Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Creation scientists can answer more questions in a scientific way.
See my sig? Creationists have no answer for that. Which is why creationism is irrelevant in the sciences.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Then do so. Explain exactly why we have all those transition fossils, have similar genome's with other animal species, explain distant star light, the chalk cliffs of Dover, the Great Barrier Reef, radioactive dating, evidence of civilization in 10,000 B.C. and Atavisms
I can give you the answers you would give me. That only shows the human logic and it does not mean Creation is not true. If you try one, you would find out.
I can give you the answers you would give me. That only shows the human logic and it does not mean Creation is not true. If you try one, you would find out.
Serously, when are you going to admit that you're a troll? Come on, just tell us 'the jokes on us' and get on with it.
So, if this thing is not real, what else do you want to talk about? Do you want to talk about the theory behind the construction of Luca?
So my comment on the common ancestor of plant cell and animal cell should be true. There is not one as we know it.
It's not real now, but it was. All genetic evidence points to the fact that everything on earth has a common ancestor. Even plants and animals. Actually especially plants and animals, their common ancestor was not LUCA, but something more recent, as both plants and animals are eukaryotes.
If your argument is that we haven't physically seen the common ancestor, therefore there isn't one, then I think we can move on.
__________________ "When work seems overwhelming, remember that you are going to die" Strangely enough this motivates me.
I can give you the answers you would give me. That only shows the human logic and it does not mean Creation is not true. If you try one, you would find out.
Yes, actually it does. I'm sorry that you disagree with the scientific method, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
This usually happened when you people do not know how to respond to my comment.
You get responses like mine because you post such ludicrous statements. Your command of the english language (assuming you're from an englilsh speaking country) belies that fact that it's painfully obvious that you lack any secondary education.
Your statements are non sequitor, and most often nonsensical. You have yet to string together a cogent argument, and have done nothing less than amuse and humor us these past few months.
The fact that even think for a second that creation "scientists" know more about science proves that you no very little about either science and creationism. In fact, those two words should never be place in the same sentence together, unless quotes are used to denote the very loosest definition of science (as in creation "science").
So, please juvi, keep the yuks comin'. We love 'em.
Last edited by LifeToTheFullest!; 6th November 2009 at 09:27 PM.
I will consider it done when you either prove me wrong or concede the point. Then we may move on.
What did you say: You said Luca is the common ancestor of animal cell and plant cell. And you said Luca is only theoretical.
If that was it, it only says the common ancestor is theoretical.
That would be fine with me. It is not better than any ideas of Creationism. In fact, it is simply a scheme similar to a good science fiction. We do not learn anything new from the model.
Then do so. Explain exactly why we have all those transition fossils, have similar genome's with other animal species, explain distant star light, the chalk cliffs of Dover, the Great Barrier Reef, radioactive dating, evidence of civilization in 10,000 B.C. and Atavisms
Linear Mode
