carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...and this evolutionary means is "natural selection"? "Mutations?" "Survival of the fittest?" ALL proven to be completely BOGUS, unfounded and outright lies!
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
...and this evolutionary means is "natural selection"? "Mutations?" "Survival of the fittest?" ALL proven to be completely BOGUS, unfounded and outright lies!
MVP
Well-Known Member
99.86% of world scientists are liars?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...well, there were only 8 people on the Ark! I'd say the percentage of those who were wrong in Noah's day was higher than that!
Bawse Dawg
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is done by a simulation of mutation and natural selection (the notion "survival of the fittest" is a not-quite-true simplification). You don't think mutation and selection happen?
For centuries, the Ptolemaic version of the universe was the best fit for the known evidence. However, as our evidence improved, so did our understanding of the nature of our solar system. With the evidence we have today, we will never return to geocentrism.
For centuries, the creationist version of the universe was the best fit for the known evidence. However, as our evidence improved, so did our understanding of the nature of biology. With the evidence we have today, we will never return to creationism.
Is that what you meant to highlight?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
WE do live in a geocentric system. The other stars are just an illusion projected on to the heavens by purple heathen pixies. I know in my heart that this is the truth and any evidence you think you have is just an illusion. My objections to your "science" will never cease.
You just don't understand the true truth that has always been there for you to see. You blind yourself to the glory of realness and in the end you will pay the ultimate price for it.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Myths.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Not sure at that time it would qualify as science. But One Brow answered it very well for you.
Bawse Dawg
Well-Known Member
>says evolution is bogus.
>believes every single animal was on a big boat together.
Dat app doe.
>believes every single animal was on a big boat together.
Dat app doe.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Here's a dumbed down image for ya
Until you show us the snakechickengorilla "common ancestor" you are as faithful/speculative as the creationists who would label that "common creator."
MVP
Well-Known Member
You know it very well. It is a fish!
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
thus with a unique loss of genetic information (less specificity)=the founder effect
Bawse Dawg
Well-Known Member
That is an absolutely ridiculous claim.
Tarkanian
Well-Known Member
I don't think that it was meant to be a reply.
I have been saying it all along, tho it has been falling on deaf ears.
Creationist version is NOT less scientific than the evolutionary theorizing.
Both have no chance to be repeated or observed.
Before onebrah wrote that reply, you actually gave the reply that 9x,x% of the scientists are pro-evolution!
Paradigmatic change had already taken place in biology.
It prolly started the moment Darwin set his feet on Galapagos, tho he is not the very first person who came up with the idea of evolution.
The same can happen to it one day!
edit: read Kuhn, if not already done that. You'll like it!
mandatory edit: JV sucks!
Bawse Dawg
Well-Known Member
MVP
Well-Known Member
huh? 50% true, we observe evolution daily in nature and in laboratory settings.
I see one guy sucking on defense vs JV in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU-rm3iSJuo
It was meant to be an example of how, for geocentrism, you accept the results of scientific progress, and how, for biology, you reject those same results.
Creationism was not less scientific than geocentrism 1000 years ago. It is less scientific than evolutionary thoery today, because the evidence supports evolutionary theory.
We have made thousands of repeatable experiements testing and confirming evolutionary theory, and made hundreds of real-life predictions based on it that have been verified.
Yes, based on evidence. tht evidence will never go away. Any new changes to our understanding of biology will necessarily include significant aspects of today's evolutionary theory.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...hey numb nuts! I hate to call you names, but since your a hot shot college chump, I can't help myself!
The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by the Creator were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today.
Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.
These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873)
However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark.
Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B.*C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A.*M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p.*69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.