The Macroevolution Game

AV1611VET · Nov 4, 2012

JustMeSee said:
I am sorry.my mom is in the hospital.goodbye

I'm sorry to hear that ... I just said a prayer for her.

ADTClone · Nov 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Am I going to have to repeat this a third time?

I know it's an analogy, but I have chosen to use it as a basis for the number of generations from cyanobacteria to mankind; since I have asked before and no one ever replied ... (that I can remember).

Now that I have come up with a number, it seems people want to question me on it, and I'm not interested.

I'm sticking with that number, and it's certainly your prerogative to disagree.

I disagree with your number.

I have not seen any evidence that supports your assertion. You have not provided any evidence that supports your number.

AV1611VET · Nov 4, 2012

ADTClone said:
You have not provided any evidence that supports your number.

I sure haven't.

Now you know why they're called missing links.

Jamin4422 · Nov 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
It's an arbitrary figure .........

I'm sticking with that number

You are sticking with an arbitrary number?

In science no two people agree on the numbers. They are working on that to try and come up with a standard that everyone can agree on. They like to say with authority that Eve lived X number of years ago like it were a fact. But when you study the population experts they do not agree on just how many years ago she lived. They all have different numbers that they use.

Blayz · Nov 4, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
You are sticking with an arbitrary number?

In science no two people agree on the numbers. They are working on that to try and come up with a standard that everyone can agree on. They like to say with authority that Eve lived X number of years ago like it were a fact. But when you study the population experts they do not agree on just how many years ago she lived. They all have different numbers that they use.

Is it the same they in all cases, or different groups of theys?

Jamin4422 · Nov 5, 2012

Blayz said:
Is it the same they in all cases, or different groups of theys?

The different groups that count the mutations to try and establish years for population genetics. Off hand I do not know who the they is that is trying to establish a standard. But the standard would be for all of population genetics and the rates they can put in the text books.

There is a big difference between 60,000 years and 142,000 years.

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal lines of their family tree). Recent studies report that Y-chromosomal Adam lived as early as around 142,000 years ago.[1] Older studies estimated Y-MRCA as recent as 60,000 years ago.[2] All living humans are also descended matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve who is thought to have lived earlier, about 190,000200,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve need not have lived at the same time. wiki

ADTClone · Nov 5, 2012

AV1611VET said:
I sure haven't.

Now you know why they're called missing links.

Which means there is not enough evidence to support your conclusion.

AV1611VET · Nov 5, 2012

ADTClone said:
Which means there is not enough evidence to support your conclusion.

Ain't that a shame?

Mr Strawberry · Nov 5, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Ain't that a shame?

It is for you.

Cromulent · Nov 5, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Science IE Evolutionists do not have "the slighest clue" so why or how would you expect us to? It really is not our job to answer their questions for them. It is pretty much every man for himself. Everyone has to find their own way and everyone has to find their own truth in life. No one else can do it for them.

No, scientists do have "the slightest clue". It's creationists who have a massive problem distinguishing between "not knowing everything" and "not knowing anything". Rational people are a lot better at it.

AV1611VET · Nov 5, 2012

Cromulent said:
No, scientists do have "the slightest clue". It's creationists who have a massive problem distinguishing between "not knowing everything" and "not knowing anything". Rational people are a lot better at it.

Do you know nothing? I do. That's where the universe came from. It's called creatio ex nihilo.

Cromulent · Nov 5, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Do you know nothing? I do. That's where the universe came from. It's called creatio ex nihilo.

How do you know this?

AV1611VET · Nov 5, 2012

Cromulent said:
How do you know this?

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Cromulent · Nov 5, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Oh so you don't know it, you believe it. There's a subtle difference, easy mistake to make. No need to apologise.

CabVet · Nov 5, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Here's a game evolutionists can play.

Simply print it out, and you can have hours of fun making your favorite species of animal.

Or you can print about 200 trillion sheets and daisy-chain cyanobacteria to man.

Enjoy!

Here is a game creationists can play:

Tell the truth, it will change your life (and probably bring you closer to Jesus' teachings).

Enjoy!

JustMeSee · Nov 5, 2012

AV1611VET said:
I'm sorry to hear that ... I just said a prayer for her.

Thank you.

Split Rock · Nov 5, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Here's a game evolutionists can play.

Simply print it out, and you can have hours of fun making your favorite species of animal.

Or you can print about 200 trillion sheets and daisy-chain cyanobacteria to man.

Enjoy!

If you connect the dots here, what do you get: http://www.connectthedotsmovement.c...e_of_heart_connect_the_dots_for_valentine.jpg

Do you get a heart, or do you get a snowman.. or anything you want to get?

You see, your analogy is all wrong. We aren't looking at a random field of dots when we look at species. That is what one may predict, if there wasn't common ancestry... but it isn't what we find.

Eight Foot Manchild · Nov 5, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Eight Foot Manchild said:

I've got a better game. It's called 'I dare you to have the slightest clue what macroevolution is'.

Oh, darn. You already lost.

Click to expand...

Ain't that a shame?

Yes. Willful, prideful ignorance is a shame and disgrace.

AV1611VET · Nov 5, 2012

Eight Foot Manchild said:
Yes. Willful, prideful ignorance is a shame and disgrace.

I'll try not to hold my head down too long.

Eight Foot Manchild · Nov 5, 2012

AV1611VET said:
I'll try not to hold my head down too long.

I don't doubt that. Your abysmal ignorance isn't merely willful, it's a source of amusement to you. You've literally made a game of it.

The Macroevolution Game

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Question everything

Contributor

Conflation of Blathers

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Similar threads