Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Skeeter]

Will you begin to defend your molecules-to-men naturalistic philosophy or not?

This phrase is better. Too bad it is sexist.

 

[Skeeter]

You just have to provide the evidence of Christ's Resurrection. You don't any more evidence of God than that.

Not true. Even if you had absolute proof of resurrection, it does not validate the particulars of the religion or its origin narratives. It would prove that death is not final under some circumstances only.

BTW, there is no convincing evidence that the resurrection occurred.

 

[Idolater]

Not true. Even if you had absolute proof of resurrection, it does not validate the particulars of the religion or its origin narratives. It would prove that death is not final under some circumstances only.

This is a ridiculous and stubborn and incorrigible view.

BTW, there is no convincing evidence that the resurrection occurred.

Bare assertion, bald assertion, opinion, rhetoric, narrative, declaration.

Not factual, nonfiction or true. Not without substantiation, and you don't have substantiation.

 

[Skeeter]

If you need to use your imagination to understand the evidence, then I don't think that counts as evidence
Do you ,mean it is hard to imagine how it could happen.

The fun of science is that it allows you to test what your imagination conjures so you can reject or accept it. This is a good thing.

But you are starting off with perfectly good flies.

You always start with a substrate that is in may ways similar to the novel form. Pick exemplars from further points in time and you may see vast differences. You may see essentially the same form when the environmental niche is not altered.

This is very much the same as a black African coming to live in Scotland, over the generations his descendants will have lighter skin.

Yes, but a faster change and not just because the reproduction cycle is rapid. The survival pressure is a great amount more intense for the flys in the dark versus the light.

This does not answer the question I asked, going back billions of years to single cell life; how did the skeletal system evolve?

The sea slug developed a notochord and a hollow dorsal nerve cord which later became the spinal cord and column. Cartilage protrusions helped with motility and structural integrity. Eventually calcium and collagen remineralized the cartilage creating bone. In other cases the skin became bone.

Nilsson - Pelger did a projection that the shape of an eye lens might take 1829 gradual steps over about half a million years. Taking this into consideration, how many gradual steps would it take for each bone, ligament, tendon and muscle to evolve?

Thankfully many of the steps occurred simultaneously and worked off existing substrates becoming more detailed rather than adding completely new structures.

 

[Skeeter]

This is a ridiculous and stubborn and incorrigible view.

Why? I use simple logic.

Bare assertion, bald assertion, opinion, rhetoric, narrative, declaration.

Not factual, nonfiction or true. Not without substantiation, and you don't have substantiation.

I believe things based on the evidence before me. I do not believe everything until there is evidence against it.

If you want to discuss this further. Let's find a different thread.

 

[Right Divider]

Because you say so?

Nope.

Labs are working on this.

And failing... repeatedly.

If they simulate 1- the emergence of the building blocks of life via plausible primordial earth conditions and 2- eventual self assembly of protocells, will you accept at least the possibility that abiogenesis occurred?

They can try all that they want. They will fail.

Sure you can. Inference and extrapolation combined with info supported by observed evolution creates a rock sold understanding.

You cannot properly experiment on origins. That's just a fact.

Note that the "observed evolution" that you talk about is simply variation and adaption. Those are fully compatible with the CREATION MODEL.

 

[Right Divider]

This phrase is better. Too bad it is sexist.

No, it's not.. unless you're a retard.

 

[ok doser]

No, it's not.. unless you're a retard.

He really is, isn't he?

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, but a faster change and not just because the reproduction cycle is rapid. The survival pressure is a great amount more intense for the flys in the dark versus the light.

Yes, flies can become flies. Call the press.

The sea slug developed a notochord and a hollow dorsal nerve cord which later became the spinal cord and column.

Fairy tale.

Cartilage protrusions helped with motility and structural integrity. Eventually calcium and collagen remineralized the cartilage creating bone. In other cases the skin became bone.

Fairy tale.

Thankfully many of the steps occurred simultaneously and worked off existing substrates becoming more detailed rather than adding completely new structures.

Fairy tale.

 

[Skeeter]

No, it's not..

The term men excludes women, mate.

unless you're a retard.

Unless you are a retard -- which means someone who cannot grasp molecules, the earth's core, or evolution and the common descent of all living things- because they cannot see them with their own eyes. You believe in historical events without seeing them in a lab though. What are the origins of the Civil War ? Oh wait - I forgot its not possible to determine origins.

 

[Idolater]

The term men excludes women, mate.

Unless you are a retard -- which means someone who cannot grasp molecules, the earth's core, or evolution and the common descent of all living things- because they cannot see them with their own eyes. You believe in historical events without seeing them in a lab though. What are the origins of the Civil War ? Oh wait - I forgot its not possible to determine origins.

It's possible when there's written history.

 

[Skeeter]

It's possible when there's written history.

Historians usually write about events they did not witness.

What is likely to be more accurate: an array of fossils across time in various layers of sedimentary rock or a few words scrawled down by humans?

 

[Right Divider]

The term men excludes women, mate.

I hoped that you would be intelligent enough to understand this properly. My mistake.

By MEN, I'm talking about MANKIND/HUMANKIND (i.e., men and women).

Unless you are a retard --

The only retard between us is you.

which means someone who cannot grasp molecules,

I have no problem understanding molecules and what they can and cannot do naturally.

the earth's core,

Yes, the earth has a core (two actually).

or evolution and the common descent of all living things-

Common descent of all living things is fine. As long as you're not trying to make it common descent from a SINGLE common ancestor. That is a myth. I believe in common descent from the originally created kinds.

because they cannot see them with their own eyes.

When things cannot be observed, they do not fall within the realm of .... wait for it.... observational science. One of the principles of observational science is observation.

You believe in historical events without seeing them in a lab though. What are the origins of the Civil War ?

Those historical events were documented by people that DID observe the events. That is completely different from "evolution" in the supposed distance past where there were NO observers at all.

Oh wait - I forgot its not possible to determine origins.

You continue to show your ignorance.

 

[Yorzhik]

This is just not true. Most mutations are neutral and they are common. Each human has 70 to 200 or so of them. Two percent could be harmful, ten percent helpful.

Mutations add to the richness of variability, Information is added when environmental factors interact with them and effect the frequency of alleles in the next generations.

Mutations do not add richness. Only variation.

I think there is just one LUCA where things really took off from but LUCA had a few buddies contemporary to him that did not fair as well. I do not know if there is evidence for this or not.

A single LUCA. Got it.

More importantly, Code changes create novel combinations and different proteins with different chemical properties. Your Superset idea is interesting and you love it because it requires a creator to move forward, NOT because there is evidence for it.

All the evidence so far is for my idea. I even showed you some that we'll see in a moment you ignored.

You do not have access to their thoughts and motivations. If they were money hungry one would think they would have chosen a different field in the first place. Cults spring up around religious beliefs, not in disciplines were rigorous testing calibration, and peer review is required.

Which is why common descent can correctly be described as a religious cult.

What? EXAMPLE 1: E. coli mutations lead to new ability to metabolize citrate. EXAMPLE 2: Pesticides stop working because of acquired immunity Where did you show what has already been shown?

This is the Lenski experiment that you were already shown conclusively that c+ organisms were a subset of their ancestors. Good job proving my point.

I don't think I showed an experiment about pesticides. I showed the Harvard experiment with successively more concentrated antibiotics, which as usual showed the child bacteria populations were subsets of their parent populations. Show me which experiment you are taking about.

 

[Right Divider]

Historians usually write about events they did not witness.

Historians write about events that someone witnessed.

What is likely to be more accurate: an array of fossils across time in various layers of sedimentary rock or a few words scrawled down by humans?

Which is more likely to be accurate, an evolutionists description of the fossil record or a creationists description of the fossil record? (hint: Creationist).

 

[Skeeter]

I hoped that you would be intelligent enough to understand this properly. My mistake.

By MEN, I'm talking about MANKIND/HUMANKIND (i.e., men and women).

Get with the current century. As you know the language is changing to explicitly show more inclusivity.

I have no problem understanding molecules and what they can and cannot do naturally.

How is that possible? You cannot observe the inner workings of a molecule in a lab. This is NOT science to you.

Yes, the earth has a core (two actually).

How is that possible? You cannot observe the core in a lab or the field. This is NOT science to you.

Common descent of all living things is fine. As long as you're not trying to make it common descent from a SINGLE common ancestor. That is a myth. I believe in common descent from the originally created kinds.

When things cannot be observed, they do not fall within the realm of .... wait for it.... observational science. One of the principles of observational science is observation.

Oh, so NOW you are adding the word observational? Why do you accept some phenomena that are not able to be observed but not others?

Those historical events were documented by people that DID observe the events. That is completely different from "evolution" in the supposed distance past where there were NO observers at all.

Often times the most reliable unbiased primary source for history is records of what people did over what they said.

You continue to show your ignorance.

More and more, every time I quote you.

 

[Skeeter]

Mutations do not add richness. Only variation.

Do you deny that info is added when environmental factors interact with mutations and effect the frequency of alleles in the next generation?

A single LUCA. Got it.

Good.

All the evidence so far is for my idea. I even showed you some that we'll see in a moment you ignored.

Your evidence showed that evolution occurred but it was not really a speciation event yet. What about the fossil record? We do not see kinds oscillating. We see extinction of some kinds. We see new kinds popping up at different points in time. We see a succession of kinds flowing into another kind!!

 

[Right Divider]

Get with the current century. As you now the language is changing to explicitly show more inclusivity.

Get over yourself. Mr. Righteous.

How is that possible? You cannot observe the inner workings of a molecule in a lab. This is NOT science to you.

You are confused, as per usual.

How is that possible? You cannot observe the core in a lab or the field. This is NOT science to you.

Apparently you are confused about direct VS indirect observations. Both can be repeated.
You have NEITHER type of observation regarding the naturalist origin story.

Oh, so NOW you are adding the word observational?

Unless you think that simple conjecture is enough to qualify as "science".

Why do you accept some phenomena that are not able to be observed but not others?

What observations lead you to believe that dirt can become a man/woman?

Often times the most reliable unbiased primary source for history is records of what people did over what they said.

No kidding. Thanks for the new flash... call the press.

 

[Skeeter]

Which is more likely to be accurate, an evolutionists description of the fossil record or a creationists description of the fossil record? (hint: Creationist).

You beg the question. Why is the creation account supposedly more accurate? Also even more important: what is the creationists account of the fossil record?

 

[Right Divider]

Do you deny that info is added when environmental factors interact with mutations and effect the frequency of alleles in the next generation?

Absolutely... only variation and adaption based on already existing genes.

Your evidence showed that evolution occurred but it was not really a speciation event yet.

Continuing to conflate terms is dishonest.
What you call "speciation" is NOT the kind of "evolution" that your theory requires.
Speciation is completely and fully compatible with the CREATION MODEL.

What about the fossil record?

What about it? Billions of death things buried during a global flood.

We do not see kinds oscillating.

We also do not see partial organs... partial limbs... i.e. the things we should see if your "theory" were true.

We see extinction of some kinds.

Indeed, many went extinct during the global flood.

We see new kinds popping up at different points in time.

Since the fossil record is the result of a global flood, your interpretation of what you see is wrong.

We see a succession of kinds flowing into another kind!!

Nope. That's your vivid imagination at work again. Does it get paid overtime?