Oh, yes.  I forgot one thing.  Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.  They're two separate fields of study.

 

you are in denial  and I accept your defeat.

also , Darwin was a slacker and a spoiled rich kid a degree in theology and decided to make it his personal mission in life to be the devils chaplin after the loss of his kid. He became the poster boy for the old pagan concept of origins by applying the jack ass charles lyles  a lawyers imaginary  geologic column and then based his whole idea of evolution of  variation within a kind or as you mind bubble atheists like to term micro-evolution. being the goof he was he ignored the facts and wanted to promote the pagan concept of worshipping nature by giving all credit to non living matter for of life as we know it. the only conclusion he came to was that he rejected a supernatural creator out of bitterness not facts.

what a deusche he was and you put blind faith in his racist lies, seriously you have no clue the satanic agenda behind your little false man made religion. or perhaps you enjoy the degradation that comes with being taught to believe you are descended from non living non intelligent scum. oh thats right you do not understand abiogenesis  so you are not qualified to debate evolution on all levels because you that naive to believe some jack off who told you origins does not include all aspects the bullshit term evolution. you are quick to act all knowing on the idea of decent with modification( variation within a kind-not evolution) but when someone goes a little further down to the roots of your cartoon tree of life suddenly you play stupid and say its no longer evolution because you know deep down the further you go the dumber you look. millions of years was a suggestion not a scientific law and the idea of particles to man is still a pagan concept  from ancient times. if you connat observe the the first stage of evolution then there is no reason to say it is based in science but admit you believe on faith and that is a religious stand point.  you hypocrite criticising theists  for showing conviction admiting their faith and confirming it with science while you profess science is your faith when you have no science to justify anything you believe about evolution.

how ironic you use intelligent design to argue against the need for it! DNA proves that all the information is already written and complete nothing new is added because it is not needed and dont ask anatheist biologist for help because he is a chump just like darwin.

of course you will not prove evolution on all levels because you are not prepared to admit you are wrong because the moment you apply the scietific method you look stupid.

oh I know because it takes too long you cant see evolution happening and because you cannot predict what humans will evolve into you are again useless to your cause and because you dont have a time machine you cannot observe the millions of transitions ,.. oh wait thats right you have animation, drawings and pbs and discovery channel  and national pornographic to keep you stimulated with science fiction and fantasy based programs. because you are not capable of thinking for yourself.

you do not know what science really is you just quote fools who are certied by more fools higher up in the manchurian drone ladder

 

and to top it off you spew Evidence, hypothesis, repeatability..... lol eveidence that supports intelligent design with prupose, ok sure you are allowed to speculate as every dumb atheist loves to thrive on,...... and then you lie about the facts regarding repeatability? you never tested a millions years you never tested the single cell to human , you have never tested the origin of life so that you can even assume evolution as a fact nor have you tested the origin of matter because it too is a form of your theory of origins because you have to keep asking what happend before that each time you think you have the answer especially when your dogma is a minority in the worlds populace of people who desire to know the supernatural CREATOR  where as you desire to know the creation and ignore the creator!

 

simple scientific test for you ! since you know what is man made and what is not ? do know the difference between technology that is man made and technology that is not man made. and can you tell which is superior in design?

here is an example for your bubble mind,  the man made pump vs. the human heart? which is a superior technology and which is man made? please answer this to demonstrate you are not dishonest and not a true fool !

thats funny , me impervious to reason? you have no reason by your logic you rely on chance and thus reason disappears.

you distort reality the way a female  queer distorts her gender and then tells the world she is a man because she took pills to give her masculin traits and then the world has to tolerate her reality because the atheist run media promotes same sex perversion. so now she says she is no longer a queer but now she a gay, not happy just still a queer with a new term that is easier to digest than the image of two queers trying to procreate with a dildo because they still crave the real deal but are too selfish to admit it! and then I suppose they will preach being a queer is normal right along side the class that preaches you are an animal.

why dont you just admit you are not qualified to demonstrate the principal concept of evolution ( origin from nothing to non living particle to humans) starting with the big bang up to present day humans through the scientific method? and I do not want cut and paste philosophy because you do not accept it from me. I will not hold it against you though because everything you say is based on second hand misinformation anyways.

if it supports your viewpoint use it but know that you must personally demonstrate every aspect not just the one popular macro termed chapter I want the whole story with tested repeatable facts not bullshit atheist rebuttals that do not even intimidate fly from shit.

until then I accept your defeat and I am sad that you maitain faith in your religion without conviction  and then hold the tool of science as a worthless  trophy

Submitted by v4ultingbassist on April 11, 2010 - 11:36pm.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

simple scientific test for you ! since you know what is man made and what is not ? do know the difference between technology that is man made and technology that is not man made. and can you tell which is superior in design?

here is an example for your bubble mind,  the man made pump vs. the human heart? which is a superior technology and which is man made? please answer this to demonstrate you are not dishonest and not a true fool !

 

 

 

Steel is stronger than a tree.  A sun produces more energy than a nuclear power plant.  So, which is better?  Nature made, or man made?

 

My Website About Roller Coaster Design

So, which is better?   I said which is superior in design. but like a true atheist drone you ignore reality, implying context and not over all design with purpose

a tree 's converts carbon dioxide to oxygen which sustains life, they provide food again which sustains life , trees also prvide raw materials for construction and medicine etc... whereas you comparison to steel being stronger that does not make man made  steel superior in design to a tree

sun is also demonstrate what I said about technology superior to something man made ,-nuclear power plant

 

Nature made, or man made? lol finally antheist admits his faith in a pagan religion that worships creation ( nature) and not the CREATOR of nature

lol nature is not a person nor is it intellegent but that does not stop you from giving credit to nature in a  modern indifferent form of worship which exposes you as a true pagan with nature as your creator and thus you demonstrate your idea of atheistic evolution is still based in ancient pagan concepts of origins.

 

I said   the man made pump vs. the human heart? which is a superior technology , and you were silent on this simple test?

the human heart is obvious a superior design of a mechanical pump because it sustains life whereas the man made pump is a mere man made  immitation which is inferior. never mend the fact that humans copy the intelligent designs found in creation which is what you should be calling it thus you understand the implication of a creator and give credit to the CREATOR and not the creation which is what you did in your post like a true chump who does not think for himself but allows evil people to manipulate you to accpet lies without question!

 

What factors determine how well something is designed? 

 

 

The self righteous bigot is actually a messenger of the loving god. When the mods decide they have heard enough from you, Mindless, you pin-dick, it won't be a disappointment, I assure you.

 

I know nice people here are going to slave

Submitted by Atheistextremist on April 12, 2010 - 2:51am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

 

You and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through  science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles in so many ways!!!

show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser.
 

 

 

 

 

away over serious and thoughtful replies to your gigantic gap god vomit stream but I just wanted to get in early and tell you to go and fuck yourself, mindless matter.

Have a nice day.

 For god so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Satan that whosoever believeth in him should not only perish but have everlasting death...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------sliver

 

 

yeah lol the classic rebuttal from an atheist chump, " go fuck yourself" which obviously implies by his logic he knows how and he must be able to fuck himself in order to suggest such a task. I must conclude you are actually saying that your dick can reach your ass when you say go fuck you self and therefore you know exactly how it feels. and then you say have a nice day? as if it were a climax to your self degradation.

and finally you wrap up your petty rebbuttal with a whinning chant complaing to the creator you call god for giving you free will and the spirit of intellect to measure the difference between good and evil despite the influence of the accuser(satan) the choice to have everlasting death is yours so that means you are without excuse when your time comes and it is too late to change your mind utterly the choice is your and you do not appreciate it!

 

I intend to enjoy eternity and I doubt you understand how that is possible since you look forward to oblivion.

Submitted by butterbattle on April 12, 2010 - 2:01am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

I said which is superior in design. 

 

What factors determine how well something is designed? you ask.  but did not answer my question which implies you are in denial of reality of the existence of a creator other than man, a CREATOR of all creation(nature)

purpose and quality of functionality are factors that determine  how well something is designed now refer to my example of  the human heart as an example of how well it is designed compared to the man made version which is a mere immitation in concept 

 

 

Our hearts are organic pumps, far more capable and efficient than anything our man made technology can yet create.

The heart is the most important muscle in the human body. Without a heart the human body would die.The human heart is a living machine that works as a pump in distributing blood that transports oxygen and nutrients to cells throughout the body.

The heart is a mechanical marvel in that it never rests.Its purpose is to provide your body with oxygen and nutrients you need and also gets rid of waste you don't need.

It circulates the body's blood more than 1,000 times a day. It pumps 5,000 to 5,000 quarts of blood per day through 60,000 miles of blood vessels. All of this from a muscular organ the size of your fist The Human Heart.

 Amazingly, as small as that may seem, the heart plays a huge and vital role to the survival of life. The human heart is part of a network of organs that keep the body oxygenated and norished with important nutrients. It also plays a role in removing cellular waste matter, and carbon dioxide, from the body's bloodstream as well as regulating blood pressure. It's a big responsibility for such a small organ, but one that a healthy heart can more than handle.

Associated with life and love, the heart is one of the most intricate and fascinating organs of the human body. the heart muscle contracts and relaxes to send fresh supplies of oxygenated blood to all parts of the body to keep it performing its miracles through out a lifetime. Without the heart, our body tissues would not get the oxygen exchange and other nutrients required to survive.What good is a circulatory system without a heart?

 “nothing works until everything works.”   Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

 

now until you accept my  challenge I accept your defeat.

 

 

 

What choice?

 

YHBT!!! (not by me either, unfortunately)

Okay, so how well something is designed is determined by how well it serves its purpose?

Your challenge is for anyone to "prove" evolution using the scientific method explicitly, correct? If I post a long response, are you going to actually address it?

Mind Over Matter, what if Evolution was false? Would that make the God hypothesis any more likely?

 So by point 8 it appears that you believe in microevolution that give rise to diversity within a species. Given that microevolution occurs how is it possible for macroevolution not to occur? Over a long enough timescale how is it possible to not walk a mile if you take one step at a time?

Gene mutations in themselves are random but natural selection ensures that only mutations that aid survival are carried on to the next generation giving direction to the cumulative effects of the mutations which inevitably leads to speciation.

Given our imperfect world (where everybody does not reproduce at the same rate) it would be incredibly weird if evolution did not occur. It would defy all laws of statistics if evolution weren't true. 

 

 

This is the argument used by sapient in his debate with kirk cameron and that other nutter

 So by point 8 it appears

Submitted by liberatedatheist on April 12, 2010 - 1:15pm.

 

 So by point 8 it appears that you believe in microevolution that give rise to diversity within a species. Given that microevolution occurs how is it possible for macroevolution not to occur? Over a long enough timescale how is it possible to not walk a mile if you take one step at a time?

Gene mutations in themselves are random but natural selection ensures that only mutations that aid survival are carried on to the next generation giving direction to the cumulative effects of the mutations which inevitably leads to speciation.

Given our imperfect world (where everybody does not reproduce at the same rate) it would be incredibly weird if evolution did not occur. It would defy all laws of statistics if evolution weren't true. 

 

humans vary in kind but they do not evolve never did and never will there fore macroevolution is still an ancient pagan religion of origins and does not occur

fruit flies can be used to demonstrate that no matter how many times you use intelligent design to add mutations to countless generations they still reproduce as fruit flies only they have been mutated and deformed like mixing up some of the peices in finished puzzle all you get is a loss of info no a demonstration of information writing itself . the fact that there is no model to show the origin of information makes macro evolution impossible to occur.

the point of walking around the earth show that the rate you choose to identifiy is not a constant and you only rely of assumotions of distance not actual measuments that can be tested so star light does not prove evolution over billions/millions of years

the law of statistics against the reality of evolution are infinity to 1. because there is no proven statistic that can be shown in reality that demonstrates your childish math fantasy on paper 

 the classic analogy of adding all the parts needed to make a computor into a blender and blending it for minutes days weeks  months years   while adding heat and energy is never going to result in a computor  and we can test this repeatable test as  fact in the present  but to assume millions or billions of years does change the already known facts that evolution does not occur and information does not occur through random chaotic event or even in cotrolled chaotic events . a computor will never be the result of billions of years of chance and thus humans did not result from chance since we know humans are more superior in design to man made computers.

 

when you heat your food in a man made micro wave  oven  technology do you give credit to the oven as an intelligent person or do you give credit to the creator of the  micro wave oven ? the truth is you give credit to the oven (creation) not the the creator of the oven because you worship in this case the oven which represents nature , case closed you are exposed as a atheist in denial of worshipping bature as your creator and not the creator of nature!

,again you fail to meet my challenge to demonstrate the pagan religion of evolution through the scientific method .

 

I accept your failure as a sign of defeat  yet again you show your true dishonest mentality to justify your humanist worldview

 

So you pretty much misunderstood everything i said or just denied it without any counter arguments but i'll try one more time.

Humans vary in kind because we are continually evolving. The point i was making before is that variation within a species occurs because of microevolution. That is the only way it can occur. you seem to acknowledge the existence of microevolution. Once you acknowledge the existence of microevolution it is absolutely necessary that macroevolution occurs. Macroevolution is the cumulative effect of microevolution. Mutations are random occurrences. most are harmful or do nothing but occasionally you will get ones that actually increase the survival chances of the organism. This is not a radical claim. the more often mutations occur the more likely you are going to get ones that benefit the organism. this all logically follows from microevolution. Because some aid in the survival of the organism, it is more likely that the organism will survive to pass on his genes to the next generation than the other harmful mutations. The frequency of these genes has now increased in the population! This logically follows from the fact that some mutations are harmful and some are beneficial. This means that evolution is no longer a random process meaning that it has a direction and will make the species better suited to survive in his environment. Once you acknowledge that the survival rate of the organism can be affected by mutations, it necessarily follows that evolution is not random but has direction. This is all logically necessary. Once you see that evolution has a direction it necessitates that over long enough periods of time, the positive mutations will accumulate until the resulting organisms would no longer be able to reproduce with its ancestors thus becoming its own species. The scientific definition of two organisms being of the same species is that they can produce fertile offspring. This is all logical. As i said before as long as we live in an imperfect world where some organisms reproduce at a greater rate than others then evolution is logically necessary. It would be illogical and weird if evolution did not occur. 

well here you are just wrong. speciation has been shown in a laboratory setting using fruit flies. Through reproductive isolation, two populations of fruit flies that were originally able to mate lost that ability after being separated for 35 of generations. This is laboratory proof of macroevolution. This is taken from wikipedia the original link being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.^[16] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).^[17]

Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive isolation can develop from mating preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.^[18]

This part just doesn't make sense

 

The analogy of the computer does not work because a blender is random while evolution is not. Evolution is not random because some mutations are beneficial while others are harmful. evolution is a process of chance and then refinement through natural selection. your analogy just models chance without the refinement. 

 

 

Nature has not been shown to have or need a creator. i still don't worship it by i acknowledge the mechanisms that nature works by. If you believe in a creator than you are probably insulting him by not acknowledging his true creation which is evolution. its a beautiful system both in its simplicity and effectiveness. 

quick outline of the scientific method

question: how did current speciations come into existence

background research: the fossil record, genetic similarities and physical similarities suggest a continuity to species

hypothesis: all species evolve from previous species with the first species coming into existence through the process of abiogenesis

experimentation: speciation can be induced in fruit flies as i have previously cited, also in bacteria http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html genetic mapping shows that all species are related to some extent. Evolution can be produced in the lab but is also observed in nature, usually with insects that have short generational time periods:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6896753.stm This is what i got from credible sources with a thirty second google search. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of observations made in a scientifically rigorous fashion that can be repeated at any time. 

 

once you acknowledge variation in kind you have no need to assume that is proof that humans are evolving.  the fact that humans have variataion within their kind is because the information is already there to allow for the variation to occur.

 

like a rubiks cube having set colors which can be realinged and still remain a rubiks cube no matter what the combination of colors. you still have the same rubiks cuke nothing more.

again you rely on genes to try and imagine evolution.  the changes found in genes does not demonstrate evolution. it does show how over a  generations of time the written code allows for adaption to occurr because the grand design includes foreknowledge of these needs to adapt and thus the genes change according to a prewritten code not a new code never written before by noone as you like to imply with you pagan concept of evolution.

long periods of time seems to be your biggest flaw in your arguement. you assume things like millions of years which is not science but it is a faith based concept of atheist imagination.

 

it is stupid to say that because humans come in all shapes and sizes and colors that they are evolving as a result of this observation.

again you fail.  

 

fruit flies not mating with fruit flies? so what !  that does not mean they stopped being fruit flies because you use stupid terminology such as species to descibe 2 kinds of fruit flies. again it is you who are wrong and  desparate to show your beliefe is based in science but is not all. infact it is dishonest.

 

 

chance without refinement? lol

that is very observant but not enough to demonstrate mutations creating humans into non humans that are superior. most mutation are harmful and the odd mutation that is not does not cause evolution to occurr.

pay attention

Not once has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation!

There are instances of reshuffled genes, which produced better varieties of grapes, apples, and roses. But those were normal changes within species. (They were still grapes, apples, and roses.) None of these are mutations. A true mutation is a damage factor which produces injury or death.

As a result of millions of fruit-fly experiments, under intense radiation, not one useful mutation has ever been found.  Those organisms, which mutate and do not outright kill, are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Given enough mutations, not evolution into something better—but death—would come to everyone on earth.  Organisms which have mutations are so badly weakened, that they tend to die out or are weeded out by the problems of life.

Mutagens. For decades, scientists have been warning us about the dangers of radiation. What is that danger? It is X rays, radiation, and certain chemicals which can cause mutations in our body. How can such a terrible curse benefit us or produce new species?

Dangerous accidents. It is only the rareness of mutations in the natural world (apart from X rays and atomic bombs) which protect the race from being destroyed by mutations.

Intertwined catastrophe. Each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes. This complicated interweaving of the DNA codes means that each mutation can result in damage to many things.
There is no way that a bunch of mutations could help anyone.

Only random. People can never predict in advance when or where a mutation will occur or what type of damage will result. It is a totally random event.

Small changes cannot do it. Evolutionists say that, given enough time, a few mutations, here and there, can produce new species. Each one changes one species a little more toward another. But that is not true, for we find no halfway species anywhere! All are distinct and different

Mathematically impossible. Not enough mutations could naturally occur to accomplish any trans-species changes. Mutations usually occur only once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule. Assuming that all mutations were beneficial (which none are), the odds of even several mutations naturally occurring within one organism would be very unlikely. Four mutations, for example, would only occur once in a billion, billion times

Time is no solution. Evolution requires millions of beneficial mutations, all working closely together to produce delicate living systems full of fine-tuned structures, organs, hormones, and all the rest. This could not be done in a little amount of time or immense amounts of time. How long would a new type of animal last while waiting for millions of years of mutations to put it together?

Gene Stability. There is a reason we can know that mutations have been as infrequent in the past as they are now: the factor of gene stability. If mutations had been abundant earlier, then, during past centuries, our bodies would have been destroyed by them.

Syntropy. *Szent-Gyorgyi, a two-time Nobel Prize winner, pointed out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it were already complete with all its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. Everything in a species has to work right, or it becomes weak and eventually dies out. Mutations do not strengthen; they only weaken. They do not produce new, stronger species; they only injure the ones which already exist

Minor changes damage offspring the most. Most mutations are small, but it is those little changes which would hurt offspring the most. That is because major mutations kill too quickly for there to be offspring

Single generation required. Hundreds and even thousands of positive mutations, working harmoniously together would be needed—and it would all have to occur very fast. It would be impossible for mutations, strung out over centuries or ages to produce the needed changes from one species to another.

 Not big enough. Most mutations are so minor that, although they are damaging or deadly, they could not possibly change one species to another. They just do not make a large enough change.

Reproductive changes too infrequent. Mutational changes in the reproductive organs occur far less often than elsewhere. Yet it is reproductive changes which would especially be needed for new species to be formed

Evolution requires increasing complexity. Evolution, by its very nature, must continually move upward. Yet mutations only tear down and disintegrate.

Evolution would require new information. Vast, new information banks in the DNA would be required, for a new species to be produced. Mutations could never accomplish that, any more than swinging a bat in a china closet would improve the glassware stored there.

Evolution requires new organs and different structures. But mutations would not provide the new physical equipment and capabilities.

Not enough visible mutations. For every visible mutation (which changes a body part in a way to be seen), there are 20 invisible ones which generally kill the organism.

Never higher vitality than the parent. Geneticists tell us that each mutation weakens the organism. Never is its offspring stronger than the damaged parent. Soon the family line ends

the classic

No evidence of species change. Mutations are not producing new species, yet we should see it occurring.Fossils and Strata  there is no evidence of new species production in the past. We can know this, because we should be able to find the halfway species in between, yet they have never existed.

 Gene uniqueness forbids species change. Because there are millions of factors in every DNA code, it forbids the possibility of wholesale change by mutations.

THE ONE BENEFICIAL MUTATION

Yes, evolutionists have one beneficial mutation that they can cite—as proof that positive, helpful mutations do occasionally occur.

It is sickle-cell anemia, which is a mutation which occurred in someone in Africa centuries ago. Was that mutation beneficial? Far from it; it damaged the red blood cells so they became quarter-moon shaped instead of round. This produced a special type of anemia. The person with sickle-cell anemia cannot properly absorb food and oxygen.

How then can anyone call that mutation beneficial?

Well, the evolutionists do it—on the basis of the fact that people with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to contract malaria from mosquitoes!

Really now, that is begging the question! If I had bulbar polio, I would be less likely to be killed in an auto accident—because I would be paralyzed on a bed and less likely to be riding in a car. But one would not say that polio was, for that reason, beneficial!

In return for the advantage of being 25 percent less likely to contract malaria, 25 percent of the children of people, in Africa, with sickle-cell anemia—will die! What advantage is that?

so stop trying in vain and start doing what I asked in my challenge to demonstrate you pagan concept of evolution.

 

So, everything that is

Submitted by nigelTheBold on April 12, 2010 - 11:54am.

 

So, everything that is complex and serves a purpose must be designed, correct?

Then who designed god?

 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Mye

 

 

THE ANSWER IS       NOONE   designed ELOAH YA AM,which means ALMIGHTY EL THE ETERNAL LOVING YA

 

 YOU FAIL TO MEET MY CHALLENGE 

I ACCEPT YOUR FAILURE AS A SIGN OF DEFEAT

there is only one true source you do not start with nothing or no source, all life comes from life all things come FROM being created

when you count to ten do you start with 0 ? the name above all names IS YAHUWAH which means I AM HE WHO IS SELF EXISTETENT/EXISTS/ETERNAL

thus for thousands of years in every culture you can hear the universal expression PRAISE TO YOU YAH (HALLELU YAH)  which is also a preveration of  the true name YAHUWAH in the original  royal ABRAHUW language

your question is a fallacy like asking a trick question, "where is the starting point on a circle?" which means you are a bitter person who rejects reality of a supernatural CREATOR who IDENTIFIES HIMSELF and you show that you resent people of FAITH IN A CREATOR and the fact that they reject your faith in worshipping creation which is an ancient pagan concept still used today by atheists etc.....

 

 

What a stupid question. I am a C programmer. Of course I start with 0.

 "Not once has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation!"

Let me cite a couple: http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/360/15843_AIDS.html  AIDS is a terrible disease that has killed thousands. Fortunately for some, a MUTATION in their genetic code prevents the virus from entering their cells providing them with immunity to the disease. 

now lets see how evolution necessarily follows from this beneficial mutation. If we select a random population of one hundred people it is likely that one person has the mutation as the mutation has a frequency of 1%. If everyone in the population reproduces at the same rate, then the frequency of the gene according to the laws of statistics will still be one percent. now lets add the selecting factor of aids. This will kill a few people but none of those people will have the mutation b/c the mutation protects you from the disease. Now the remaining people reproduce all at the same rate. But because there were fewer people reproducing that didn't have the mutation, then necessarily the frequency of the mutation within the population will increase. Each generation will yield a higher frequency of the gene until soon 5% or 10% of the people have the mutated gene. The frequency will continue to increase until the aids virus vanishes as it can't sustain itself. That is evolution of one trait and it necessarily happens as long as aids selects the people without the mutation to die at a higher rate. Macroevolution is just the cumulative effect of multiple traits evolving in response to selecting agents. Because the frequency of the gene is very low and aids isn't overwhelmingly common in russia, the increase in this genes frequency will be slow. Check back in sixty or seventy years are so and the frequency of his gene will undoubtedly be a few percentage points higher.

this website provides examples of about 15 other examples of beneficial mutations http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Never say that "there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation" again because that is absolutely not true.

 

Well, I must disagree with him then: it is not the case that if evolution is false then the Bible is true. This just makes no sense. This is like saying, the Earth was found not to be spherical, therefore it is flat. If the Bible could be true then there are any number of other stories that must compete with it. What about all the other religions of the world, and all the religions we didn't think to create?

(btw, here's that damned Monty Python video again. I can't seem to make it disappear completely.)

 

 

not only a fag, but a fag-enabler!

PROVE to me you're not a sodomite!  i know your kind, you fudge-packing, shit-eating closet FAG!  YOUR KIND MAKE ME FUCKING SICK!!!!  you DARE to proclaim Our Lord and Saviour when in fact YOU lay with man as with woman!  YOU offer strange fire!  HOW DARE YOU PROCLAIM THE HOLY ONE!!!

i know your works, you goddamn PINK-WEARING, ASSFUCKING NANCY BOY!!!!!!  BEGONE IN THE NAME OF EL SHADDAI!!!  I BIND YOUR WORKS, YOU BOY-KISSING, SATAN-LOVING PEDERAST!!!!

 

I actually start at 1.  Can't index with a 0 in MatLab.

First off, about the humans heart. You state that without it we die but you never state that it rests when we die. You never mentioned it. You are wrong.

Now, on to the other problems with your fascist ramblings. Dude, you just showed your full blown bigotry right there.

big-o-try

–noun,plural-ries.

1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.  So yeah, calling you a bigot is fully justified. Just to let you know, I'm not "queer", but I don't take it as an insult and if I was "queer" I see no reason why I would be ashamed of it. You can call me a man who is attracted to men all day long, it doesn't matter, my feelings are not hurt as I'm not a fascist who is offended by diversity. You are the fascist who thinks differences in people is wrong. There was another person who hated "queers" as much as you and wanted them all to be punished by your mutual "god". I think you guys would have gotten along quite well. His name was Adolf Hitler.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really believe that? Then why are we so similar to OTHER animals? Why do humans have mammary glands like other mammals? Why do we have sweat glands like other animals? Why do we need to eat and shit and mate like other animals?

That's because we ARE animals and it's not a bad thing at all.

Our reason to not hate homosexuals is that they are human as well as we are and we are not fascist fucks like you. Seriously, you are a fascist. You are saying that just because you hear voices in your head that you claim is the creator of the universe, you have the right to kill everyone who isn't like you.

Fuck you you fascist piece of shit!