly complete or near complete individuals.
And there is nothing wrong with being a glider.... Vultures are gliders and you wouldn't claim they aren't worthwhile.
That is why pro's check the ultraviolet and 3D scanning... you can't fake those two.
The Extent of the Preserved Feathers on the Four-Winged Dinosaur Microraptor gui under Ultraviolet Light
Most of the fakery comes down to selling to gullible individuals at mineral shows... museums shun mineral show material.
wa:do
Amill
Apikoros
Shermana
Heretic
Which one? There are dozens of fossils, mostly complete or near complete individuals.
And there is nothing wrong with being a glider.... Vultures are gliders and you wouldn't claim they aren't worthwhile.
That is why pro's check the ultraviolet and 3D scanning... you can't fake those two.
The Extent of the Preserved Feathers on the Four-Winged Dinosaur Microraptor gui under Ultraviolet Light
Most of the fakery comes down to selling to gullible individuals at mineral shows... museums shun mineral show material.
wa:do
Even if I retract the claim that the feather is forged, I don't see why it's even classified as a reptile as opposed to a bird to begin with.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
Not "as opposed to", but rather "in addition to". Modern birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs, which were a type of reptile. Thus all birds are reptiles.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
It's not... reptile is slang and not a valid term in phylogenetics. Biologists don't use reptile as a scientific classification.
wa:do
It is properly called a maniraptor, which is a group of theropod dinosaurs closest to aves.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Maybe you could suggest a mechanism that prevents changes at the species level from accumulating into changes at the genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom and domain levels.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
This ought to be interesting. I had similar debates along these lines with newhope101 in regards to Creodonta and Big Cats and Bears.......
opcorn: