Why male and female?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have heard this piece of evilutionists propaganda before and what they miss is the dinosaur bones can't be as old as they wish to make out and are no older than the bones of man.

The Instructor

No, what in fact is going on here is YOU refusing to even look at the mountain of evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion the Earth is WAY older than a few thousand years.

Also, the reason you and your buddies want to call scientific evidence as a leap of faith is so you can equate creationism on an equal basis to actual science, nay, in your mind creationism is WAY SUPERIOR to science, so you can rationalize the difference which is that scientific evidence never depends on faith but mountains of evidence, a line of evidence going back 200 years where modern scientists who try to come up with alternate answers cannot for the simple reason the Earth and the universe is billions of years old but you are too deluded by you pathological dependence on faith you are forced to insist EVERYTHING is based on faith which is just in your deluded imagination. It's not faith that I pick up a rock and think, if I drop it on my foot from 6 feet up, I am going to get hurt. That is not faith, that is based on solid evidence of gravity doing its thing with matter. Good luck calling that a leap of faith.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, what in fact is going on here is YOU refusing to even look at the mountain of evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion the Earth is WAY older than a few thousand years.

Also, the reason you and your buddies want to call scientific evidence as a leap of faith is so you can equate creationism on an equal basis to actual science, nay, in your min ...[text shortened]... solid evidence of gravity doing its thing with matter. Good luck calling that a leap of faith.

The truth is you refuse to look at the mountain of evidence that prove the earth and the universe can not be billions of years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence

The Insturctor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have heard this piece of evilutionists propaganda before and what they miss is the dinosaur bones can't be as old as they wish to make out and are no older than the bones of man.

The Instructor

What are you talking about? the link was NOT about how old the bones are but rather about they, controversially claiming, rightly or wrongly, that they have evidence evidence of traces of DNA in those very old bones. Such a claim may or may not be valid and time will tell but, either way, it would be delusional to think this was some kind of anti-creationist propaganda because it would make no difference to the invalidity of creationism whether there is DNA really there or not since how old the bones are not disputed in that link and merely there being traces of DNA in them would be irrelevant to their age.

Perhaps you may consider actually reading the link? then you can tell us exactly which part is propaganda (according to you).

Originally posted by RJHinds
But all your so called evidence of fact is based on assumptions that have not been proved. Therefore there is no evidence of fact to support your claim that evilution is a fact. On the other hand, the fact is that it has never been shown that a creature of one kind has ever turned into a different kind of creature. All creatures reproduce after their kind from a dog or a man from a monkey. Is that simple enough for you, numbnuts.

The Instructor

But all your so called evidence of fact is based on assumptions that have not been proved.

That is OBVIOUSLY false. which “assumption”? The “ evidence of fact” are such things as the evidence of the fossil record and observed mutations and observed natural selection etc. What is the assumption there? We don't “assume” that physical evidence because we can see it -we HAVE the fossils, we HAVE the records of natural selection observed. We HAVE the evidence of the existence of mutations. To say we assume it is like saying we are just “assuming” the existence of the sun.

That is you don't get a cat from a dog or a man from a monkey.

Stupid man repeating the same stupid straw man over and over again. Nobody is claiming this nor believes this and evolution does not predict this.

the fact is that it has never been shown that a creature of one kind has ever turned into a different kind of creature

you lie because it has been shown.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

and the fossil evidence for macroevolution:

http://www.windows2universe.org/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_3.html

and better:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

here is a more direct link to it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

scroll about three-fiths down until you see in blue print:

"...Example 1: mammalian ear bones and reptile jaws
Example 2: pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches
Example 3: snake and whale embryos with legs
Example 4: embryonic human tail
Example 5: marsupial eggshell and caruncle ...”


then click each one in turn and read and then come back to me.
If that is not enough physical evidence of macroevolution for you, just click each of the other links shown there and read them and then come back to me.

also see this for yet more evidence for evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

How could all this physical evidence NOT be evidence for evolution and much of it for macroevolution?

Originally posted by humy

But all your so called evidence of fact is based on assumptions that have not been proved.

That is OBVIOUSLY false. which “assumption”? The “ evidence of fact” are such things as the evidence of the fossil record and observed mutations and observed natural selection etc. What is the assumption there? We don't “assume” that physical evidenc d all this physical evidence NOT be evidence for evolution and much of it for macroevolution?

Good luck on getting this self lobomized dogma ridden anti-intelligence mongrel to actually look at ANY of those links.

If he does, he will just post more creationist wishful thinking anti-science BS as if that were some kind of refutation of evolution.

And, not being able to understand any of the arguments or evidence, he would just pronounce the whole thing as gobbldegook. Like covering your eyes and ears to make it go away. 'Nya Nya Nya, I can't hear you'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You haven't bothered to read literature and studies written by scholars and scientists who do not support your view... you probably don't even know they even exist.
Correct, I don't know they exist. How about providing some references? Can you provide a single reference to an article that has appeared in a peer reviewed scientific journal that questi ...[text shortened]... ho became a deist (not a creationist) because of doubts he had about the theory of evolution?[/b]

A few names come to mind. Dean Kenyon wrote a book on the chemical origin of life. Francis Collins was (is?) the head of the Human Genome Project. Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the double helix of deoxyribonucleic acid in the early 1950's. If I'm not mistaken, this was long after the industrial revolution and observations made about the peppered moth.

Geneticist MIchael Denton has written about biological information. I don't know what his personal beliefs are.

Bernd-Olaf Kuppers wrote Information and the Origin of Life. I don't know what his personal beliefs are.

Stephen Meyer is someone you can peg as a creationist, so you can ignore anything he says. I happen to enjoy reading his work because he is highly intelligent and knowledgeable. His thinking is very organized and easy to follow, and he has an interdisciplinary understanding of science.


I suspect if I spend a week (or even just one day) collecting information and links and references to papers etc. ect., then I can expect to spend the next 51 weeks watching you repeat what I didn't say, so you can watch me repeating for the nth time what I did say.

You either have trouble understanding what I say, or you're playing the Pete/Repete game with me.

Originally posted by lemon lime
A few names come to mind. Dean Kenyon wrote a book on the chemical origin of life.

Wikipedia says he is a creationist.

Francis Collins according to Wikipedia, accepts the Theory of Evolution

Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the double helix of deoxyribonucleic acid in the early 1950's. If I'm not mistaken, this was long after the industrial revolution and observations made about the peppered moth.
Wikipedia suggests that Crick had no objections to Evolution and wanted it taught in schools. I see nothing on Watsons Wikipedia page to suggest he had objections to evolution, do you?

Geneticist MIchael Denton has written about biological information. I don't know what his personal beliefs are.
Wikipedia says he claims to be agnostic despite having ties to the discovery institute.
OK, I'll accept this one. Can you give a link to any scientific papers he might have published on the topic? (not popular books)

Bernd-Olaf Kuppers wrote Information and the Origin of Life. I don't know what his personal beliefs are.
I can't see much on Wikipedia about him, does he object to the theory of evolution?

I suspect if I spend a week (or even just one day) collecting information and links and references to papers etc. ect., then I can expect to spend the next 51 weeks watching you repeat what I didn't say, so you can watch me repeating for the nth time what I did say.
Why don't you just find one. Your best one. Instead of starting with creationists when you were specifically asked not to?

You either have trouble understanding what I say, or you're playing the Pete/Repete game with me.
I often have trouble understanding you, and I am not alone in this. I don't think anyone in this thread ever figured out what you were trying to say about information in relation to evolution. I am not even convinced you knew what you were trying to say.

Originally posted by humy

anything to make it sound like it doesn't belong to people's point of
view, uh!?

How is the vast mountain of evidence for evolution that proves beyond any doubt that it is true just merely “ people's point of view”? What you clearly imply makes no sense. You certainly could not dismiss the whole of science as being merely "people's poin ...[text shortened]... tly and without hesitation believe evolution to be false. Do you still deny this?

Well depending on what you want to say is evolution I can say I agree with
it, and if you define it another way I'll disagree. I find it telling that for that
which helps your theory evolution you call what proves your points evidence
and that which disagrees with it propaganda. As I pointed out to you before
I doubt you can be really be critical when it comes to evolution it is what
you believe in. I don't think this is a flaw in you, I think it is a human to see
the world the way we want it to be and will paint any and all things to make
it look like we want it to. This applies to me as well, please don't think I'm
trying to insult you!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well depending on what you want to say is evolution I can say I agree with
it, and if you define it another way I'll disagree. I find it telling that for that
which helps your theory evolution you call what proves your points evidence
and that which disagrees with it propaganda. As I pointed out to you before
I doubt you can be really be critical when i ...[text shortened]... want it to. This applies to me as well, please don't think I'm
trying to insult you!
Kelly

Religious folk try to force evolutionary scientists and people who think the evidence is strong to put that in the category of belief. If I hold up a rock 7 feet in the air and I think 'if I drop this rock on my foot I am going to get hurt' it is not based on belief but based on past evidence of the validity of gravitation. That is not belief, that is the certainty of past experimentation.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well depending on what you want to say is evolution I can say I agree with
it, and if you define it another way I'll disagree. I find it telling that for that
which helps your theory evolution you call what proves your points evidence
and that which disagrees with it propaganda. As I pointed out to you before
I doubt you can be really be critical when i want it to. This applies to me as well, please don't think I'm
trying to insult you!
Kelly

Well depending on what you want to say is evolution I can say I agree with
it, and if you define it another way I'll disagree.

I have not changed the definition of evolution and I am only ever aware of one possible meaning to the word (which is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) so I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Please tell me what alternative meaning you think I may give to the word and I will tell you if I really would....

I find it telling that for that
which helps your theory evolution you call what proves your points evidence
and that which disagrees with it propaganda.

yes, that's because one is obviously real physical evidence and the other is obviously propaganda not backed up by any real physical evidence.

it is a human to see
the world the way we want it

Only for those humans that are DELUSIONAL and not the rest of us thank you. It is DELUSIONAL to see the world the way we want it. I do NOT see the world that way.
Show us the evidence/reason why you SHOULD think that I do the same as you do i.e. believe what I want to believe rather than believe purely on the bases of evidence/reason and nothing else....

This applies to me as well,

No. Out of me and you, this applies JUST to you. I on the other hand do not want to believe what I do but rather believe what I do purely on the bases of evidence and reason.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Wikipedia says he is a creationist.

Francis Collins according to Wikipedia, accepts the Theory of Evolution

[b]Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the double helix of deoxyribonucleic acid in the early 1950's. If I'm not mistaken, this was long after the industrial revolution and observations made about the peppered moth.
Wikipedia sugges ...[text shortened]... n relation to evolution. I am not even convinced you knew what you were trying to say.[/b]

I might have Dean Kenyon confused with someone else. Wikipedia says he became a creationist in 1976. It doesn't say anything about his prior beliefs. I thought he was the one who wrote a book on the chemical origins of life and then later disputed the conclusions of his own book.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Wikipedia says he is a creationist.

Francis Collins according to Wikipedia, accepts the Theory of Evolution

[b]Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the double helix of deoxyribonucleic acid in the early 1950's. If I'm not mistaken, this was long after the industrial revolution and observations made about the peppered moth.
Wikipedia sugges ...[text shortened]... n relation to evolution. I am not even convinced you knew what you were trying to say.[/b]

I was actually illustrating more than one point in that message. For one thing the word "information" is often used by people who do not dispute evolution when they talk about DNA. If wikipedia doesn't know much about Bernd-Olaf Kuppers then how is it wiki "knows" so much about everyone else?

Do you deny that observations about the peppered moth were made before 1950? I'm not referring to papers published after 1950, I was referring to the observations (of the peppered moth) made at the time those observations were being made... during the industrial revolution.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I was actually illustrating more than one point in that message. For one thing the word "information" is often used by people who do not dispute evolution when they talk about DNA.

So what is your point? I know people talk about 'information' in relation to DNA. That doesn't mean I know what you were talking about, or what you think your point was.

If wikipedia doesn't know much about Bernd-Olaf Kuppers then how is it wiki "knows" so much about everyone else?
It depends how popular a person is or whether someone bothered to write something about them. All I am saying is that if you have any references to support the claim that he disputes evolution and is not a creationist, then please go ahead and provide them.

Do you deny that observations about the peppered moth were made before 1950?
No, of course not.

I'm not referring to papers published after 1950, I was referring to the observations (of the peppered moth) made at the time those observations were being made... during the industrial revolution.
But why are you referring to them? What's your actual point?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I'm not referring to papers published after 1950, I was referring to the observations (of the peppered moth) made at the time those observations were being made... during the industrial revolution.
But why are you referring to them? What's your actual point?[/b]

Someone here, who by his own confession is not delusional, referred to an observation of "mutation" in the peppered moth population. This observation was made long before anything was known about DNA, and how any natural selection of genes could have occurred. He was referring to an observation made during the industrial revolution, which if I'm not mistaken occurred not after, not during, but before 1950.

I know what this means to me... you may draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I might have Dean Kenyon confused with someone else. Wikipedia says he became a creationist in 1976. It doesn't say anything about his prior beliefs. I thought he was the one who wrote a book on the chemical origins of life and then later disputed the conclusions of his own book.

Nope, I was right the first time. Dean Kenyon was an evolutionist, and taught evolution at the college level until he began raising questions about it.

http://lclane2.net/kenyon.html

I didn't know he was a creationist. Some sources say he is an old earth creationist, and others say he is a young earth creationist.

You don't have to go to the link I provided if you don't want to... it may cause your eyes to burn and your fingers to fall off. It's not as safe a place for you to go as Wikipedia.

By the way, it took me all of 5 minutes looking at various sources until I found that one.