Creation/evolution3

[bennyboy]

I completely get this is a very slow and deliberate process that makes tiny changes over vast periods of time.

Evolution actually happens quite quickly but in spurts. The 'hair' gene mutates in a dinosaur and this dinosaur now has feathers. It is not a disadvantage, so the mutated gene is passed on. Pretty soon there are more and more feathered dinosaurs and as it turns out, this is an advantage and they tend to thrive while the others do not. This can happen in a very short time, less than a thousand years. Depending on the mutation, less than a hundred.

But decent post anyway. Kudos

I think you're both right. Yes, mutation is one of the features of evolution. However, even a successful mutation is limited to an individual. It will take very many generations for that mutation to face enough environmental trials to propagate through the species.

[Anomalocaris]

Drich thinking he's schooling Parker strikes me as hilarious.

Show some respect when speaking of that revered presence whose monkey like spelling skills is asserted, by no less august an authority than himself, to be indicative of intellectual parity with "Enistein", "Churchhill", and "eddison", no doubt all rolled into one.

oh, and his enisteiness wishes to avoid the impression of unwarranted modesty, so he throws in Charles "Schawb" as well.

---

Evolution actually happens quite quickly but in spurts. The 'hair' gene mutates in a dinosaur and this dinosaur now has feathers. It is not a disadvantage, so the mutated gene is passed on. Pretty soon there are more and more feathered dinosaurs and as it turns out, this is an advantage and they tend to thrive while the others do not. This can happen in a very short time, less than a thousand years. Depending on the mutation, less than a hundred.

But decent post anyway. Kudos

I think you're both right. Yes, mutation is one of the features of evolution. However, even a successful mutation is limited to an individual. It will take very many generations for that mutation to face enough environmental trials to propagate through the species.

Not if parts of a species become geographically segregated. Not all successful mutations are successful because they confer a survival advantage. Mathematical modeling show many mutations of no survival advantage whatsoever can nontheless be expected to quickly displaces all other versions of the same genes in small to moderate populations thanks to quirks of population genetics.

So the gene pool of small to medium population can drift without the direction of drift conferring any selective advantage. If the drift occurs for long enough, a new species may arise as a result of this.

In theory, it is possible for 2 daughter species to arise in two isolated but very similar environments, the two daughter species would be basically identical in physical attributes and behavior, because each are well adapted to the same environment. But they would be genetically incompatible because their genomes have drifted too far apart during their isolation.

[Tonus]

Again I have introduced a metric that none of you want to consider. When the army's enter the deserts they have larger numbers than when they leave. in the case of the older army's a sizable reduction in numbers. This means vast amounts of equipment are left. where as with the Jews Everything was used up till nothing was left.

Repeating this doesn't change the fact that the differences are enormous. Decades versus months, hundreds of thousands versus tens of thousands. 600,000 people and their livestock and whatever baggage they had (much less three to four times that many) do not "have a smaller footprint" than a relatively small army marching through an area. You can dismiss it if you feel it's the only way to salvage your comparison, but that doesn't change the fact that the numerical differences in both size and time are massive.

The answer is the desert consumes ALL!
You have no evidence of a 200 year old massive march across that desert for the same reason their is no evidence of a 3000 year old march across that same desert, because the DESERT CONSUMES ALL!

And yet there are artifacts from people who lived in the area 3,500 years BEFORE the supposed exodus. The desert clearly does not "consume all." It may very well wipe out the tracks of a wandering army that made a brief trek through its sands, but it doesn't wipe out all of the tracks of small tribes and it can't possibly wipe out all of the tracks of what amounts to a modern-day city wandering in its midst for 38 years.

Shifting sand and erosion and 3,000 years of time does not wipe out every last shred of evidence of a group of hundreds of thousands of people and their livestock over a 38-year period.

[IATIA]

monkey like spelling skills

(Pssst ... you might want to run a spell checker over your post)

[Anomalocaris]

monkey like spelling skills

(Pssst ... you might want to run a spell checker over your post)

Psss, I am trying to become smarter by spelling worse, like drich.

[IATIA]

It will take very many generations for that mutation to face enough environmental trials to propagate through the species.

The genes will continue to be passed on. The feathers for instance can allow migration to a cooler climate with fewer predators and more food. Or the 'girls' just might find it 'cute' and prefer to breed with the 'feathered one'. The feathers might offer better hiding skills and protection from thorns. Other mutations may just carry in the genes for a long time without diversification until such time there is an advantage. The advantage does not have to be an extreme survival skill. It could simply become a preference. The time will vary from mutation to mutation. However, once it is a hit ...

---

Psss, I am trying to become smarter by spelling worse, like drich.

(ok, sorry.)

[Roxy904]

https://atheistforums.org/we-are-infidels/:roflol: Dude, YOU are the ONLY one who didn't get what was being discussed after page 2. Well, I should say Only, because there is a new guy but I don't think he read the op.

Dude, YOU use that emoji WAY too much; and to be honest, people have re-iterated the point several times. I don't quite think you understand what was being discussed.

No this was the Garden.

Oh, yay. A garden. My sister has one of those. When you say the Garden, people assume you are referring to the biblical paradisal garden of Genesis. My (insincere) apologies if I'm mistaken.

Then you should be well contented with me telling you no their was nothing that impacted All of humanity in however long A&E were in the garden besides creation and the Fall of Man.

This doesn't make grammatical or logical sense. So if he's supposed to just accept a story when no empirical evidence, then you should just accept it when I say you are wrong?



welp, if you kept reading Moses was physically changed after that encounter. Meaning the broader impact to man is that being in Direct contact with God Changes a man.

---

Drich, we've discussed this before. "Direct contact with God" is generally called schizophrenia.


So is shifting the goal posts your best effort?

Ask me an extra biblical question then bock at an extra biblical answer?

That's a fail sport. Logical fallacies are for the simple minded, but hey one positive thing I think you spelled all your words correctly.

Again, please clean up your grammar. Your arguments make even less sense without punctuation. Here's another issue we've discussed before, and you mainly ignore me on this. You, however close to the Bible you claim to be, cannot cite it as a factual source of information, because:
a. You do not completely follow all that it says.
b. It has several inconsistent and unreliable claims.
c. It provides no testable facts that can be scientifically proven.

Your own arguments are chock-full of logic fallacies. And, once more, you tend to over-use that roflol emoji; it doesn't exactly lend support to your argument.
I don't know how to fix these quotes, sorry. However, you should be able to tell which posts are Drich's from the poor spelling/grammar.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Dude, YOU are the ONLY one who didn't get what was being discussed after page 2. Well, I should say Only, because there is a new guy but I don't think he read the op.

No, I got it, I simply rejected your point as stupid. Any fool trying to reconcile his faith with science is only demonstrating to me that his faith is so weak that it needs the support of something that, uh, actually works.

No this was the Garden.

Eden is often considered Paradise by members of all the Abrahamic faiths.

]Then you should be well contented with me telling you no their was nothing that impacted All of humanity in however long A&E were in the garden besides creation and the Fall of Man.

I am. However, I'm free to opine. Don't like it? Tough shit. Paradise lookos like a boring place.

welp, if you kept reading Moses was physically changed after that encounter. Meaning the broader impact to man is that being in Direct contact with God Changes a man.

All that from checking out God's ass? Heavy duty, Judy. Yet none of this challenges EbNS at all. You're trying to buttress your faith with science because you're desperate for the credibility science lends, but have no clue how the process works.

[Michael Schubert]

There is no debate between Evolutionary Science and creation; it's a manufactured debate in which you pretend there is an opposing side when there really isn't. We know that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is true from analyzing transitional fossils that researchers have dug up. The oldest, more inchoate fossils were found deeper down in the soil and the younger, more complex fossils were found higher up in the soil. Researchers then arranged the fossils into family trees which indicate when a phylogeny of species branched out into subspecies. Even without the transitional fossils, which inane creationists assert don't exist, DNA matches alone confirm common ancestry.

We see evolution is action all the time. If Bob and I go to the North Pole and I wear nothing but a loin cloth outside and he wears a big, heavy coat and snow pants, I will freeze to death and Bob will survive. We know this because of adaptive evolution. Bob has adapted himself to his physical environment and I haven't.

Adaptive evolution, or differential reproduction, is the method by which medicines are developed. All pathogens have stronger and weaker cells within them, and the stronger cells will resist a vaccine and be able to reproduce, while the weaker cells will die. Medical scientists must be constantly developing newer, stronger vaccines because outdated medicine will not kill newly-evolved pathogens. If you attack evolution, you are essentially attacking medicine. It is not surprising that creationists who deny Evolutionary Science are also advocates for faith-based healing, which is where medical attention is not given to a victim and a priest prays to God for the victim to be saved, instead. Numerous children have been killed from faith-based healing.

Creationism, on the other hand, has no credible evidence behind it at all. Creationism asserts that plants and animals did not evolve naturally according to the demands of their physical environments, but were instead magically poofed out of nothing, fully-formed. There is no evidence of this at all anywhere. The Genesis creation story, if taken literally, is objectively false.

Do not be fooled by manufactured debates. They are all over the media because news reporters are obsessed with balance and often think there are opposing sides that don't exist to an issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSDXgT2Q...7&index=59

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw

---

No, I got it, I simply rejected your point as stupid. Any fool trying to reconcile his faith with science is only demonstrating to me that his faith is so weak that it needs the support of something that, uh, actually works.

Faith and science are antipodal. Science only deals with what is observable and falsifiable. Faith is something you hold independent of evidence. This does not mean there is no God. It means that Science cannot say anything about Gods because most, if not all, religions define God as an anthropomorphic genie that defies the laws of physics and is unmeasurable by science. Also, even if gods were real, they don't appear to be....and apparently they don't want to because the "holy" books (Jewish Torah, Holy Bible, Koran of Islam, etc.) all instruct adherents to accept gods on faith.

[Cyberman]

If this or any god interacts with the Universe, it should leave evidence. That falls directly under the purview of science and can be measured, at least potentially.