Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- discipler0
I love how these threads end up just being emotional shouting by those who don't like to hear about the glaring flaws in Darwinism.
"Don't bother me with the facts, you fundamentalist! I'm comfortable with my unaccountable world view!"
*shakes fist at silly Christian.
- flagellum0
nonsense, mimio. now you're just being silly. Hundreds of scientists embrace Irreducible Complexity. It's a tested biochemical fact. Just remove a component from the flagellum, or a cell, or the blood clotting mechanism and watch it break. People just need to be educated about it. They don't understand it... like yourself.
- driftlab0
Interesting read - http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat…
- Mimio0
//The truth is that "---" made everything according to it's kind, "---"'s plan was to create predator/prey and parasitic relationships, have a distinct and consitent food chain, and let bacteria and viruses change his(it's) creations genetic make-up.
- flagellum0
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_…
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/motor…
Ask yourself... why are advanced mechanical engineers being hired by biochemists and cellular biologists, just to try and understand these machines?
- kelpie0
Makes for a good bedtime tale, but lacks empirical evidence. This is what they've been telling us for some time now. They begin by presupposing Darwinism and then are forced to explain timeframes and social/technological advancement within that framework.
discipler
(Jan 6 06, 05:19)you always slag off that "pre-suppose" thing, yet you pre-suppose an allmighty creator and fit everything into your dogmatic 6000 yr timeframe. dafty.
and do you actualy know anything about the history of the earth you didn't read in a bible or on an ID website?
- mikotondria20
Evolution does not distinguish between micro and macro evolution, the success of any arrangement of matter, beit from a change in dna coding to produce variations in protein, or the larger scale effects of same that might compound to produce better resistance to disease, a more crumpled ear, darker hair etc..
The truth is that almost almost always, these minor variations within a species are harmful, something inthe order of 1 in a 100 billion are not..
Because these changes are usually deliterious to the individual that carries the instructions to build them, the individual has a low chance of reproducing, and so, with fossilisation being so very very rare, are not preserved..
So, when we look back thru the fossil record, what we dont see are the mutations that didnt survive to be fossilised.. A mutation - a change in physiology must have to be extrememly advantageous to have have produced enough individuals to have entered the 'fossilisation lottery'.
Fossilisation does not, of course, preserve evolutionary/mutational evidence at the molecular level - we must assume that changes in physiology then we, as today, caused by molecular changes, which is not unreasonable.
Does that cover it ?
- discipler0
According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings,
and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to
record history? And is it probable that none should discover that plants grow from seeds.
- cruz_azul0
does any of this really matter ....NO
- JazX0
- cphunk0
the lack of response is so boring and predictable.
- JazX0
You can use fossilization as a way of dating too. Archaelogists use Dendrochronology to date strata that might not include some sort of tracking or widescale fossil, but might have a tree or two. Depends on the sedimentary rock. Igneous and Metamorphic rocks generally speaking, cannot, be used for bio-dating due to their lack of retaining fossils. But sometimes Marble can be used as it's metamorphosed limestone (aka Calcium Carbonate) and that rock type is widescale. Formed in shallow oceans.