Creation

[g_bambino]

I don't have to.

Not requiring the intellectial effort to support one's conclusion: the creed of the blind followers of dogma.

[Saipan]

Atheists are just people who have not formally given God a title. Everyone believes....atheists simply don't like liars that attempt to dellude and control others

Speaking of control. Atheists like Stalin and Mao killed tens of millions in OUR TIME.

[cybercoma]

I don't have to. Science is headed in that direction.

Anyway, with evolution practically rotting away, what else is the rational alternative?

Intelligent Design.

First of all, Intelligent Design is not an alternative to evolution. They're different things. And, if you don't have any evidence to support Intelligent Design, then the rational thing to do is reject it until it's proven.

[cybercoma]

Speaking of control. Atheists like Stalin and Mao killed tens of millions in OUR TIME.

Stalin and Hitler also had mustaches.

[M.Dancer]

A little while later the clown found out that the Banana is the sum result of inelligent design...man

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/

Edited July 7, 2011 by M.Dancer

[The_Squid]

OK... a banana fits my hand great!! Very well designed fruit. Thank you God. How would the creationist fella explain this son-of-a-bitch????:

Durian Fruit

[Oleg Bach]

Speaking of control. Atheists like Stalin and Mao killed tens of millions in OUR TIME.

Yes and the secularist idiot in Parliment just sent a letter of congratulations to China on Mao's birthday - after this son of a bitch generated the murder of millions of people.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes and the secularist idiot in Parliment just sent a letter of congratulations to China on Mao's birthday - after this son of a bitch generated the murder of millions of people.

How and why do we as a good and civil nation send a letter of support to China? I believe it was nothing but a comforting buisness memo. Our leaders do not give a damn if China and their communist mafia kill another million people - they are just interested in the trade in substandard goods..shame on a nation where riches come before national family!

[Oleg Bach]

OK... a banana fits my hand great!! Very well designed fruit. Thank you God. How would the creationist fella explain this son-of-a-bitch????:

Durian Fruit

A cherry pops into the mouth perfectly and sends a spasm of delight into the brain...plus the anti-oxidants sustain life....Oh and why does the shape of a woman please the male eye to no end? Accident? I think not!

[The_Squid]

Oh and why does the shape of a woman please the male eye to no end? Accident? I think not!

No, we've evolved that way...

[Oleg Bach]

No, we've evolved that way...

Glad that nature had the intelligence to create those wonderful musical curves - that make the eye swim in honey....If evolution blindly created the female form the shape of a brick might be attractive - but I doubt it.

[Oleg Bach]

No, we've evolved that way...

Hope the evolutionists speed up their evolving process and evolve right off the planet - ultimately that will be the case _ I hear that Mars is nice this time of year.

[WIP]

That answer doesn't jell! Like a toddler, you insist on fitting a square into a circle.

THERE NEVER WAS ANY CLEAR

EVIDENCE FOR MACRO EVOLUTION.

AT ANY TIME!

Let me put this in terms that betsy can understand:

The Reason Why There Is No Clear Evidence For Macroevolution Is Because Macroevolution is: "the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale."

In Other Words, If You Accept Microevolution, You're Stuck With Macroevolution, Because That Is The Natural Result Of Microevolution Over Long Periods Of Time!

My apologies to everyone else's vision who got caught unprepared for that giant bold text.

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

Pulling a Dawkins doesn't work anymore. Your messiah cannot help you....he's busy ducking while doing his chicken dance.

Wow! This so called "creation research is even dumber than I expected! I'm no biologist, let alone geneticist, but even I have read enough articles on junk DNA to know that there is a difference between transposons and endogenous retroviruses....and the idiot who wrote that article is conflating the two as the same thing. For instance:

One class of transposons, called “retrotransposons,” is formed when DNA is copied into RNA, which is then reverse-copied back into DNA. Retrotransposon sequences had been almost dogmatically interpreted by evolutionary scientists as remnants of ancient viruses. These viruses supposedly infected the host organism long ago, and it was assumed that the viral DNA became incorporated into one or more of its chromosomes.

Wrong! And what he is actually describing here are endogenous retroviruses; transposons are merely DNA codes that can "move" or transpose themselves to new positions within a cell's genome. The retrotransposon is a sub-category of transposons that can copy themselves to RNA, but can also reverse transcribe themselves from RNA back into DNA, and the new copy is inserted into a new position in the genome. More silliness:

Evolutionists have argued that they must have been introduced by the same virus before the two species diverged from a (presumably) ape-like ancestor. Thus, each species retains today a remnant of the same ancient viral infection.

This is often cited as strong evidence that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry, and therefore that broad-scale evolution is true―that single cells can eventually develop into humans through random natural forces. This is currently one of evolution’s best arguments.

Again! That's ERV not Retrotransposons! Notice that this little article doesn't actually deal with their problem that many animals, such as humans and chimpanzees carry identical ERV insertions in our respective genomes; so how did they get there? Did God create this jumbled, overly complicated genome complete with dormant viral DNA codes that are identical with other animals? Or would the most logical conclusion be that the at least seven insertions humans and chimpanzees have in common were the results of viral infections in the germ cells of some distant ancestors of both of our species, that just happened to reverse transcribe their RNA code into the DNA, and into the newly created genome of the young creature....and as time went on, and our two species diverged over the last six million years, we are still carrying the DNA patterns of those ancient viruses in both the chimpanzee, and the human genome.

ERV insertions are freakish, almost implausible events, because a viral infection at that early stage of life would likely kill the new organism and never have a chance to leave a legacy. But, over time, even the almost impossible does happen, and we carry the evidence in the human genome, as at least 7% of the human genome is made up of codes left behind by endogenous retroviruses.

Now, back to the article...this clown apparently got excited a research paper (which is not given a link source) published in Nature, finds that at least some transposons carry functional genetic code that can be used in cells for the purpose of gene regulation, which he frames around the false claim that:

Many scientists still believe that these repeated segments contain nearly random, functionless, non-coding sequences with which “evolution” can tinker.

Total bullshit! But we're used to it. There is no claim made by geneticists that junk DNA has NO purpose..that is a total and complete lie! Junk DNA is a catch-all category to describe all of the genetic inserts in a genome that do not code proteins or direct that use in a cell. That's not the same thing as claiming they have to be random or functionless...and that's another reason why this creationist should have at least tried to do a little reading on the subject he is trying to debunk. I'd like to see him step up to a geneticist...or Richard Dawkins for that matter, and try to make this argument. For one example, it has long been recognized that junk DNA sequences lower the odds of dangerous mutations from radiation or other factors.

Now, after wasting at least half an hour responding to an article that doesn't even describe the subject properly, can I have my half hour back Betsy?

[cybercoma]

OK... a banana fits my hand great!! Very well designed fruit. Thank you God. How would the creationist fella explain this son-of-a-bitch????:

Durian Fruit

Now that's damn funny!

[DogOnPorch]

Now that's damn funny!

Indeed...crossed my mind, already.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&view=findpost&p=680157

[dre]

Yeah, I think that's the video that was initially referred by Dre....and gave me the idea for the topic Video Debates.

That's one of the glaring criticisms and contradictions about Dawkins. His excuse for refusing to bravely face Craig. He claims he doesn't want to debate creationists (?) and amateurs.......and yet here he is, against Wright. Whom he obviously underestimated.

Considering how Wendy Wright managed to rattle him, I could only guess how it must be in his shoes just thinking about a one-on-one with Craig. He must be having nightmares about it!

and yet here he is, against Wright. Whom he obviously underestimated.

ROFLMAO!

[betsy]

Not requiring the intellectial effort to support one's conclusion: the creed of the blind followers of dogma.

Exactly. The Neo-Darwinists who keeps clinging to a deadwood - without providing any intellectual support for it other than chanting their om, and shutting their eyes to the rationality of Intelligent Design.

It's another irony, isn't it? The so-called "rational" being exposed as the real irrational

dogma. But is that surprising when it comes to Dawkins' church and his followers?

A sour tree produces sour fruits.

[Saipan]

No, we've evolved that way...

How did we do it?

In Neanderthal laboratory?

[betsy]

First of all, Intelligent Design is not an alternative to evolution. They're different things. And, if you don't have any evidence to support Intelligent Design, then the rational thing to do is reject it until it's proven.

Yada-yada-yada. Those are nothing but statements of denial! You sing the same song like Dre and Bambino. That's the refrain part sung by the Doowaps.

Boy, it's not for lack of trying on evolutionists part I must say!

How many times have Darwinists resorted to hoaxes and fraud?

Even the current messiah - Dawkins - resorts to cheap trickery and outright dishonesty! He resorts to misinformation and disinformation!

Beside having failed to produce a single clear evidence in all this time - a century plus counting - evolution has just been recently decapitated by Science!

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

It's evolution - not Intelligent Design - that's been laid to rest!

Give the reason why you still support your deadwood.

Edited July 8, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Let me put this in terms that betsy can understand:

The Reason Why There Is No Clear Evidence For Macroevolution Is Because Macroevolution is: "the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale."

In Other Words, If You Accept Microevolution, You're Stuck With Macroevolution, Because That Is The Natural Result Of Microevolution Over Long Periods Of Time!

My apologies to everyone else's vision who got caught unprepared for that giant bold text.

Wow! This so called "creation research is even dumber than I expected! I'm no biologist, let alone geneticist, but even I have read enough articles on junk DNA to know that there is a difference between transposons and endogenous retroviruses....and the idiot who wrote that article is conflating the two as the same thing. For instance:

One class of transposons, called “retrotransposons,” is formed when DNA is copied into RNA, which is then reverse-copied back into DNA. Retrotransposon sequences had been almost dogmatically interpreted by evolutionary scientists as remnants of ancient viruses. These viruses supposedly infected the host organism long ago, and it was assumed that the viral DNA became incorporated into one or more of its chromosomes.

Wrong! And what he is actually describing here are endogenous retroviruses; transposons are merely DNA codes that can "move" or transpose themselves to new positions within a cell's genome. The retrotransposon is a sub-category of transposons that can copy themselves to RNA, but can also reverse transcribe themselves from RNA back into DNA, and the new copy is inserted into a new position in the genome. More silliness:

Evolutionists have argued that they must have been introduced by the same virus before the two species diverged from a (presumably) ape-like ancestor. Thus, each species retains today a remnant of the same ancient viral infection.

This is often cited as strong evidence that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry, and therefore that broad-scale evolution is true―that single cells can eventually develop into humans through random natural forces. This is currently one of evolution’s best arguments.

Again! That's ERV not Retrotransposons! Notice that this little article doesn't actually deal with their problem that many animals, such as humans and chimpanzees carry identical ERV insertions in our respective genomes; so how did they get there? Did God create this jumbled, overly complicated genome complete with dormant viral DNA codes that are identical with other animals? Or would the most logical conclusion be that the at least seven insertions humans and chimpanzees have in common were the results of viral infections in the germ cells of some distant ancestors of both of our species, that just happened to reverse transcribe their RNA code into the DNA, and into the newly created genome of the young creature....and as time went on, and our two species diverged over the last six million years, we are still carrying the DNA patterns of those ancient viruses in both the chimpanzee, and the human genome.

ERV insertions are freakish, almost implausible events, because a viral infection at that early stage of life would likely kill the new organism and never have a chance to leave a legacy. But, over time, even the almost impossible does happen, and we carry the evidence in the human genome, as at least 7% of the human genome is made up of codes left behind by endogenous retroviruses.

Now, back to the article...this clown apparently got excited a research paper (which is not given a link source) published in Nature, finds that at least some transposons carry functional genetic code that can be used in cells for the purpose of gene regulation, which he frames around the false claim that:

Many scientists still believe that these repeated segments contain nearly random, functionless, non-coding sequences with which “evolution” can tinker.

Total bullshit! But we're used to it. There is no claim made by geneticists that junk DNA has NO purpose..that is a total and complete lie! Junk DNA is a catch-all category to describe all of the genetic inserts in a genome that do not code proteins or direct that use in a cell. That's not the same thing as claiming they have to be random or functionless...and that's another reason why this creationist should have at least tried to do a little reading on the subject he is trying to debunk. I'd like to see him step up to a geneticist...or Richard Dawkins for that matter, and try to make this argument. For one example, it has long been recognized that junk DNA sequences lower the odds of dangerous mutations from radiation or other factors.

Now, after wasting at least half an hour responding to an article that doesn't even describe the subject properly, can I have my half hour back Betsy?

Cite!

Support your claim. Because you've given an incorrect claim before. In the Bible topic, you've said this:

The truth is that ancient Hebrews, like ancient Mesopotamians, had a three level cosmology as described here.

Betsy:

Apparently, your statement is incorrect. Mesopotamians believed in a 6-level universe!

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec01.html

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=525

Compare your source (Wiki) with my source (university)!

Furthermore I don't think your source said anything about Mesopotamians' belief as you claimed in your statement...at least I didn't see it. So, if it's not there in your supposed source you shouldn't insert that information like as if it's been supported as fact....when clearly, it is not!

That is mis-leading!

Therefore, I don't take your words with no back-up support from credible sources.

Edited July 8, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

betsy has never met her God. It's like writing letters to violent inmates doing life with all the desperate drives that involves.

It's all a big nothing! What makes you think you're so special?

---Livia Soprano

[cybercoma]

Yada-yada-yada. Those are nothing but statements of denial! You sing the same song like Dre and Bambino. That's the refrain part sung by the Doowaps.

Boy, it's not for lack of trying on evolutionists part I must say!

How many times have Darwinists resorted to hoaxes and fraud?

Even the current messiah - Dawkins - resorts to cheap trickery and outright dishonesty! He resorts to misinformation and disinformation!

Beside having failed to produce a single clear evidence in all this time - a century plus counting - evolution has just been recently decapitated by Science!

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

It's evolution - not Intelligent Design - that's been laid to rest!

Give the reason why you still support your deadwood.

I'm not even sure if you're aware of this any longer, but I'm not arguing about whether or not evolution is true. I said a long time back that I would continue this discussion with you under the assumption that evolution is entirely wrong.

I've asked you to give evidence for an alternative to evolution. Your post above is more of your mindless anti-evolution drivel. It's time for you to put up or shut up. Let's have the evidence of your alternative.

[M.Dancer]

the rationality of Intelligent Design.

Rationality and faith together make on oxymoron

[Oleg Bach]

Not going to read anything - when I click into a thread and am hit in the fact with huge bold black font....It feels like an electronic assualt - bam right in the face - as if a zealot or religious fanatics slaps you and says "believe". This use of visual force is not helping in the cause of the writer...If you want to change the world to your liking - perhaps use the tiny mustard seed apporoach - if the seed is valid and real it will grow into a huge bush for all to witness....at present when I look at the big font posts - It feels as if I am not being a witness to the burning bush but being beaten with it.

[Oleg Bach]

Rationality and faith together make on oxymoron

Faith is to believe in what one can not see or fully understand..That is the old definition for some. My faith consists of what I can understand...it all depends on your level and capacity to think - those who cling to science are just as limited as those who cling to blind faith. Neither has a full understanding.