Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[The Grand Nudger]

.......from your link


Call me back when they find them under the dino bones, at least then we'll have something to discuss.  Think before you bullshit, Drich.  If you want to bullshit like that, up above, just don;t link a source - that way you can't be called a blatant liar by a quoted reference to your own link.

In fact, we'll discuss your "theory" when you scare up some cambrian hominids or jurassic jack russel terriers.

Fucking idiotic.

I'm the idiot..

Hard yes. You're an idiot.

riddle me this sport. what are mamoths and dinosaurs doing in the same pit?

Where do you think they should be, floating in the clouds?  If you dig a pit, you're digging down and back through time.  

The pit was described as a mass grave where all the bones were processed for marrow/broken... Seems to me lizard meat was on a tribes menu for some time and the dumped their trash here, then over time and climate change lizards died off and it big elephant became the meat of choice.

Seems to you says it all. Wasn't described that way in your own link, and doesn't seem that way to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

The Flintstones...Drich......not a documentary.

[Fake Messiah]

The reason I mention the 24 hour fruit fly is because we can observe hundreds generational changes in a matter of months., but again these fruit flies even have 100's of billions of observed genetic/inter species generational changes they have NEVER MORPHED into another species. Thus there has NEVER Been An observed example of species evolving or morphing into another. Your attempt to try and push inner species evolution as species evolution is an intellectually dishonest attempt of confusing the topic. or you simply do not understand the macro changes of evolution Darwin purposes against your own dealing with micro changes in a given species.

Here is a question that no creationist that I have asked has been able to answer and allows me to disregard your entire point about the 24 hour fruit fly.

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Now to explain about the 24 hour fruit fly. You are making assumptions about how quickly evolution works. What you are also ignoring and probably don't remember or know because you do not understand the theory of evolution, is that there needs to be evolutionary pressure for a species to adapt. There may have been hundreds of thousands of generations and plenty of mutations, but there has no been evolutionary pressure in your example for the fruit fly to change in any significant way so the mutations do not propagate throughout the population.

Yet the Peppered moth is an example of rapid change taking place because of a strong environmental pressure.

Another example, African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say

You are also deliberately ignoring the point I made before, that the fossil records show evolutionary change happening over a much longer time span. So of course persistent large scale changes have not been made in the short time span that you are referring to. The evidence in the fossil records shows though that evolution does happen over longer time scales. It is also inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Again it's a strawman argument from you because scientists aren't claiming that such large changes happen in such short time scales.

Of course. What is a new species of fruit fly supposed to turn into? We started with one species and now we have two. This is a whole new population, and a verified strain of the parent clade, genetically distinct from it and chemically incompatible with it, or what it's called: a new species. Speciation is determined when two members of the same genus no longer interbreed or can no longer produce viable young. The longer two groups are isolated, the more mutations build up between them and the less chance they have of producing fertile offspring. There will come a time when they can only produce infertile hybrids, and then when they can’t produce anything at all.
There are no fruit flies turning into something that isn't a fly anymore, no dogs turning into elephants, or bacteria turning into a human, and there's no mammals suddenly growing birds' wings either; nothing like that. Evolutionary theory never suggests that one "kind" of thing ever turned into another, fundamentally different "kind" of anything, not unless you ignore all the intermediate stages - which of course you do.

Macroevolution is variation between species. That means the emergence of new breeds or subspecies is microevolution, but the emergence of new species is macroevolution. The fact is that even the transition of fish to tetrapods, dinosaurs to birds, or apes to men are each just a matter of incremental, superficial changes being slowly compiled atop successive tiers of fundamental similarities. This is why birds are still dinosaurs, and humans are still apes, and both are still what it's called stegocephalian chordates.

[Amarok]

No were in your fucking link does it mention that the Dinosaurs were being butchered like the mammoths Dirch you fucking liar .

As for Steves deranged rant .
Yes science can talk about moral oughts it's retarded to think otherwise 

No logic and math are inventions by humans . Do not change their objectivity . Something does not need to be discovered to be objective.

[Harry Nevis]

I'm the idiot..

Now you're getting it....

[Drich]

Darwinism makes earth the center of our universe where earth must be the birthplace or genesis of everything. darwin lived in a time where earth was the center of the cosmos which is why he had to have a source of origins for every living thing. which is why his version of evolution was a must. it was competeing with actual genesis.

The theory of evolution does not specify that life can only have started in one place in the universe. Panspermia is compatible with the theory of evolution for example. Personally I think that life is abundant throughout the galaxy.

P.S You talk about your theory but it isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. If it was backed up by a body of evidence then it would become a theory. But it isn't.

And if you'd pay a little attation to the circumstance you will note I never said it had to only start in one place in the universe either... I pointed out that is how darwin used evolution to replace or kill a need for God. rather than creator of a planet earth, evolution is the source code or evolution the science version of "god did it." Again that is not how I use the term but how it is seen to be used here.

[Drich]

Even the 24 hour fruit fly who proved inter species evolution which I am using to claim my theory about the strong survive during periods of climate change) is limited to very minor changes over literal hundreds of thousands of generations.

The reason I mention the 24 hour fruit fly is because we can observe hundreds generational changes in a matter of months., but again these fruit flies even have 100's of billions of observed genetic/inter species generational changes they have NEVER MORPHED into another species. Thus there has NEVER Been An observed example of species evolving or morphing into another. Your attempt to try and push inner species evolution as species evolution is an intellectually dishonest attempt of confusing the topic. or you simply do not understand the macro changes of evolution Darwin purposes against your own dealing with micro changes in a given species.

Here is a question that no creationist that I have asked has been able to answer and allows me to disregard your entire point about the 24 hour fruit fly.

Glob...

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Nothing you f-ing moron. Small changes on an inner species level can be witnessed with in just a few generations of cross breeding and environmental change. No one has EVER questioned that. But that (and thisis the f-ing moron part you don't seem to get) Inner species evolution is NOT DARWINISM!!! Darwinism speak to extra species evolution. like from a 14 foot reptile to a bird of prey! Not from a hound dog to another type or measure of a hound dog. or a donkey and horse to a mule. a 500ft whale to 300ft land animal to100ft blue whale.. that is darwinism get it? from one species over time to another.

Now to explain about the 24 hour fruit fly. You are making assumptions about how quickly evolution works.

No. I am not. I am simply point int out we have studied inner species changes given hard environmental pushes under perfect evolutionary conditions to try and force an species change and at best we just make another type of 24 hour fruit fly. We have been working these thing en mass since 1880 to try and force evolution on a species level. now lets do some math.. 24 hours=1 day 1 year 365.25 days... more or less it has been 137 year times that by 356.25 that is over 50039.25 generations of flies that has been pushed toward evolutionary change on a macro level/extra-species change and not once not one fly has been born anything other than some variation of a 24 hour fruit fly. Not to mention the fact we have only been watch and expermenting on them for 137 or so years, fruit flies in general have been around from what I would argue as the beginning. and still no change.

50,000+ generations (and a new one everyday) and and the end of every generation you still have a fruit fly.

That stupid fly is literally THE BEST evidence evolution has and it has failed over 50K times to produce one example of macro-evolution. what does that tell you? (well for stupid fith based scientists) it says we just need 50K more generations.. for everyone else. we see what you believe as faith based as believing in God. except your way kills god ultimatly allowing you to make your own morals and feel good about doing it.

That is all this is about.

Otherwise you would acknowledge my THEORY makes better use of the available evidence than anything Darwin ever said.

What you are also ignoring and probably don't remember or know because you do not understand the theory of evolution, is that there needs to be evolutionary pressure for a species to adapt. There may have been hundreds of thousands of generations and plenty of mutations, but there has no been evolutionary pressure in your example for the fruit fly to change in any significant way so the mutations do not propagate throughout the population.

Moron... maybe you should do a little more reading before you scold me on what your colleges are doing with said flies.. maybe you should do a nobel prize count in exactly that field of trying to force evolution on these stupid flies before you speak again. Seriously.. one dude made subspecies of white flies and I think another made them blind... I guess any genetic manupliation can be considered evolution when youre that hungry for proof.

Yet the Peppered moth is an example of rapid change taking place because of a strong environmental pressure.

glob.. you don't understand the fundementals of what I am saying do you? I am not argung natural selection (which is different than evolving) natural selection says one species has the ablity to live in a change of enviroment. my theory embraces natural selection. I simply state everything lived here at one in one form or another. and as climates change natural selection had one dominate species die off and another micro evolved into the new dominate species. Are you too lazy to argue the argument presented? can you make you brain work on a different level beside typical christian/atheist evolution argument? it does not seem so. get your crap together and try again.
I am just pointing out there are other explanations to the fossil record that can be supported by science that does not have to embrace evolution.

Another example, African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say

no moron all elephants are born without tusks. they don't develop them till adolescence.
before tusks they have 'milk teeth' to hang on to mama while feeding..

Besides that you still do not understand the difference between macro and mirco evolution. again if the latest version of elephant was born with ablative armor that deflected poachers bullets they would still be elephants and that would still be an example of micro evolution. now if the next generation had gills and fish tails to swim away from predators... that would be an example of Darwinism. You also need to know there is a difference between Darwinism and what faith based science calls 'evolution.' Darwin would cry heresy!! if he ever heard what passes as evolution today. as it is NOT true Darwinism.

You are also deliberately ignoring the point I made before, that the fossil records show evolutionary change happening over a much longer time span.

here's the problem with that.. the further you push back your time lies.. the less likly you will ever see proof which makes thins whole thing a big leap of faith. "But nut-huh drich how do you explain dinosaur bones" again... we were here all at once and natural selection along with climate change had the top species die off in a series of mass extinctions till a couple thousand years ago we etched our way out of the jungles.

So of course persistent large scale changes have not been made in the short time span that you are referring to.

Idiot... ever hear of an ice age? what about the metor that killed off the dinosaurs?? Or are you too stupid to extrapolate the theory of natural selection from darwinism and apply it to what I said about the core life forms all occupying the planet at the same time? I am not arguing the events that supposedly made the dinos go away, i am simply pointing out quite a bit more could have survived than what we think.

The evidence in the fossil records shows though that evolution does happen over longer time scales. It is also inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Bwahahah you have yet to intellegently address any points of my theory. you are arguing christian verse atheist, so how in the world can you possible say the time lines are inconsistent?

When again the time lines are the same. I am simple refuting the idea that a species had to develop in a relitivly short time to weather a hard winter from an ice age or the tropical heat of global warming. I am saing those creatures are were already there.


Again it's a strawman argument from you because scientists aren't claiming that such large changes happen in such short time scales.

---

[quote='Drich' pid='1635000' dateline='1507645018']

It is backed up by the same body of evidence. it's just I have taken time to connect the dots for everyone.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Here is a question that no creationist that I have asked has been able to answer and allows me to disregard your entire point about the 24 hour fruit fly.

Glob...

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Nothing you f-ing moron. Small changes on an inner species level can be witnessed with in just a few generations of cross breeding and environmental change. No one has EVER questioned that. But that (and thisis the f-ing moron part you don't seem to get) Inner species evolution is NOT DARWINISM!!! Darwinism speak to extra species evolution. like from a 14 foot reptile to a bird of prey! Not from a hound dog to another type or measure of a hound dog. or a donkey and horse to a mule. a 500ft whale to 300ft land animal to100ft blue whale.. that is darwinism get it? from one species over time to another.

So the usual strawman argument from a theist who does not understand what the theory of evolution actually is but dismisses it anyway.

I am glad that you agreed that there is no mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations because that means that what you creationists call micro-evolution accumulate given enough time to become major changes. That is what the theory of evolution is, small changes accumulating over time. Genetic algorithms for example won't work if it requires large steps to be made.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.

[Whateverist]

Glob...
Nothing you f-ing moron. Small changes on an inner species level can be witnessed with in just a few generations of cross breeding and environmental change. No one has EVER questioned that. But that (and thisis the f-ing moron part you don't seem to get) Inner species evolution is NOT DARWINISM!!! Darwinism speak to extra species evolution. like from a 14 foot reptile to a bird of prey! Not from a hound dog to another type or measure of a hound dog. or a donkey and horse to a mule. a 500ft whale to 300ft land animal to100ft blue whale.. that is darwinism get it? from one species over time to another.

So the usual strawman argument from a theist who does not understand what the theory of evolution actually is but dismisses it anyway.

I am glad that you agreed that there is no mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations because that means that what you creationists call micro-evolution accumulate given enough time to become major changes. That is what the theory of evolution is, small changes acumulating over time. Genetic algorithms for example won't work if it requires large steps to be made.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.

The idiot also thinks Darwin only thought up evolution in order to sabotage believers in god.  He can't even imagine that scientists investigate to learn the truth; like himself, he assumes scientists are engaged in misinformation to win the hearts and minds of the gullible.

And if you'd pay a little attation to the circumstance you will note I never said it had to only start in one place in the universe either... I pointed out that is how darwin used evolution to replace or kill a need for God.

[notimportant1234]

After I read the first 8 pages of the thread I realized that "believe and do not doubt" is the smartest safety triger concieved.

[Succubus]

...It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite...

If Carsberg did sig lines, they’d be the best sig lines in the word.