Search results

Below, you confuse changes to a simple English language sentence with processes that occur in genomes. I suggest that your inability to produce anything above this grade-school level of analysis is one of the primary reasons that nobody seems to take your claims seriously on these issues. For...

I think part of it is rooted in the common creationist belief that any physical change requires many many mutations, and thanks to misrepresentations and poor language used by the likes of Behe and Sanford, that these must occur in some specific order. And there is just not enough time for this...

It is my idea of a legitimate source with relevant references. You employ a Catholic group that sets out to prop up religious nonsense. And you put your 'faith' in a whopping 0.0006% miracle cure rate (if we accept the anecdotes as real)! Sad.

No. Not even close. I understand that you do not understand the concepts of science involved, that is a given. But the fact is that creationists (and some biologists) do not even know what macroevolution is and is not, yet feel comfortable - like you are, apparently - discussing/dismissing it...

HINT: "The authors wrote, "The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago." Old-earth proponents now have a new challenge: to explain why after millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans, did human genomic diversity exploded only within the...

It isn't that - it is re: the analytical technique he is misrepresenting.

And the usual misrepresentation and desire to be shielded from 'the other' in a Christian bubble/echo chamber. I am here to counter the lies so often used to 'argue' against a scientific theory that so few antagonists seem to understand. I do this in part because I end up having to deal with...

You seem to worship him regardless of the merits of his claims, thus, your opinions of him cannot be trusted. If all I had were those claims, you might have a point, But my considering him a quack is premised ON HIS WORDS. I have considered his claims, and found them to be without merit...

And why might that be? Does it conflict with your faith?

Quotes from essays, very impressive. Which creationist website did you find that on? Curious - as I know you never read the whole essay, would you like to? Gould was a great author. I saw him give a talk once - on the rise of creationism in America. It was precious when a creationist...

Who accepts miracles. Claiming it is pure conjecture proves you are not a scientist, but an agenda-driven zealot. Faith-based atheists? Not only not a scientist, but a self-unaware one. Or ask Hazen. It does not surprise me that you call abiogenesis pure speculation - like most...

Right, it could have been Tiamat.

What have you read on the subject?

Yet you seem arrogant enough to "know" conclusively absolutely without question that your favored deity created a full grown man from dust a few thousand years ago. Odd how often that attitude shows up on forums like this.

What is your scientific evidence that the things you just asserted are conclusively absolutely without question true?

What is the evidence that the Hebrew deity conclusively absolutely without question created the earth from nothing 6-10000 years ago and formed the first human from dust of the ground? Or do you employ double standards?

Evidence please.

That is how they avoid having to admit that they cannot address evolution scientifically. Are you an epidemiologist? Immunologist? Virologist? Or just someone that listens to Fox? Evidence provides an answer. You not accepting it is evidence that you do NOT, in fact, 'believe in' science.

Evidence please.

This is a standard 'bag of tricks' thing among the creationists. Most of them appear to follow a script of some sort, and will dutifully if mindlessly churn out claims like this so as to make their strange beliefs in Hebrew deities seem morally superior (and thus correct). It is a sign of not...