Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:21 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:21 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Also, Ill repost a select bit of evidence that beejon never responded to last night
Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13, an event that occurred after our split from them at our last common ancestor.
Human infants exhibit the same palmar grasp reflex all apes use to cling to the hair on their mothers backs despite it serving no beneficial purpose in humans.
We have the same skull suture lines as apes and ancestral human fossils.
We have viral DNA IDENTICAL to that seen in chimps.
For God sakes, we even have a damn vestigial tail
And on and on and oon
I responded to the DNA claim. DNA, which is tremendously complex and is an accidental construct according to some, is a common building block. Nothing to see here for the Darwinists.
Atheistic Darwinism is a religion which attempts to promote humanity as a meaningless life form who's only purpose in life is to survive. Love, beauty, poetry, art, gratitude are just cold chemical reactions in the brain to provide impetus for survival of the fittest.
1
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:22 pm to OMLandshark
I have a law degree and I agree with him.....so your analysis is flawed
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:22 pm to mattloc
quote:
(David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
quote:
(J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
Not that these studies prove your point at all, but most studies 10 years and older are thrown out and expected to be repeated before then. You come to someone with a study from the 70s, and you'd be laughed out of the room if you couldn't find a much later one to support those findings.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:23 pm to mattloc
quote:
I have a law degree and I agree with him.....so your analysis is flawed
Just curious, but what type of law?
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:24 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
why can't we get ONE that disproves evolution? I don't think that is asking much.
There's been many studies which debunk Darwinistic evolution. You're failing to recognize or admit the peer reviews you're embracing are completely biased against the anti-Darwinists.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:24 pm to OMLandshark
Not disagreeing with you but the vestigal argument is very weak
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:25 pm to beejon
quote:
There's been many studies which debunk Darwinistic evolution. You're failing to recognize or admit the peer reviews you're embracing are completely biased against the anti-Darwinists.
You mean just spouting off shite that has no proof? Yeah, peer reviewed studies are typically biased against that, and in fact are specifically made for things like that. But keep on believing what your Baptist preacher is telling you.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:26 pm to OMLandshark
I do a lot of business litigation ...shareholder derivative actions among other things
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:26 pm to beejon
quote:
Here's a few thousand scientists who reject Darwinism.
Ah, the creation institutes dissent from darwin petition. I havent seen this one in a while.
First, there arent several thousand names on the list. There are a little over 1200.
When it was first signed by 700 people in 2001, a inquiry was done of the people on the list. 687 of them were confirmed christians through church membership, donations, personal admittance, etc. In other words, only christian scientists are signing it.
The number of signers currently account for less than .03 percent of the biological scientists in this country and about .008 percent in the world.
It was demolished by multiple gag surveys, including project steve.
LINK
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:28 pm to Roger Klarvin
Consensus is not necessarily the harbinger of truth
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:28 pm to beejon
quote:
I responded to the DNA claim. DNA, which is tremendously complex and is an accidental construct according to some, is a common building block. Nothing to see here for the Darwinists.
Atheistic Darwinism is a religion which attempts to promote humanity as a meaningless life form who's only purpose in life is to survive. Love, beauty, poetry, art, gratitude are just cold chemical reactions in the brain to provide impetus for survival of the fittest.
You dont understand the concept of viral DNA introduction into the genome, and you ignored everything else. Figures.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:29 pm to mattloc
quote:
Consensus is not necessarily the harbinger of truth
More often than not. I require substantial proof if there is a "not necessarily" involved in it.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:30 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
In other words, only christian scientists are signing it.
Not true.
Additionally, the list has been added to year by year. Of course those aren't real scientists because they reject the atheistic Darwinistic theory of creation, right?
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:32 pm to beejon
quote:
I agree. But the peer review demand is a joke.
No it isnt, science is questioned all the time in peer reviewed articles. Unlike religion, science doesnt silence dissent...we merely demand that you support your dissent with evidence.
Its why scientists dont just scream about creationists like common atheists, we scientifically debunk their claims.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:33 pm to mattloc
I would like to know how you and beejon would view a Neanderthal if one was either recreated Jurassic park style or still existed today. Would you view them as men capable of becoming christians and getting to heaven or would they just be animals, sub humans beneath us.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:34 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
You dont understand the concept of viral DNA introduction into the genome, and you ignored everything else. Figures.
I understand the concept of similar building blocks being used to create dissimilar entities. The complexity of DNA begs for something other than random events to be present in it's creation. You believe the complexity of DNA is an accident. I don't.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:37 pm to NATidefan
Not sure they would be beneath us
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:38 pm to beejon
quote:
Not true
Yes it is, I even explained how we know it is
quote:
Additionally, the list has been added to year by year. Of course those aren't real scientists because they reject the atheistic Darwinistic theory of creation, right?
Of course they are real scientists, they're just pretty much all christian with an inherent bias.
However, most christian scientists still accept evolution. In 2008, a list was started that petitioned for christians in the field of biology, genetics, chemistry and geology who agreed with evolution to sign it. It got more signatures than the dissent from Darwin petition did in under a week
Studies show that about 10% of American biologists are christians and about 90% of them accept evolution.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:38 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
No it isnt, science is questioned all the time in peer reviewed articles. Unlike religion, science doesnt silence dissent...we merely demand that you support your dissent with evidence.
Its why scientists dont just scream about creationists like common atheists, we scientifically debunk their claims.
No, you attempt to silence their voice but of course that's not happening. You attack their views, attack their character and destroy their professional carrier if possible. The list I provided provides legitimate scientific disagreement with Darwinism. And the list is growing.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:40 pm to mattloc
Please be more thorough. I think this is a very important question.
Page 40 of 49
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News