Evolution/creationism - split from conservapedia thread

[Maxtor]

this is an alternative wiki for conservative christians, and a very entertaining site for intelectuals.

try searching for earth, T rex, big bang, and my favourite page evolution (see if you can spot hitler and stalin on that page)

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).
Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.
Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.
The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.

[Hokulele]

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).
Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.
Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.
The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.


Might I suggest you go over to the Science sub-forum and paste these comments there rather than derailing this thread?

And to the OP, read their article on Asia, it sounds hysterically like it was a 3rd grade Social Studies report.

"It's big, and has tigers and pandas and monkeys and elephants..."

[paximperium]

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).
Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils. How odd.
There is a complete fossil record of:
1)Whales
2)Horses
3)Elephants
4)Hippos
etc etc etc
Perhaps you need to read actual science and not garbage?

Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone. Strange. You seem completely unfamiliar with the scientific process.
Scientists do not make idiotic claims they can't back up. They like to have things like evidence.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?


The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.Since that is not what evolution has ever claimed and that is not what is found in the fossil record are you sure you understand even the basics of evolution?
Perhaps you should read somethings from universities instead of garbage?

[aggle-rithm]

Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer.

If you want to keep believing this, then you'd better not look into the subject any further.

I'm sure you can handle that.

[GeeMack]

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).
Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.
Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.
The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.


That was a pretty good piece of satire, Maxtor. Sadly there are people who are so willfully ignorant and so desperate to cling to their delusions of invisible magical beings that they would actually believe what you said. :p

[Tubbythin]

The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline.
So viruses don't evolve?

[Mister Agenda]

Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless.

And we can draw conclusions about the designer, if there was one, for that very reason: If there was a designer, it either was lacking in imagination or resources. It uses the same designs over and over, with only slight variations. It bases all organisms on the same replication code rather than creating something unique for each one, or even for the species most likely to otherwise think it was unique or special in kind rather than degree. It continually re-uses poor design elements like the blind spot in mammalian eyes when it has already solved the problem in cephalapod eyes. Based on the designs, the most logical conclusion about the designer (if there was one)is that it was a commitee with a limited budget, diverse levels of competency, and no cohesive vision.

[Maxtor]

How odd.
There is a complete fossil record of:
1)Whales
2)Horses
3)Elephants
4)Hippos
etc etc etc
Perhaps you need to read actual science and not garbage?

There is not a complete fossil record of the animals that you listed. The existence of similar animals in the past doesnt prove that they are related.
It has not been shown that any of those animals were related to similar fossils.

Strange. You seem completely unfamiliar with the scientific process.
Scientists do not make idiotic claims they can't back up.

Actually they do.

They like to have things like evidence.

Them wanting evidence isnt a substitute for actually having it. This is why evolution is a theory.


Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Since that is not what evolution has ever claimed and that is not what is found in the fossil record are you sure you understand even the basics of evolution?
Perhaps you should read somethings from universities instead of garbage?

I dont understand the need to address me personally. I apologize if I have upset you as this wasnt my intent.
God bless you.

[I Am The Scum]

Random red and blue text? Hmmm... Where have I seen that before?

[KingMerv00]

I dont understand the need to address me personally. I apologize if I have upset you as this wasnt my intent.
God bless you.

Because you made a claim or at least supported one. Around here we talk about claims. (As long as they aren't off topic.)

[Maxtor]

So viruses don't evolve?

Thank you for your response Tubbythin,
First of all you are the only poster that has responded so far without malice and I appreciate it.
Viruses change into other viruses. Yet they are still viruses.

God bless you.

[KingMerv00]

Thank you for your response Tubbythin,
First of all you are the only poster that has responded so far without malice and I appreciate it.

I did not insult you either.

[Dancing David]

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).

But wait, the ToE is so much more.

Why do humans have a chromosome that looks like two chromosomes of the other apes spliced together?
Why do humans have one less set of chromosomes?
Call now and get a second one free fore just shipping and handling...

Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer.

Well this is R&P, so speculation of a creator and designer is acceptable.

Why is the design so poor?

Was the creator dumb?

Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline.

I suppose that antibiotics resistance is just leprechauns and lollipops?

NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.

Um, and Mt. Vesuvius can not be shown to be 30 million years old, it just looks like it is.


Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie.

Oh you mean like resistance to pesticides, no one ever heard of that did they?

Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.

Your ego seems to be obscuring your view, maybe you should actually read up on teh ToE so you can actually critique it rather than some straw version of it.

Evolution occurs when traits dominate in a species due to reproductive success.

No two members are exactly the same, except in clones.


The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line.

Improved!

Sheesh are you in the wrong ball park, the ToE rewards reproductive success, improvement be darned.

If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons.

Nope, nice strawman here is something to help you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=punctuated+equilibria

Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried.

Except for when they aren't, sheesh.

The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.

Goddesses love you too!

[Dancing David]

I dont understand the need to address me personally. I apologize if I have upset you as this wasnt my intent.
God bless you.

Because this is a community, not Yahoo buzz, come on join the crowd, learn to think and defend your ideas. We all pick apart each others ideas and psosts that is what the JREF does.

Learn why you think what you think, learn to explain what you think, learn to support what you think.

[Safe-Keeper]

There is not a complete fossil record of the animals that you listed. The existence of similar animals in the past doesnt prove that they are related.
It has not been shown that any of those animals were related to similar fossils.
Okay, so first you say there are not fossils that are "like giraffes" or "like whales", then you say that okay, so there are, but that doesn't mean anything because we have no way of knowing that they're related. Why did you bring up the lack of fossils if it doesn't matter?

Actually they do.Examples?

Them wanting evidence isnt a substitute for actually having it. This is why evolution is a theory.You mean like atomic theory, the unproven atheist myth that there are building blocks called atoms that can be split in bombs and power plants?

A "theory" in scientific jargon is something that explains the world around us. Something can very well be a theory and a proven fact simultaneously.

[Maxtor]

And we can draw conclusions about the designer, if there was one, for that very reason: If there was a designer, it either was lacking in imagination or resources. It uses the same designs over and over, with only slight variations. It bases all organisms on the same replication code rather than creating something unique for each one, or even for the species most likely to otherwise think it was unique or special in kind rather than degree. It continually re-uses poor design elements like the blind spot in mammalian eyes when it has already solved the problem in cephalapod eyes. Based on the designs, the most logical conclusion about the designer (if there was one)is that it was a commitee with a limited budget, diverse levels of competency, and no cohesive vision.

Thank you for your response,
One cannot challenge Gods use of similar designs or apparent poor use of engineering without first knowing Gods intent for creation. The animals that we have present serve Gods purpose as He sees fit. Gods intent wasnt to demonstrate the bounds of His power through perfection in His creatures as we define it.
I'm not trying to prove God here but to convey that the Bible and God is consistent within itself. Even more is that even if evolution were true it wouldn't carry any more weight than the Grand Canyon obviously being several millions of years old. Either one believes that the Canyon was formed through erosion over millions of years which is readily apparent or one believes that God made it as it is with its outward appearance of agedness. The truth of Christianity isnt predicated on the validity of evolution.
God bless you.

Luke 8
9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
"though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

[Safe-Keeper]

One cannot challenge Gods use of similar designs or apparent poor use of engineering without first knowing Gods intent for creation. The animals that we have present serve Gods purpose as He sees fit. Gods intent wasnt to demonstrate the bounds of His power through perfection in His creatures as we define it.I don't think his intent was to challenge design, but merely to say that similarities in creatures, and a natural progression through the fossil record, sugggests natural evolution more than creation.

The truth of Christianity isnt predicated on the validity of evolution.
God bless you.
I'm glad you realize this. An irritatingly high number of people do not seem to.

[NobbyNobbs]

Maxtor,

A piece of friendly advice to help you avoid putting your foot in your mouth:

Next time, before you say something similar to ''evolution is just a theory'', you should check on how scientists define 'theory'.

Evolution is a theory.
Gravity is a theory.
The shape of the earth is a theory.
Radioactive decay is a theory.
Special relativity is a theory.

99.44% of all scientists would agree with each of those statements.

[Maxtor]

Just going to the the opening page of the the link, I found this gem:

Did you know?: The image on the Shroud of Turin was formed only after the bloodstains were made. This suggests the image is of the subsequent Resurrection. No wonder scientists have converted after studying the Shroud!

For starters, analysis of the pigments shows them to be just that: pigments - not blood. I'd really like know who the scientists were who converted after studying the Shroud. Apparently, whoever they were, they weren't conversant with carbon 14 dating, which shows the cloth of the Shroud to be of medieval manufacture.

I, being a right wing "fundamentalist" Christian cringe every time I hear fellow Christians touting the Shroud as being real. Its hard to imagine that many Biblically literate Christians buy into such a thing that is so contrary to Biblical scripture.

The shroud is a single piece of cloth head to toe that shows a bearded man with a couple of minor wounds.

John 20
6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

Isaiah 50:6
I (Jesus) offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who plucked out my beard;

Isaiah 52:14
Just as there were many who were appalled at him(Jesus being tortured), his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness.

[GeeMack]

I'm just offering a counter to someones claim about evolution. They brought it up, not I. And as for 'derailing' the thread that is pretty much the nature of these forums.


No, not really. It isn't the nature of this forum. In fact it's against the rules (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744) here.

Thank you for your response,
One cannot challenge Gods use of similar designs or apparent poor use of engineering without first knowing Gods intent for creation. The animals that we have present serve Gods purpose as He sees fit. Gods intent wasnt to demonstrate the bounds of His power through perfection in His creatures as we define it.
I'm not trying to prove God here but to convey that the Bible and God is consistent within itself. Even more is that even if evolution were true it wouldn't carry any more weight than the Grand Canyon obviously being several millions of years old. Either one believes that the Canyon was formed through erosion over millions of years which is readily apparent or one believes that God made it as it is with its outward appearance of agedness. The truth of Christianity isnt predicated on the validity of evolution.
God bless you.


So, really, please take this derail to another thread.

Luke 8
9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
"though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'


Preaching is not discussion.

[Maxtor]

Because you made a claim or at least supported one. Around here we talk about claims. (As long as they aren't off topic.)

Address the error of the claim if Im wrong, not me. Ad hominemism isn't necessary to the subject matter.
God bless you.

[carlitos]

(Regarding the Shroud of Turin)

Isaiah is the Old Testament, if memory serves. That couldn't be evidence for what happened to Jesus, because he wasn't born yet. Am I missing something?

ETA - seriously dude, if you want to talk about evolution, just search the Science threads. There is a lot there already.

[Maxtor]

I did not insult you either.

Thank you,
At the time that I read Tubbys post he was the only one that didn't address me personally as a means to discredit(IMHO).

""Thank you for your response Tubbythin,
First of all you are the only poster that has responded so far ""

God bless you.

[Maxtor]

Maxtor,

A piece of friendly advice to help you avoid putting your foot in your mouth:

Next time, before you say something similar to ''evolution is just a theory'', you should check on how scientists define 'theory'.

Evolution is a theory.
Gravity is a theory.
The shape of the earth is a theory.
Radioactive decay is a theory.
Special relativity is a theory.

99.44% of all scientists would agree with each of those statements.

Yes, most scientists agree with those statements. Yet your list is only composed of things readily accepted. Your ability to provide such examples simply suggests that some theories are more accepted than others and that some can be accepted as fact in the absence of absolute scientific proof.
Nonetheless, my statement was simply to point out that evolution wasn't proven out and not to suggest that since something was a theory that it couldn't be true.
God bless you.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Thank you for your response Tubbythin,
First of all you are the only poster that has responded so far without malice and I appreciate it.
Viruses change into other viruses. Yet they are still viruses.

God bless you.

And living entities only evolve into other living entities.

:boggled:

May the IPU (blessed be Her name) bring you wisdom.

:th:

[Ladewig]

Either one believes that the Canyon was formed through erosion over millions of years which is readily apparent or one believes that God made it as it is with its outward appearance of agedness.

I personally don't see the usefulness of God's making the universe appear older, but that's just me and besides, it doesn't bother me at all. The part that does confuse me to the point of being vexed is the claim often made by fundamentalists that the entire world's population of animals narrowed down to just a few specimens per species (or kinds). Why is there no genetic bottle neck in humans or cats or dogs or any of the hundreds of species studied on a genetic level? Not even Christian scientists can find such a genetic bottleneck - surely they know that if they were to document such a finding hundreds of millions of people would start worshipping the God of Abraham.

Why would God feel the need to deceive 21st century scientists by messing the with genetic history of all the animals born in the past 5000 years?

[Maxtor]

(Regarding the Shroud of Turin)

Isaiah is the Old Testament, if memory serves. That couldn't be evidence for what happened to Jesus, because he wasn't born yet. Am I missing something?


Thank you for your interest,
Although the Bible can be divided into two parts, Old and New Testaments they are also in agreement and are predicated on one another.
Jesus Christ is the Creator of the universe per scripture. The OT is full of prophesies from Gods prophets and quotations of Jesus through the prophets in the OT.
Again, Im not trying to prove the Bible true here but to say that it is consistent with itself.

Here is but one scripture that says that Jesus was never made, created or came into being.

John 1
In the beginning was the Word(Jesus), and the Word(Jesus) was with God, and the Word(Jesus) was God. 2He(Jesus) was with God in the beginning.
3Through him(Jesus) all things were made; without him(Jesus) nothing was made that has been made. 4In him(Jesus) was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
10He(Jesus) was in the world, and though the world was made through him(Jesus), the world did not recognize him(Jesus). 11He(Jesus) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him(Jesus), to those who believed in his(Jesus) name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word(Jesus) became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

God bless you.

[carlitos]

I could see you sticking the word "Jesus" here and there into New Testament scriptures, but shoehorning him into the Old Testament bits is a little presumptuous of you. We had another guy that did that, and he had to brutalize the original language to make the translations fit to Jesus.

But, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

[Maxtor]

No, not really. It isn't the nature of this forum. In fact it's against the rules (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744) here.

Your statement is predicated on the assumption that I derailed the thread to an extent that it violated the forum rules.
You seem to be quite zealous for the integrity and steadfastness of these forms. I'm assuming that I could rummage around and see other posters trespasses and 'derailments' and your subsequent admonitions to them to refrain from doing such things, including those whom you agree with.
Or it could be that you simply made a convenient and disingenuous referral to the forum rules because you didn't like me or my agenda? I guess the answer to that question would be born out in your consistency/inconsistency of you sheriffing the threads here.




So, really, please take this derail to another thread.

Ironically, your pursuit of this tangent is a 'derailment' in itself.


Preaching is not discussion.

Preaching would be to tell people of the Gospel and salvation of Jesus Christ through faith.
My citations of scripture to reply to questions and challenges to religious, Christian and doctrinal issues is reasonable and usual in forums labeled such as "Religion and Philosophy".

God bless you.

[ponderingturtle]

Why is the design so poor?

Was the creator dumb?

All of these can be adequately explained by the committee process used.

[Maxtor]

I personally don't see the usefulness of God's making the universe appear older, but that's just me and besides, it doesn't bother me at all.

Thank you for your response,
The Bible doesnt explain any issue or process concerning the reasons or dynamic of agedness. Although, God per scripture makes things seem and appear in ways that hide Him and His course of His creation to those that oppose Him. Artificial agedness of the earth is consistent with that.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.



The part that does confuse me to the point of being vexed is the claim often made by fundamentalists that the entire world's population of animals narrowed down to just a few specimens per species (or kinds). Why is there no genetic bottle neck in humans or cats or dogs or any of the hundreds of species studied on a genetic level? Not even Christian scientists can find such a genetic bottleneck - surely they know that if they were to document such a finding hundreds of millions of people would start worshipping the God of Abraham.

If one entertains the possibility that there is in fact a God its reasonable to also assume that such a God isnt subject to the rudimentary elements and limitations of the very world that He created.
One can assume that God isnt real and any literature relating to him is also not real. But one cant assume that He exists and then put limitations on this same God that can do anything according to His nature and plan.
A better question on your part would have been the Adam and Eve DNA issue.
Its unlikely that if there were a God that could create two people from nothing that he wouldnt have a problem with DNA issues.



Why would God feel the need to deceive 21st century scientists by messing the with genetic history of all the animals born in the past 5000 years?

1 Corinthians 1
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles(non jews),

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Luke 8
9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
"though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

John 1:5
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.



Thank you for your questions and God bless you.:)

[Elizabeth I]

I suppose that antibiotics resistance is just leprechauns and lollipops?

Oh you mean like resistance to pesticides, no one ever heard of that did they?




Max seems to think that evolution could be true only if frogs turned into cats or something like the crocoduck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck) existed:
Viruses change into other viruses. Yet they are still viruses.

[tsig]

I'm just offering a counter to someones claim about evolution. They brought it up, not I. And as for 'derailing' the thread that is pretty much the nature of these forums. I take it that you are a fan of evolution.
Nonetheless Conservapedia does have a varied content influenced by their authors biases. Yet much of it has merit.
In the same way Wikipedia has its own issues with atheists posing as Christians authoring skewed versions of content of their own.
Admittedly, they are a lot slicker than their counterparts over at Conservapedia.
God bless you.

Luke 16:8
And it is true that the children of this world(atheists) are more shrewd in dealing with the world around them than are the children of the light(Christians).

Well it didn't take long for you assert your superiority over atheists.

[Maxtor]

I could see you sticking the word "Jesus" here and there into New Testament scriptures, but shoehorning him into the Old Testament bits is a little presumptuous of you. We had another guy that did that, and he had to brutalize the original language to make the translations fit to Jesus.

But, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

You are correct, The OT doesn't give the name of its prophesied Saviour.
One must also consider that if the OT prophesies a Saviour and that Saviour is Jesus and I believe in that Jesus and you do not because of perceived errors in scripture, the scriptures then fulfilled its duty in revealing the Christ to me and hiding Him from you. The Bible isnt made to prove itself out to those that oppose it but to convey the Word of God to His children.
God bless you.

Not wanting to argue. But just offering the Biblical perspective and answer.
I dont believe in Star Trek but its reasonable that I offer corrections to those that might say that Captain Kirk and Darth Vader were sisters.;)

[Maxtor]

Wow, I put this link up as a joke so that we could all laugh at it.

Maxtor, you have now become the joke in the thread, did god put dinosaur fossils on earth to test our faith? Haha

Actually, I was joke to this thread when I believed in Jesus Christ. I believe that God didn't use the presence of Dinosaur bones to test my faith as much as to let you believe what you wanted to believe.
I can believe in things unseen and things contrary to what my eyes and ears tell me. You cant apparently. Which is Gods desire.
God bless you.

[Maxtor]

Max seems to think that evolution could be true only if frogs turned into cats or something like the crocoduck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck) existed:

Unless a Giraffe started as a molecular micro giraffe then that would be just the case. Evolution is predicated on something eventually turning into something completely different eventually.
God bless you.

[Maxtor]

Originally Posted by Maxtor View Post
I'm just offering a counter to someones claim about evolution. They brought it up, not I. And as for 'derailing' the thread that is pretty much the nature of these forums. I take it that you are a fan of evolution.
Nonetheless Conservapedia does have a varied content influenced by their authors biases. Yet much of it has merit.
In the same way Wikipedia has its own issues with atheists posing as Christians authoring skewed versions of content of their own.
Admittedly, they are a lot slicker than their counterparts over at Conservapedia.
God bless you.

Luke 16:8
And it is true that the children of this world(atheists) are more shrewd in dealing with the world around them than are the children of the light(Christians).


Well it didn't take long for you assert your superiority over atheists.

I dont understand your response. Its self evident that I said and cited scripture that says that atheists are more shrewd/wise in dealing with this world than Christians!

God bless you.

[carlitos]

Actually, I was joke to this thread when I believed in Jesus Christ.
Wrong. Lots of people believe in Jesus Christ, and they certainly aren't jokes. Personally, I find your inserting words into scripture because you know what they mean a bit off-putting. The words are right there.

But, you wouldn't be the first Christian to post here that has some kind of persecution complex. I hope that's not it, and that you stick around; this place needs all the spiritual diversity it can get. Check out the quote / multiquote feature when you have a chance. You'll find that is better received than the blue / alternating font thing. :)

[Maxtor]

Well people, I'm disappointed with my experience here. I assumed that I would be having a constructive exchange of ideas and opinion. And Ive found much of nothing but mean spirited barbs at me personally.
Of course the mantra of these boards is going to be, "we run em off and blew him away".
Think what you will. One thing is for sure, I can talk the way I talk here to my friends, my God and even my mother and in any company in any context. Yet the abrasiveness consistently displayed here is turned on and off like a switch for many in this forum.
God bless you all.

2 Timothy 3
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power.

[Safe-Keeper]

2 Timothy 3
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power.
Because no one like this has ever existed before, ever.

[Maxtor]

Well it didn't take long for you assert your superiority over atheists.

Wrong. Lots of people believe in Jesus Christ, and they certainly aren't jokes. Personally, I find your inserting words into scripture because you know what they mean a bit off-putting. The words are right there.

Which words did you disagree with?



But, you wouldn't be the first Christian to post here that has some kind of persecution complex.

Im not sure where you get this from. I suppose the nature of the written word here in these forums conveys the worst context most times.

I hope that's not it, and that you stick around; this place needs all the spiritual diversity it can get.

We certainly agree on that. This place is pretty much loaded with disengenuous atheists looking to poke the Christian in the cage with sticks.
Right, wrong or stupid I dont deserve the sophomoric ridicule and barbs because someone disagrees with me. Being right or thinking one is right apparently has nothing to do with character.
Here is a quote from the book that is so hated here.

1 Cor 13
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.

Check out the quote / multiquote feature when you have a chance. You'll find that is better received than the blue / alternating font thing. :)

Its a bit late for me making adjustments to my posting style as Im leaving. I will simply keep posting in a multitude of places where people want an answer or have civil discussion.
God bless you friend and have a great weekend.;)

[Normal Dude]

Of course the mantra of these boards is going to be, "we run em off and blew him away".

I'm sure that would please you, but more likely you will forgotten within two days and join the countless mass of goddidits that came here expecting to vacuously preach to people and instead retreated after they realized no one around would swallow.

Good riddance.

[Safe-Keeper]

We certainly agree on that. This place is pretty much loaded with disengenuous atheists looking to poke the Christian in the cage with sticks.
Right, wrong or stupid I dont deserve the sophomoric ridicule and barbs because someone disagrees with me. Being right or thinking one is right apparently has nothing to do with character.
Bullocks. There are many Christian posters here and most of them are respected posters held in high esteem by their peers. There's likewise lots of people who disagree with each others without getting "sophomoric".

All manners of posters are welcome here. It is when people show up just to preach that we get "sophomoric".

Here is a quote from the book that is so hated here. That's your problem -- you're discussing a scientific theory (in a thread not about that scientific theory) with what you perceive to be an "audience" of atheists, and you start quoting... the Bible. Doesn't it occur to you that this might not be a very relevant work to start citing? I don't discuss video game development by quoting Hamlet. I don't use quotes from Stephen King's books to prove that the Earth is round. Save the Bible quotes for discussions on the Bible.

[Olowkow]

We have had a lot of fundamentalists here, some are pretty bright, some get carried away and get banned. The JREF is not a place for the thin skinned.:D

I loved the phrase,
Unless a Giraffe started as a molecular micro giraffe

As far as running people off, nope that is just not what JREF is about. It is true that the swingdicks who come here all full of themselves have a hard time, like ol' Lenny, but the religious types who just settle down and don't pick fights can actually fit in pretty well. Obviously all of us have theist friends.

I think Maxtor should have lurked a little more. It sounds like he had a case of culture shock when exposed to a different group of people other than his mom and his church friends. I really didn't think anyone was particularly rude. My sense was that Maxtor was really over sensitive to any disagreement and was trying to subtly disrespect the posters. The repetitive "god bless you" is a bit over the top. Gag unto me with thy spoon.

[KingMerv00]

Address the error of the claim if Im wrong, not me. Ad hominemism isn't necessary to the subject matter.
God bless you.

What ad hominem?

If this were in the science forum, I'd gladly chat with you.

[Foster Zygote]

At the time that I read Tubbys post he was the only one that didn't address me personally as a means to discredit(IMHO).

Discrediting one's argument is not an ad hominem attack.

[Floyt]

Unless a Giraffe started as a molecular micro giraffe then that would be just the case. Evolution is predicated on something eventually turning into something completely different eventually.
God bless you.

You are so pwned.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10624c4a516c52e66.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20505)

The well-known Cellular Micro-Giraffe (thought to have descended from the molecular one by way of island gigantism).

No no, God bless you!

[Hawk one]

Do you find it easy living without ever having to form a thought of your own?

That one was rather unnecessary, methinks.

[Safe-Keeper]

That one was rather unnecessary, methinks.
Agreed.

[Ferguson]

I can believe in things unseen and things contrary to what my eyes and ears tell me. You cant apparently. Which is Gods desire.
God bless you.

Translation:
I can believe whatever makes me feel good, because I am not interested in the truth, only in what is comfortable.

[autumn1971]

Unless a Giraffe started as a molecular micro giraffe then that would be just the case. Evolution is predicated on something eventually turning into something completely different eventually.
God bless you.
Like, for instance, something starting out as just a big round cell with a tiny cell with a tail inside of it, and then becoming a big ball of cells?

What if a ball of cells could turn into a little fish-looking thing, complete with gill-slits?

What if the fish-thing turned into a bi-pedal, largely hairless ape?


Nah. . . never happens. At least for values of "eventually" less than nine months or so.

[tourmaline]

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.
It all boils down to transitional fossils(missing links).
Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.
Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. there are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.
The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.
God bless you.

Hmm.. a troll?

If only evolution depended on the fossil record alone...

There are several things related to biology and geology that would inevitably lead to an incomplete fossil record (not that I am an acknowledging this is true for every lineage).

1) There are problems with preservation. Even if the conditions were right for a fossil to form, destruction via erosion and plate tectonics is significant.

2) Your argument assumes we have analyzed every rock on earth for fossils. There are mind blowing volumes of rock that are buried beyond hope of excavation.

3) Evolution isn't necessarily a smooth gradual progression. There is at least some component of punctuated equilibrium where a species is isolated geographical and evolves on its own. Then something happens either geological, environmentally, or biological that allows that new species to become wide spread and replace the older species. In the fossil record this would appear to be a sudden change in morphology. The evolving ground for the later species could have been destroyed or is undiscovered. So all that is shown is a sharp transition.

4) I am no biologist, but I think you do not appreciate the effects that a single gene can have on morphology. A sharp transition could also be explained by a single mutation that changes the appearance of the critter relativity drastically.

But evolution does not depend on the fossil record alone.

Curious, you suggest that God is responsible for fossils' sudden change. Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible?

[tourmaline]

This is why evolution is a theory.

Laymen usage of theory is known as a hypothesis in science. You do not understand.

[HansMustermann]

You know, while I'm sorta ok with people being religious, concluding all posts with some kind or another of declaration of faith is starting to rub me the wrong way. The "but I'll still believe no matter what you say" way, which really isn't conducive to any kind of debate, nor particularly scientific.

"God bless you" is really doing nothing whatsoever for anyone who doesn't already believe pretty strongly or appreciate bull-headed belief in magic. Because at least one of the two would have to actually believe that such a ritual formula would actually have an effect, i.e., belief in magic, or it becomes just an empty BS phrase. Most of us don't believe in that kind of silly stuff, and I mean from what I gather even most Catholics and even most protestants, not just the atheists, nor take a "but I believe in magic" proclamation to be a positive trait. So... why?

I'm thinking I'll start answering it with "Santa bring you gifts" or, if I'm feeling particularly generous, "Aphrodite give you a handjob" ;)

And for that matter, I think the next time I hear an "I'll pray for you" in any other situation than, say, being in hospital and someone actually trying to help with that silly gesture, I'll answer it with "I'll masturbate for you." I mean, as long as we're at doing each other imaginary favours, that the other didn't ask for, and only make the one saying it feel good...

[zooterkin]

Thank you for your questions and God bless you.:)

If you do decide to stay, then please learn to use the quote function. You appear to be quoting Ladewig when you've interpolated your own replies in with his text.

[noreligion]

Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.
Seems creotards are still going on that 50 year old information because they are either to dishonest to check it themselves or they have single digit IQs. I'm not sure which is the cause. The usual spelling errors lead me to believe it's the latter.

[noreligion]

And we can draw conclusions about the designer, if there was one, for that very reason: If there was a designer, it either was lacking in imagination or resources.
Judging by the many anatomical quirks of the human body, if there was a designer he was incompetent.

[noreligion]

Either one believes that the Canyon was formed through erosion over millions of years which is readily apparent or one believes that God made it as it is with its outward appearance of agedness. '

So you worship a deceiver?

[noreligion]

99.44% of all scientists would agree with each of those statements.

And they each use Ivory soap :D

[noreligion]

Nonetheless, my statement was simply to point out that evolution wasn't proven out and not to suggest that since something was a theory that it couldn't be true.

Evolution is true but only if one is not a creotard. Apparently some of them are still in the prokaryotic stage and some haven't passed through abiogenesis.

[noreligion]

Max seems to think that evolution could be true only if frogs turned into cats or something like the crocoduck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck) existed:

You mean we have an honest to goodness Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort brand fundagelical in our midst?

[Dancing David]

Yes, most scientists agree with those statements. Yet your list is only composed of things readily accepted. Your ability to provide such examples simply suggests that some theories are more accepted than others and that some can be accepted as fact in the absence of absolute scientific proof.
Nonetheless, my statement was simply to point out that evolution wasn't proven out and not to suggest that since something was a theory that it couldn't be true.
God bless you.

Theories are never proven they can be disproven and they can be shown to match the existing data and make accurate predictions. Proof is only in math and geometry.

There is evidence of evolution, pesticide resistance, antibiotic resistance and in humans, there is this chromosome that really looks like it is two other ape chromosome stuck together and humans have one less chromosome set than the other apes.

We also see traits that lead to reproductive success but are 'bad design'. All these are evidence that supports the ToE through reproductive success.

May the high ones of old bless you!

[Dancing David]

All of these can be adequately explained by the committee process used.

And commitees that sub contract!

[Dancing David]

Unless a Giraffe started as a molecular micro giraffe then that would be just the case. Evolution is predicated on something eventually turning into something completely different eventually.
God bless you.

Not really, the biology can only make so many changes at a time, so it takes successive changes.

And most of then are not completely different, fungi, plants and animals make only 10% of biological diversity.


Blessed be.

[Dancing David]

Well people, I'm disappointed with my experience here. I assumed that I would be having a constructive exchange of ideas and opinion. And Ive found much of nothing but mean spirited barbs at me personally.

What?
I used humor but never was rude to you,

Hmpph!

Of course the mantra of these boards is going to be, "we run em off and blew him away".

I specifically asked you to stay a while and told your why.


Think what you will. One thing is for sure, I can talk the way I talk here to my friends, my God and even my mother and in any company in any context. Yet the abrasiveness consistently displayed here is turned on and off like a switch for many in this forum.

Nor was I abrasive. You have to screen posts and look for the ones about your topic. :)


God bless you all.

2 Timothy 3
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power.

"And there is no blood therein for behold I am mother of all things and my love is poured out upon the earth."

[Hokulele Mom]

Evolution is often equated with Darwinism in anti-evolution discussions. Why is that?

When we discuss evolution in science class, we use the term "the modern synthetic theory of evolution". The most compelling evidence for the theory of evolution comes from the genetics. Although Darwin had no idea how various traits came about in a population for the natural selection to work on nor how particular trait got passed on from generation to generation to spread within a population, the strength of the theory of evolution comes from its ability to make a testable prediction.

The common ancestry of all living organism is amply verified in genetics.

I hope the Creationists address these new findings instead of sticking with the old ideas of missing links. Despite a large collection of well-documented cases, there will always be a missing link. As we discover the transitional form between species A and B, the Creasitionists ask where are the transitional forms between A and AB and AB and B. The gaps increase with increasing finding of the transitional forms. As far as the scientists are concerned, it's not the missing link, but we marvel how clear the record of the evolution is in the fossils.

Max, what are your thoughts on the genetic evidence of the evolution?

Hokulele Mom

[joobz]

Evolution is often equated with Darwinism in anti-evolution discussions. Why is that?
I think you allude to the reason in your post. It represents a strawman argument meant to sound intelligent and convincing, but is ~200 years out of date.

Creationism, and by extension intelligent design, will always be arguing in the past. Practitioners of the "theory" tend to be rather reticent when it comes to collecting new, original data. One must wonder how legitimate a theory is when believers only focus on tearing down a competing theory, while simultaneously failing to present evidence in support of their's.

[noreligion]

I think you allude to the reason in your post. It represents a strawman argument meant to sound intelligent and convincing, but is ~200 years out of date.

Creationism, and by extension intelligent design, will always be arguing in the past. Practitioners of the "theory" tend to be rather reticent when it comes to collecting new, original data. One must wonder how legitimate a theory is when believers only focus on tearing down a competing theory, while simultaneously failing to present evidence in support of their's.

Besides 'goddidit' what is the theory of creationism and what is the theory of intelligent design? I think it was Duane Gish that said the biggest criticism against ID is that it has no theory.

[carlitos]

But, you wouldn't be the first Christian to post here that has some kind of persecution complex.
Im not sure where you get this from. I suppose the nature of the written word here in these forums conveys the worst context most times.

...

Its a bit late for me making adjustments to my posting style as Im leaving. I will simply keep posting in a multitude of places where people want an answer or have civil discussion.
God bless you friend and have a great weekend.;)

;) Yes, where did I get the idea you had a persecution complex. Indeed.
The repetitive "god bless you" is a bit over the top.
The freaky thing was, I sneezed right before I read that every single time. Weird.

[Complexity]

I looked the evolution page and didnt see much that I disagreed with.


Of course not. You're a fundie. That pedia was written by people like you for people like you.

They are wrong, of course, and wilfully ignorant about science and nearly everything else. They tend not to be very honest, I'm afraid, for they place trying to 'support' their delusions ahead of the pursuit of truth.

Very screwed up values.

[noreligion]

The Christian fundamentalist version of the LDS's magic underwear...the CREOTARD :D

[Cainkane1]

I dont understand the need to address me personally. I apologize if I have upset you as this wasnt my intent.
God bless you.
He's upset that you don't know what you are talking about. Quit reading Kent Hovind and read science by scientists. They can back up everything they say with solid evidence.

[noreligion]

He's upset that you don't know what you are talking about. Quit reading Kent Hovind and read science by scientists. They can back up everything they say with solid evidence.

The scary part is Kent "Bubba's girlfriend" Hovind allegedly taught science to children for 15 years. Pity they locked him up for tax evasion instead. Quite ironically his well known complaint against evolution was that his tax dollars were going to support our religion of evolution.

[Sideroxylon]

The Christian fundamentalist version of the LDS's magic underwear...the CREOTARD :D

I don't reckon creotard is an expression that we should be using in these kinds of discussions. Not really civil, is it.

[I Ratant]

Unless a Giraffe started as a molecular micro giraffe then that would be just the case. Evolution is predicated on something eventually turning into something completely different eventually.
God bless you.
.
From the true source of all knowledge... No, not me, Wiki..
Education and release from the swamp of religious ignorance is usually only a Google away..
"The giraffe is one of only two living species of the family Giraffidae, along with the okapi. The family was once much more extensive, with numerous other species. The giraffids evolved from a 3 metres (9.8 ft) tall antelope-like mammal that roamed Europe and Asia some 30–50 million years ago.[6]

The earliest known giraffid was Climacoceras, which still resembled deer, having large antler-like ossicones. It first appeared in the early Miocene epoch. Later examples include the genera Palaeotragus and Samotherium, which appeared in the early to mid-Miocene. They were both tall at the shoulder, and had developed the simple, unbranched ossicones of modern giraffids, but still had relatively short necks.[7]
Comparison of the African Miocene giraffids: Palaeotragus (two top) and Climacoceras (two bottom)

From the late Pliocene onwards, the variety of giraffids drastically declined, until only the two surviving species remained. The modern genus Giraffa evolved during the Pliocene epoch, and included a number of other long-necked species, such as Giraffa jumae, that do not survive today.[7] Alan Turner proposes, in the 2004 book Evolving Eden, that giraffe ancestors initially had a dark coat with pale spots, and that the spots gradually became star-shaped, before eventually forming the reticulated pattern found today.[8] The modern species, Giraffa camelopardalis, appeared during the Pleistocene 1 million years ago."
.
The sad part is those millions of years, innit?
Spreading out the actual development of the uniqueness of the giraffe, when 6,000 years could do it. NOT!

[uke2se]

I have a feeling Maxtor just made his grade in the "trolling atheist internet forums" class of Creotard U. They still run those, right?

[I Ratant]

You know, while I'm sorta ok with people being religious, concluding all posts with some kind or another of declaration of faith is starting to rub me the wrong way. The "but I'll still believe no matter what you say" way, which really isn't conducive to any kind of debate, nor particularly scientific.

"God bless you" is really doing nothing whatsoever for anyone who doesn't already believe pretty strongly or appreciate bull-headed belief in magic. Because at least one of the two would have to actually believe that such a ritual formula would actually have an effect, i.e., belief in magic, or it becomes just an empty BS phrase. Most of us don't believe in that kind of silly stuff, and I mean from what I gather even most Catholics and even most protestants, not just the atheists, nor take a "but I believe in magic" proclamation to be a positive trait. So... why?

I'm thinking I'll start answering it with "Santa bring you gifts" or, if I'm feeling particularly generous, "Aphrodite give you a handjob" ;)

And for that matter, I think the next time I hear an "I'll pray for you" in any other situation than, say, being in hospital and someone actually trying to help with that silly gesture, I'll answer it with "I'll masturbate for you." I mean, as long as we're at doing each other imaginary favours, that the other didn't ask for, and only make the one saying it feel good...
.
I got a call from Rachel at Card Holder Services couple days ago. Knowing through long experience that pressing "2" won't remove my phone number from their "Do not call" list, because they keep calling anyway, I pressed "9" and spoke to a live person. She welcomed me, and I asked her if she was naked.
"Excccccccccccussse me", she said. Then I asked about the size of her tits, and would she blow me. Hung up.
In the past.. it's a year or so since they've called, I'd played my emergency alarm screecher, but this way is more fun.

[I Ratant]

And they each use Ivory soap :D
.
I use Dial, and wish everyone would.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer.
There is a common designer: nature. It doesn't have any plan or goal, but that doesn't matter.

~~ Paul

[I Ratant]

The common designer takes what it has to work with, and adds bells and whistles randomly. Some work, some don't.
In the absence of mammalian predators, marsupial animals evolve to resemble the mammalian forms.
The basic kinda workable body form that most animals use evolved a long time ago, with a few mods here and there, served the dinosaurs and humans and antelopes and amphibians.
Ma Nature uses what it has to work with, and doesn't magic anything into existence. There's predecessors for everything.

[Complexity]

I don't reckon creotard is an expression that we should be using in these kinds of discussions. Not really civil, is it.


It may be the nicest term that can be used that is still accurate.

[NobbyNobbs]

Maxtor,

That is my point. Evolution *is* proven, to the same extent that gravity is proven. Sure, there are gaps in the fossil records, disagreements about the mechanisms just as there are disagreements about the details of gravity happens. But the theories are sound and there is no doubt that both gravity and evolution actually occur.

Suppose you had an album and the only pictures it had were of you on each of your birthdas. Someone looking at that might correctly theorize that the baby at the beginning of the album had grown into the person standing before them today, citing the photos as evidence. Now, does the lack of a picture of you at age 6 1/2 invalidate the theory?

[KingMerv00]

It may be the nicest term that can be used that is still accurate.

You are just trying to rationalize insults.

[Complexity]

You are just trying to rationalize insults.


I'm urging people to let the moderators do their job.

Many people object to the word 'woo'. Should I stop using it because they object? Of course not - it is a pithy word that conveys what I want to convey. It is not against the forum rules to use it.

I have seen 'creotard' used without penalty. It isn't my favorite word - I've never used it (to the best of my recollection) - but unless the moderators wish to forbid its use, it should be used as desired. I worked with some mentally ill and mentally challenged people when I was in college years ago, and I don't have a fondness for the word 'retard', so 'creotard' strikes me as unfortunate.

If I have a problem with someone using 'retard' in a post, I'd say so plainly, perhaps explaining why. I wouldn't get into a discussion of whether its use is 'civil', or conducive to a productive discussion, or whatever.

If I had a real problem with perceived incivility, I'd flag the post.

I'm fairly plain spoken, without apology, and don't need to rationalize insults.

[Sideroxylon]

I'm urging people to let the moderators do their job.

Many people object to the word 'woo'. Should I stop using it because they object? Of course not - it is a pithy word that conveys what I want to convey. It is not against the forum rules to use it.

I have seen 'creotard' used without penalty. It isn't my favorite word - I've never used it (to the best of my recollection) - but unless the moderators wish to forbid its use, it should be used as desired. I worked with some mentally ill and mentally challenged people when I was in college years ago, and I don't have a fondness for the word 'retard', so 'creotard' strikes me as unfortunate.

If I have a problem with someone using 'retard' in a post, I'd say so plainly, perhaps explaining why. I wouldn't get into a discussion of whether its use is 'civil', or conducive to a productive discussion, or whatever.

If I had a real problem with perceived incivility, I'd flag the post.

I'm fairly plain spoken, without apology, and don't need to rationalize insults.

Yeah, "woo" may be pithy but as you seem to have acknowledged "retard" or other such name calling ain't. I am not calling for moderation, just expressing my feelings on this. It seems like unnecessary playground stuff when we have well supported arguments at our disposal.

[Wowbagger]

Dang, some of you JREFers really know how to handle people. :rolleyes:

Maxtor,
Might I suggest you read through a brief, Internet-based presentation, called "Evolution 101"?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Doing so might help you understand what the science of Evolution is all about, and will cut down on the frustration you are feeling with this crowd.

-Mitch

NOTE: I am also going to PM Maxtor with this suggestion, since he might have left the thread permanently, (thanks to some of you knuckleheads).
(ETA: Or, I would have, if his PM box wasn't full.)

[Ferguson]

Oh Creotard, I get it now. I thought it was a kind of Creole mustard.

[I Ratant]

It may be the nicest term that can be used that is still accurate.
.
It was tossed at me by one of the less observant but noisy members of the community here.

[Safe-Keeper]

Translation:
I can believe whatever makes me feel good, because I am not interested in the truth, only in what is comfortable.His prerogative.

I don't reckon creotard is an expression that we should be using in these kinds of discussions. Not really civil, is it. Agreed. Maybe if noreligion showed up at a Christian forum and was called an evotard he'd be completely fine with it, but I find the insult to be... insulting.

[noreligion]

. Maybe if noreligion showed up at a Christian forum and was called an evotard he'd be completely fine with it, but I find the insult to be... insulting.

If I was stupid enough to want to post in a Christian forum I would deserve it. If they want to shovel their fantasy here they will be called creotards as a group. I suggest you get back to the topic as it isn't me.

[Safe-Keeper]

So this board is for people with certain viewpoints and if people come here with viewpoints you dislike, they deserve to be insulted. Gotcha.

I suggest you get back to the topic as it isn't me. I believe the topic died half a hundred posts ago when the original poster left.

[Travis]

Wow, a criticism of evolution that apparently had nothing to do with actual evolution. Never seen that before!

Keep those grappling hooks handy for when the "theory" of gravitation is suddenly exposed for the heathen lie that it is and we all start floating into the sky!

[aggle-rithm]

Not wanting to argue. But just offering the Biblical perspective and answer.
I dont believe in Star Trek but its reasonable that I offer corrections to those that might say that Captain Kirk and Darth Vader were sisters.;)

Yet if you said that everything in Star Trek is scientifically accurate, that statement could be evaluated on its own. All I would have to do to prove you wrong is point to the scene in "Generations" where a star was extinguished and the light from that event reached a planet millions of miles away instantly.

Likewise, if you say the Bible is internally consistent, I would only have to point out that we know the nativity stories in Luke and Matthew are inconsistent with each other, because we have a universal frame of reference. King Herod died before a total eclipse in 4 AD, while Quirinius became governor of Syria some years after that eclipse. Both stories cannot be true, therefore the Bible cannot be internally consistent.

ETA: Never mind. I see he's gone now.

[aggle-rithm]

Unless a Giraffe started as a molecular micro giraffe then that would be just the case. Evolution is predicated on something eventually turning into something completely different eventually.


Redundant statement is redundant.

Speaking of giraffes, I recently saw a giraffe necropsy on TV. It was pointed out that one of the animal's nerves leaves the brain, goes down through the neck to the chest cavity, then comes back up and terminates a couple of inches from where it started. Brilliantly explained by evolution, conveniently ignored by creationism.

[aggle-rithm]

Wow, a criticism of evolution that apparently had nothing to do with actual evolution. Never seen that before!

Keep those grappling hooks handy for when the "theory" of gravitation is suddenly exposed for the heathen lie that it is and we all start floating into the sky!

There has been at least one fundie here who tried to deny the theory of gravity as well, saying it's actually something completely different from what we think it is.

However, since it still has the same properties and we can still make the same predictions about it...I'm not sure I see the difference.

I guess his point was that science is unreliable and we can't count on theories to tell us anything.

[AvalonXQ]

Like, for instance, something starting out as just a big round cell with a tiny cell with a tail inside of it, and then becoming a big ball of cells?

What if a ball of cells could turn into a little fish-looking thing, complete with gill-slits?

What if the fish-thing turned into a bi-pedal, largely hairless ape?

Nobody's going to comment on this?

[Cainkane1]

Thank you for your response Tubbythin,
First of all you are the only poster that has responded so far without malice and I appreciate it.
Viruses change into other viruses. Yet they are still viruses.

God bless you.
We aren't insulting you. The people responding to your post are trying to correct your errors and misconceptions about evolution. Please do not bless me as i am an atheist. If you want to say something nice to me stick with good luck or thank you or whatever.

Incidentally good luck on your research.

[Cainkane1]

Hopefully you are joking. Evolution is a slow process that over time helps an organism survive in its environment. To my limited knowledge of evolution the evolution of vertebrates went thusly. Notocords evolved into fish. Along came fish who could survive outside of the water. Then came salamander like creatures who eventually through the process of natural selection became reptiles. Then dinosaurs and eventually mammals.

Various creatures survived various extinctions and one day primates came along one of which evolved into a human being. If you could see the creature humans share a common ancestor with your first thoughts would be ape or gorilla or chimp. Intelligence provides great survival advantages.

[Mister Earl]

Maxtor's gone. I don't think a technical discussion on evolution was ever his or her objective. It looks to me as if someone merely intended to drop a god-bomb and then continue on their way.

[bokonon]

Nobody's going to comment on this?
Well, I wasn't, but it seems like a good point to me. Would you like to comment on it?

[AvalonXQ]

Well, I wasn't, but it seems like a good point to me. Would you like to comment on it?

Embryonic recapitulation is, as I understand it, completely discredited. Humans don't grow gills or exhibit other vestigial organs that they later discard in utero. I'd expect folks interested in expressing accurate information about this topic to refute such classic misinformation, but since the misinformation supports rather than refutes evolution, nobody sees the need to address it.

[dasmiller]

Embryonic recapitulation is, as I understand it, completely discredited. Humans don't grow gills or exhibit other vestigial organs that they later discard in utero. I'd expect folks interested in expressing accurate information about this topic to refute such classic misinformation, but since the misinformation supports rather than refutes evolution, nobody sees the need to address it.

The original quote didn't claim embryonic recapitulation, though some of the terminology was similar. It mentioned gill slits (which do occur on human fetuses), a tail (which also occurs on human fetuses), and it implied that the embryo was, at some point, a "fish-looking thing," which is subjective but is not an unreasonable assertion.

What's the misinformation?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Embryonic recapitulation is, as I understand it, completely discredited. Humans don't grow gills or exhibit other vestigial organs that they later discard in utero. I'd expect folks interested in expressing accurate information about this topic to refute such classic misinformation, but since the misinformation supports rather than refutes evolution, nobody sees the need to address it.

OK. I'll comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory#Modern_observations

:th:

[Complexity]

Well, I wasn't, but it seems like a good point to me. Would you like to comment on it?


No. Not sure what you are referring to, and I see no reason to find out.

[bokonon]

Embryonic recapitulation is, as I understand it, completely discredited. Humans don't grow gills or exhibit other vestigial organs that they later discard in utero. I'd expect folks interested in expressing accurate information about this topic to refute such classic misinformation, but since the misinformation supports rather than refutes evolution, nobody sees the need to address it.
Ah, I see. I wasn't interpreting the post for which you were requesting comments as "embryonic recapitulation" in the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" sense. Max had expressed incredulity that one thing could turn into another thing, and I saw this as a statement that a single cell could "turn into" many things on its way to becoming a baby.

Caterpillars turn into butterflies. Tadpoles turn into frogs. One cell turns into a ball of cells, which turns into a thing with a tail and gill slits, which turns into a thing with arms and legs. Life is capable of incredible transformations.

Yes, it's true that we don't climb each branch of the tree of life in the womb, passing from single cell to the common ancestor we shared with sponges, to the common ancestor we shared with worms, to the common ancestor we shared with fish, etc. Still, the fact that our embryological development does include gill slits (not gills) and a tail suggests echoes of the evolutionary development that has led to where we are today.
No. Not sure what you are referring to, and I see no reason to find out.
Since the three posts preceding yours had no trouble following along, I guess that's your problem, and I see no reason to explain it further. Next time you have nothing to say, feel free to refrain from saying it.

[noreligion]

, and I saw this as a statement that a single cell could "turn into" many things on its way to becoming a baby.

Before a cell differentiates it can in a limited sense turn into many things.

[bokonon]

The single cell we're discussing here -- the zygote -- turns into 200 different cell types -- liver cells, heart cells, brain cells, stomach cells, skin cells, etc. as it divides and becomes a new organism.

[noreligion]

The single cell we're discussing here -- the zygote -- turns into 200 different cell types -- liver cells, heart cells, brain cells, stomach cells, skin cells, etc. as it divides and becomes a new organism.

Read about embryology and stem cells before you make yourself look foolish. A zygote is not and never was a single cell. A blastocyst which is where the zygote comes from is a collection of between 50 and 150 cells so how did it become a single celled zygote?

[bokonon]

Read about embryology and stem cells before you make yourself look foolish. A zygote is not and never was a single cell. A blastocyst which is where the zygote comes from is a collection of between 50 and 150 cells so how did it become a single celled zygote?
You're obviously confused, and could perhaps profit by following your own advice.

[Hokulele]

Wow, this discussion just got ... weird.

I thought the original introduction of embryonic development as an analogy for evolutionary development was apt, not a technical explanation. Now people are disagreeing about, what, exactly?

[noreligion]

You're obviously confused, and could perhaps profit by following your own advice.
Edited for rule 12. Edit: Show me how a zygote is a single cell or be a man and admit you are wrong.

[bokonon]

Removed quoted moderated content

Edit: Show me how a zygote is a single cell or be a man and admit you are wrong.
QED

[noreligion]

Wow, this discussion just got ... weird.

I thought the original introduction of embryonic development as an analogy for evolutionary development was apt, not a technical explanation. Now people are disagreeing about, what, exactly?

Some moron is now claiming a zygote is a single cell. i would like him to show how that is possible. He not to surprisingly refuses because he is well aware he is wrong but prefers to keep an appearance of intellectual superiority. Little does he know his sham is obvious for all to see.

[bokonon]

Wow, this discussion just got ... weird.

I thought the original introduction of embryonic development as an analogy for evolutionary development was apt, not a technical explanation. Now people are disagreeing about, what, exactly?
Nothing to worry about. Noreligion has decided to make me his pet project, and he's so anxious to catch me in SOME error (any error) that he hasn't the time to check his facts before he posts. It's ready, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, click, click, click, "Well do you, PUNK?" aim...

[RecoveringYuppy]

Bokonon and noreligion have some act going on here? This isn't a real disagreement is it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zygote

[bokonon]

Some moron is now claiming a zygote is a single cell. i would like him to show how that is possible. He not to surprisingly refuses because he is well aware he is wrong but prefers to keep an appearance of intellectual superiority. Little does he know his sham is obvious for all to see.
I'm going to be so sad when this all slides into AAH.

[bokonon]

Bokonon and noreligion have some act going on here? This isn't a real disagreement is it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zygote
Don't click on it, noreligion. Just keep embarrassing me...

[Hokulele]

Some moron is now claiming a zygote is a single cell. i would like him to show how that is possible. He not to surprisingly refuses because he is well aware he is wrong but prefers to keep an appearance of intellectual superiority. Little does he know his sham is obvious for all to see.


Moron? As I understand biology, a zygote is simply a fertilized egg, hence a single cell, as the sperm has been absorbed. There are several days before any cell division occurs, and the blastocyst comes much later in the process.

As I mentioned in my post you quoted, embryology was brought up as an analogy to show how the "I can't understand how people came from fish" statement is flawed, as well as an argument from ignorance. But hey, my college biology classes were far in the past, so maybe the term "zygote" has been redefined since then and I am wrong.

[bokonon]

a zygote is simply a fertilized egg, hence a single cell
Spoilsport.

[noreligion]

Moron? As I understand biology, a zygote is simply a fertilized egg, hence a single cell, as the sperm has been absorbed. There are several days before any cell division occurs, and the blastocyst comes much later in the process.

As I mentioned in my post you quoted, embryology was brought up as an analogy to show how the "I can't understand how people came from fish" statement is flawed, as well as an argument from ignorance. But hey, my college biology classes were far in the past, so maybe the term "zygote" has been redefined since then and I am wrong.
You misunderstand biology then. I am not aware of any embryology textbooks online so wikipedia will have to suffice until you can find a real text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

Edit: My mistake was mentioning blastocyst as that is what a zygote becomes on day 5 but nonetheless a zygote is not a single cell.

[Hokulele]

You misunderstand biology then. I am not aware of any embryology textbooks online so wikipedia will have to suffice until you can find a real text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

Edit: My mistake was mentioning blastocyst as that is what a zygote becomes on day 5 but nonetheless a zygote is not a single cell.


Um, how does this article support your position?

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by means of sexual reproduction. A zygote is synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells — an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male — which combine to form the single diploid cell.


My emphasis.

[bokonon]

You misunderstand biology then. I am not aware of any embryology textbooks online so wikipedia will have to suffice until you can find a real text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

Edit: My mistake was mentioning blastocyst as that is what a zygote becomes on day 5 but nonetheless a zygote is not a single cell.
Yes, it is.

From your own link:

A zygote [...] is the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by means of sexual reproduction.

Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells — an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male — which combine to form the single diploid cell.

Here are the clues you need:

THE initial cell (singular)
THE SINGLE diploid cell (singular)

You're welcome. That's why we call this the James Randi EDUCATIONAL foundation...

[Hokulele]

You're welcome. That's why we call this the James Randi EDUCATIONAL foundation...


Now, now, just because you were right doesn't mean you have to rub it in.


Noreligion, I hope I didn't come across as being too beligerent, as that was not my intent. I simply hadn't heard your usage before, and the Wiki link did help refresh my decades old biology classes. Although it can be argued that the zygote applies to the initial cell as well as later cell division, apparently that isn't how the term is used in the most technical sense (as I was reminded by that article). There is nothing wrong with being factually wrong on occasion, I am wrong on things on a regular basis, and was just checking to make sure this wasn't one of those times.

[noreligion]

Yes, it is.

From your own link:



Here are the clues you need:

THE initial cell (singular)
THE SINGLE diploid cell (singular)

You're welcome. That's why we call this the James Randi EDUCATIONAL foundation...

You are really an idiot you know.

The term zygote is also used more loosely to refer to the group of cells formed by the first few cell divisions, although this is properly referred to as a morula.

Do you care to tell us how long the zygote remains stationary and there is no cleavage? As long as the zygote moves down the length of the fallopian tube, there is cleavage and if there is cleavage there is more than one cell. I do believe this is said on the wikipedia page that you purposefully left out of your quote.

[noreligion]

Now, now, just because you were right doesn't mean you have to rub it in.


Noreligion, I hope I didn't come across as being too beligerent, as that was not my intent. I simply hadn't heard your usage before, and the Wiki link did help refresh my decades old biology classes. Although it can be argued that the zygote applies to the initial cell as well as later cell division, apparently that isn't how the term is used in the most technical sense (as I was reminded by that article). There is nothing with being factually wrong on occasion, I am wrong on things on a regular basis, and was just checking to make sure this wasn't one of those times.

I will ask you the same I asked him. How long does the zygote not move along the fallopian tube? As long as it moves, there is cleavage. As long as there is cleavage it is more than one cell.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Read about embryology and stem cells before you make yourself look foolish. A zygote is not and never was a single cell. A blastocyst which is where the zygote comes from is a collection of between 50 and 150 cells so how did it become a single celled zygote?

How do you reconcile this with wikipedia?

[bokonon]

Now, now, just because you were right doesn't mean you have to rub it in.
Even rubbing it in doesn't appear to have gotten through.

Like I say, ready FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE click click click "Well, do ya, PUNK?" click click (throws gun) aim...

[Dancing David]

you misunderstand biology then. I am not aware of any embryology textbooks online so wikipedia will have to suffice until you can find a real text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/zygote

edit: My mistake was mentioning blastocyst as that is what a zygote becomes on day 5 but nonetheless a zygote is not a single cell.

your own source:

a zygote (from greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by means of sexual reproduction.

[Hokulele]

I will ask you the same I asked him. How long does the zygote not move along the fallopian tube? As long as it moves, there is cleavage. As long as there is cleavage it is more than one cell.


That depends on the organism. The zygote is defined as being the result of fertilization, so regardless of its future, or the timeline of that future, it is accurate to say that a zygote is a single cell. The fact that it doesn't remain that way for long is irrelevant.

Really, there is no shame in admitting to being wrong about something. It won't mean you are wrong about everything else.

ETA: Here is another Wiki article cite:

Differentiation is the formation of cell types, from what is originally one cell – the zygote or spore.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biology#Cell_differentiation

[dasmiller]

n/m, the others beat me to it.

[I Ratant]

As Max has left the building, possibly to report a resounding success to the instructor that assigned him missionary duties on JREF, any discussions on the OP can't accomplish anything.
Quibbling biology which the OP can't comprehend won't accomplish anything either.

[bokonon]

As Max has left the building, possibly to report a resounding success to the instructor that assigned him missionary duties on JREF, any discussions on the OP can't accomplish anything.
Quibbling biology which the OP can't comprehend won't accomplish anything either.
I think it might still be possible to increase noreligion's understanding. Since he's going to be sallying forth someday claiming to represent the skeptical point of view, it would be good for him to have his facts straight.

[Tricky]

Stop with the incivility and ad hom's folks.

[AvalonXQ]

Fact: noreligion claims that a zygote is never a single cell.
Fact: When an egg is fertilized, the resulting single cell is called a zygote.
Conclusion: noreligion's claim is incorrect.
Perhaps noreligion can explain which of the above assertions is inaccurate, or admit his error and apologize for calling others unintelligent for stating the facts correctly.

[temporalillusion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryogenesis

[I Ratant]

Where's the puppy shaking a slipper smiley when you need one?

[noreligion]

That depends on the organism. The zygote is defined as being the result of fertilization, so regardless of its future, or the timeline of that future, it is accurate to say that a zygote is a single cell. The fact that it doesn't remain that way for long is irrelevant.

Really, there is no shame in admitting to being wrong about something. It won't mean you are wrong about everything else.

ETA: Here is another Wiki article cite:



Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biology#Cell_differentiation

Which agrees with what I first said regarding the potential of a cell before differentiation.

[Hawk one]

Which agrees with what I first said regarding the potential of a cell before differentiation.

And this has what to do with your currently disproven claim that a zygote is never a single cell?

[AvalonXQ]

Which agrees with what I first said regarding the potential of a cell before differentiation.

You claimed that the zygote is never a single cell. You were wrong. You should admit it and apologize for calling others stupid when, in fact, they were right and you were wrong.

[aggle-rithm]

Semantics....semantics....

[I Ratant]

Being an anointed "philosopher", I get quite a feeling of anti-semanticism with these "You're a booger-snot!", "No, you're the booger-snot" tirades.
Demeans the tiraders to booger-snot status.

[joobz]

You misunderstand biology then. I am not aware of any embryology textbooks online so wikipedia will have to suffice until you can find a real text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

Edit: My mistake was mentioning blastocyst as that is what a zygote becomes on day 5 but nonetheless a zygote is not a single cell.

I'm confused. My understanding was the same as Hokulele's and the wiki link you provided also confirms her statement.

Heck,
a quick check into a medical dictionary:
"The cell formed by the union of a male sex cell (a sperm) and a female sex cell (an ovum)"

Once it starts to divide, it ceases being a zygote and becomes an embryo.

[aggle-rithm]

Being an anointed "philosopher", I get quite a feeling of anti-semanticism with these "You're a booger-snot!", "No, you're the booger-snot" tirades.
Demeans the tiraders to booger-snot status.

Define "booger-snot".

[joobz]

Define "booger-snot".

Snot that is produced by your boogers.

Duh!!!!!!

[AvalonXQ]

Snot that is produced by your boogers.

Duh!!!!!!

Evidence?

[I Ratant]

As long as we're being "scientific"...
Since moving to the desert, my snot has dried up a lot in the following decades.
No more long green wet boogers.

[I Ratant]

Define "booger-snot".
.
In playground (philosophic) terms, it's what your older sister calls you when you are thwarting her demands!

[joobz]

Evidence?
Next time I am sick, I would be happy to supply you with as much evidence as you need.

[Mirrorglass]

Yeah, "woo" may be pithy but as you seem to have acknowledged "retard" or other such name calling ain't. I am not calling for moderation, just expressing my feelings on this. It seems like unnecessary playground stuff when we have well supported arguments at our disposal.

I'm not too fond of the term 'creotard' either. However, that's not so much because I think it's too insulting; I just don't feel a strong enough disgust towards creationists to warrant using it myself.

However, I think it's not really that harmful, either. The posters who use the term aren't trying to hide the fact that they despise dishonest creationists, or creationists in general, depending on the poster. That intent would be quite clear without the term. If anything, use of the word makes it easier to pick out posts that are more interested in mocking than polite discussion, which I imagine some creationists find helpful. I don't see any benefit in trying to moderate the use of the word, or even frown upon it. After all, it's the intent of the post that counts, not the words in it, and in my opinion, if you're going to be mean, better be honest about it.

Of course, there should be no double standards. It should be equally acceptable to call a member of the forum a 'skeptard', if one considers said member to be spreading the cause of skepticism in a dishonest, morally questionable or otherwise despicable way.

[dasmiller]

I'm not too fond of the term 'creotard' either. However, that's not so much because I think it's too insulting; I just don't feel a strong enough disgust towards creationists to warrant using it myself.

However, I think it's not really that harmful, either. The posters who use the term aren't trying to hide the fact that they despise dishonest creationists, or creationists in general, depending on the poster. That intent would be quite clear without the term. If anything, use of the word makes it easier to pick out posts that are more interested in mocking than polite discussion, which I imagine some creationists find helpful. I don't see any benefit in trying to moderate the use of the word, or even frown upon it. After all, it's the intent of the post that counts, not the words in it, and in my opinion, if you're going to be mean, better be honest about it.

But there's a perception out there that skeptics are a bunch of arrogant jerks who reflexively mock to anything that doesn't fit their worldview. And that makes it a lot easier for people to dismiss the skeptics as being unpleasant company and no more rational than those they mock.

I don't much care if we antagonize some of the hard-core fundamentalists who come here simply to argue (once it's been established that that's what they are). But I do care about alienating the people who read these pages because they really do want to understand all sides of the discussion.

In that light, I much prefer civil discourse rather than mockery. If the other side resorts to crass insults, well, then, let them be the jerks.

[Mirrorglass]

But there's a perception out there that skeptics are a bunch of arrogant jerks who reflexively mock to anything that doesn't fit their worldview. And that makes it a lot easier for people to dismiss the skeptics as being unpleasant company and no more rational than those they mock.

I don't much care if we antagonize some of the hard-core fundamentalists who come here simply to argue (once it's been established that that's what they are). But I do care about alienating the people who read these pages because they really do want to understand all sides of the discussion.

In that light, I much prefer civil discourse rather than mockery. If the other side resorts to crass insults, well, then, let them be the jerks.

Some skeptics are arrogant jerks, and many do mock everything that doesn't fit into their worldview, reflexively or not. Most skeptics aren't like that - at least, not on this forum - but it would be dishonest to pretend skeptics like that don't exist.

'Skepticism' in itself doesn't require being nice or polite. There's no point in trying to make the word only apply to nice people. If we don't want the actions of other skeptics to stick to us, too, we need to refer to ourselves by another term.

Using a word like 'creotard' certainly makes constructive conversation with the target impossible, and it won't make skeptics look good - or at least not nice - for the onlookers. But anyone who'd use the term isn't going to do that anyway.

[Ladewig]

The part that does confuse me to the point of being vexed is the claim often made by fundamentalists that the entire world's population of animals narrowed down to just a few specimens per species (or kinds). Why is there no genetic bottle neck in humans or cats or dogs or any of the hundreds of species studied on a genetic level? Not even Christian scientists can find such a genetic bottleneck - surely they know that if they were to document such a finding hundreds of millions of people would start worshipping the God of Abraham.

If one entertains the possibility that there is in fact a God its reasonable to also assume that such a God isnt subject to the rudimentary elements and limitations of the very world that He created.
One can assume that God isnt real and any literature relating to him is also not real. But one cant assume that He exists and then put limitations on this same God that can do anything according to His nature and plan.
A better question on your part would have been the Adam and Eve DNA issue.
Its unlikely that if there were a God that could create two people from nothing that he wouldnt have a problem with DNA issues.

Really? That's what you got from my post - that God isn't powerful enough to manipulate DNA. That was nowhere near my point. Of couse, an omnipotent Creator can manipulate DNA. The point was why would He want to.





Why would God feel the need to deceive 21st century scientists by messing the with genetic history of all the animals born in the past 5000 years?

1 Corinthians 1
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles(non jews),

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Luke 8
9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
"though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

John 1:5
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Well, if that's your answer, all I can say is your God is a bit of an a-hole. I'm not saying that to create an emotional response or to act like a troll. I am saying that because manipulating the DNA of the animals as they left the ark has absolutely no point at all other than to lead people in the 21st century to believe that the flood story is a myth. If He has simply done nothing, modern people would convert to Christianity - instead He changed the DNA in an effort to keep intelligent, educated people from converting.








Thank you for your questions and God bless you.:)

And thanks for your blessing.

[Foster Zygote]

Next time I am sick, I would be happy to supply you with as much evidence as you need.

You've got two kids. What's the delay?

[Ladewig]

Using a word like 'creotard' certainly makes constructive conversation with the target impossible, and it won't make skeptics look good - or at least not nice - for the onlookers. But anyone who'd use the term isn't going to do that anyway.

IF we are taking a poll, then count me with the people who see no need to ever use this term on the JREF board.

[aggle-rithm]

.
In playground (philosophic) terms, it's what your older sister calls you when you are thwarting her demands!

Uuuummm....

No comment.

[aggle-rithm]

Using a word like 'creotard' certainly makes constructive conversation with the target impossible, and it won't make skeptics look good - or at least not nice - for the onlookers.

"Booger-snot" is still cool though, right?

[Mirrorglass]

"Booger-snot" is still cool though, right?

Only if we're talking to yo mama.