(March 27, 2014 at 10:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: It would make sense that 97% of Scientists believe Evolution to be true because evolution is true.

If evolution is true, it implies that life isn't designed. Evolution explains the diversity of life without requiring any designer but natural selection acting on random variations.

(March 27, 2014 at 10:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: Actually, there is plenty evidence for a designer. Scientists have confirmed that there are people of various Religions who have worked miracles.

I don't think what you mean by 'Scientists have confirmed' is what people who understand science mean by it.

(March 27, 2014 at 10:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: Very seldom does it happen and few people will witness it. I'd say what happened at Fatima Portugal, the Guadalupe tilma, and the medical findings at Lourdes and eslewhere are evidence.

Are you talking about the 'miracle of the sun' at Fatima? Do you know what happens when you stare at the sun to long? Your brain, desperately trying to save your sight from the idiocy in some other part of the brain trys to keep you from looking directly at the sun, causing your eyes to move around involuntarily. When your eyes move involuntarily, it seems like it's the thing you're looking at which moves. Try moving your eye a little bit with your fingertip (through your eyelid) to see this for yourself.

The Marian eyes fall under the category of pareidolia.

The number of 'recognized cures' per year at Lourdes goes down as our knowledge of medicine goes up, what is it, 4 in the last thirty years? Considering how many millions of people go there hoping for a cure, is that rate better than mysterious spontaneous recoveries that seem to be entirely random for people that DON'T go to Lourdes?

(March 27, 2014 at 10:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: The beauty of creation.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

(March 27, 2014 at 10:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.

What do you think would be a reasonable estimate of the number of planets with sufficient mass to hold an atmosphere like ours without being big enough to hold much free hydrogen in our galaxy?

(March 27, 2014 at 10:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Much closer or further away and we'd freeze or burn.

The earth's distance from the sun varies by 3.5 million miles every year.

(March 27, 2014 at 10:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull.

The moon's orbit is also eliptical and ranges about 30,000 miles every two weeks. It's average distance from the earth is currently increasing by about 4 centimeters a year, eventually it will fly away from us. It averaged about 5,000 miles closer when the dinosaurs appeared.

(March 27, 2014 at 10:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: Also, when I bite into a strawberry it seems like that strawberry was designed to delight tastebuds.

Touche'. The strawberry is a hybrid first grown in the 1750s, so it was designed by artificial selection to delight tastebuds.

(March 27, 2014 at 10:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: THe problem I have is that tor said is that DNA proves that our grandparents way back were single cell organism. DNA PROVES no such thing. Scientific theory is not proof so I wish people wouldn't state it like it is and then considering people uneducated idiots if they disagree.

The very first definition of 'theory' that you posted is the one that applies here:

1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

---

(March 27, 2014 at 9:53 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: Some interpretations of Evolution are not fact and have never been proven by scientific method is what I'm saying.

To which interpretations of religion are you referring?

(March 27, 2014 at 9:53 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote:

---

You're not anti-Christian you're anti-stupid?

Tell me, is it not stupid to say that DNA PROVES the great great great X10,000,000 Grandpa of everyone was an Amoebea?

'Proofs' are for math and whiskey. Science does not deal in 'proof', it deals in evidence. How is the similarity of human and amoeba DNA not evidence of common descent? And DNA is only one line of evidence that indicates common descent.

Nah! I've talked to plenty of Religious people who believe in evolution. One can say Evolution is a fact without saying Human beings evolved from Apes is a fact.

DNA sequencing has provided extremely strong evidence for common descent from a primitive ancestor.

The conflicting picture from individual genes is even broader than scientists suspected. “They report that every single one of the 1,070 genes conflicts somewhat.

What researchers develope to gauge the level of certainty in specific studies has often been shown to be unreliable.

Is evolution a law of Science? Yes or no?

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way.

All I'm saying Is I'd like to see that selective breeding could eventually make a dog a cat.

Natural selection should have made eskimos very hairy to deal with the cold. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. (okay, it is a stretch to say that)

Is there proof that natural selection can produce something in the DNA that wasn't there originally?

Hasn't Darwin's famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, have a title that is now known to be scientifically false?.

Sorry, at this time I don't see overwhelming evidence that proves that a species can evolve into another given enough time. Sure everyone will find an explanation but it's gonna take me a while before I swallow that one.

I've done research on the Miracle of Fatima. It was huge. Were I a communist or freemason or christian for that matter and I traveled to such and such a place I want to see something big or I want to beat the fuck out of those lying seers.

(March 28, 2014 at 4:01 pm)Thunder Cunt Wrote:

---

Nah! I've talked to plenty of Religious people who believe in evolution. One can say Evolution is a fact without saying Human beings evolved from Apes is a fact.

DNA sequencing has provided extremely strong evidence for common descent from a primitive ancestor.

The conflicting picture from individual genes is even broader than scientists suspected. “They report that every single one of the 1,070 genes conflicts somewhat.

What researchers develope to gauge the level of certainty in specific studies has often been shown to be unreliable.

Is evolution a law of Science? Yes or no?

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way.

All I'm saying Is I'd like to see that selective breeding could eventually make a dog a cat.

Natural selection should have made eskimos very hairy to deal with the cold. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scien...XF1q6.dpuf

Is there proof that natural selection can produce something in the DNA that wasn't there originally?

Hasn't Darwin's famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, have a title that is now known to be scientifically false?.

Sorry, at this time I don't see overwhelming evidence that proves that a species can evolve into another given enough time. Sure everyone will find an explanation but it's gonna take me a while before I swallow that one.

I've done research on the Miracle of Fatima. It was huge. Were I a communist or freemason or christian for that matter and I traveled to such and such a place I want to see something big or I want to beat the fuck out of those lying seers.

---

You continue to misunderstand evolution. One can not say that evolution is a fact without acknowledging that humans and the rest of the apes have a common ancestor.

We won't see one modern species turn into another modern species. No dogs turning into cats. That is not the way it works.

Organisms evolve in non-predictable directions naturally. Artificially, we can breed for different balances of existing traits and either cull unwanted mutations or breed for desirable ones. It is still has a large unpredictable component - we don't know what mutations will occur.

No, natural selection doesn't make anything deal with anything. Natural selection might have resulted in hairy Eskimos, but that didn't happen. What did happen was flatter faces, sturdier and more compact statures that better retain heat, and counterintuitively, darker skin. They get plenty of Vitamin D in their diet, so light skin gives no advantage.

You need to do more reading of science books - forget the bullshit miracles until then.

What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Ever in eternity? There isn't proof that time does make impossible things possible.

---

A lizard becomes a wingless bird began that evolves a wing why? Did the wing stub make the bird more adaptable to the environment. How did natural selection know in advance that the bird would need wings. the stubs would be useless for maybe over a million years.
Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless?

Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is at their detriment? A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. Natural selection shouldn't do that. Why would a bird evolve to fly?

How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing (hallow bones) to fly when hallow bones is a major disadvantage for anything that can't fly?

(March 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm)Thunder Cunt Wrote: What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Ever in eternity? There isn't proof that time does make impossible things possible.

---

A lizard becomes a wingless bird began that evolves a wing why? Did the wing stub make the bird more adaptable to the environment. How did natural selection know in advance that the bird would need wings. the stubs would be useless for maybe over a million years.
Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless?

Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is at their detriment? A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. Natural selection shouldn't do that. Why would a bird evolve to fly?

How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing (hallow bones) to fly when hallow bones is a major disadvantage for anything that can't fly?

Ok in that case who created God?
Why are you so fascinated with life when everything on and outside of earth is blizzarre and complicated?

Here man, the answer to all your problems lie in this short little video.
http://youtu.be/BZYD1el_Jfg

(March 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm)Thunder Cunt Wrote: What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Ever in eternity? There isn't proof that time does make impossible things possible.

What makes you think single cell organisms with 60,000 proteins with a 100 different combinations all in the correct is representative of the early life?

Quote:A lizard becomes a wingless bird began that evolves a wing why? Did the wing stub make the bird more adaptable to the environment. How did natural selection know in advance that the bird would need wings. the stubs would be useless for maybe over a million years.
Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless?

Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is at their detriment? A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. Natural selection shouldn't do that. Why would a bird evolve to fly?

What fucking wing stub? There's not a scientist on the planet that isn't a creationist that thinks wing evolution began with some kind of stub Unless you are taking it all the way back to early vertebrates.

Quote:How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing (hallow bones) to fly when hallow bones is a major disadvantage for anything that can't fly?

What fucking long term plan? There are no long term plans in evolution.

(March 28, 2014 at 4:01 pm)Thunder Cunt Wrote: Nah! I've talked to plenty of Religious people who believe in evolution. One can say Evolution is a fact without saying Human beings evolved from Apes is a fact.

DNA sequencing has provided extremely strong evidence for common descent from a primitive ancestor.

The conflicting picture from individual genes is even broader than scientists suspected. “They report that every single one of the 1,070 genes conflicts somewhat.

What researchers develope to gauge the level of certainty in specific studies has often been shown to be unreliable.

Is evolution a law of Science? Yes or no?

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way.

All I'm saying Is I'd like to see that selective breeding could eventually make a dog a cat.

Natural selection should have made eskimos very hairy to deal with the cold. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. (okay, it is a stretch to say that)

Is there proof that natural selection can produce something in the DNA that wasn't there originally?

Hasn't Darwin's famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, have a title that is now known to be scientifically false?.

Sorry, at this time I don't see overwhelming evidence that proves that a species can evolve into another given enough time. Sure everyone will find an explanation but it's gonna take me a while before I swallow that one.

I've done research on the Miracle of Fatima. It was huge. Were I a communist or freemason or christian for that matter and I traveled to such and such a place I want to see something big or I want to beat the fuck out of those lying seers.

Oh come on. If you were actually reading the links provided there's no way you could bring yourself to type the opening line.

(March 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm)Thunder Cunt Wrote: What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places?

There's your first mistake.
There's no such thing as 'correct placement' of the proteins.

The proteins are in a certain order, a human is the result.
If the proteins were in a different order, something else would be the result.

I think it's time to let this thread die. This guy is running out of questions to ask and it's only a matter of time before we go back to square one.

God is real booboo, he created life in his own image and he loves you dearly.

(March 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm)Thunder Cunt Wrote: Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is at their detriment? A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. Natural selection shouldn't do that. Why would a bird evolve to fly?

---

Claim CB921.2:
What use is half a wing? A leg evolving into a wing would be a bad leg long before it was a good wing.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7. http://www.creationscience.com/

Half a wing can have any of several uses:

• In insects, half a wing is useful for skimming rapidly across the surface of water (Marden and Kramer 1995; Kramer and Marden 1997; Thomas et al. 2000).
  
• In larger animals, half a wing is useful for gliding. Airfoils for gliding appear in several different forms in many different animals, including
  
  • skin between legs on flying squirrels (Petauristinae), scaly-tailed squirrels (Anomaluridae), flying phalangers, and flying lemurs
    
  • flattened body of the flying snake (Chrysopelea)
    
  • large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs (Rhacophorus and Polypedates)
    
  • fins on flying fish (Exocoetidae) and flying squid (Onychoteuthis)
    
  • expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards (e.g., Draco)
    
  • expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated jointed ribs on the Kuehneosauridae from the late Triassic
    
  • lateral membrane supported by bones separate from the rest of the skeleton on Coelurosauravus jaekeli, an Upper Permian flying reptile (Frey et al. 1997)
    
  • even an ant (Cephalotes atratus), when it falls, uses its hind legs to direct its aerial descent back to its home tree's trunk (Yanoviak et al. 2005).
• In immature chickens, wing-flapping enhances hindlimb traction, allowing the chickens to ascend steeper inclines. This function could be an intermediate to the original flight of birds. (Dial 2003)
  
• In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.
  
• In some flightless birds, wings are probably used for startling potential predators.
  
• Black herons use their wings to shade the water in which they fish.
  
• Some owls use their wings to hold their prey against the ground.
  
• Nighthawks, woodcocks, riflebirds, and several species of manakins make noises with their wings as part of sexual displays.
  
• Partial wings may have other useful functions that nobody has thought of yet.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html

---

The answers to your questions are out there. Your continuing to ask these questions here with an air of incredulity is either because you don't like the answers for some reason and prefer willful ignorance, or you're too fucking lazy to educate yourself. Read a book, for Christ's sake.