A Question for Creationists

[USincognito]

Is that supposed to mean something?

P.S.: Your typing errors are writing style are strangely familiar.

Theodor1 was the latest and he got shot out of here on the 27th of Sept. Look for a join date of the 27th or 28th.

 

[mzungu]

I thought you understood that a change in a trait does not change the organism. It remains he exact same species as it parents. You know it that old "after its kind" thing that gives the evos such a problem.

Either English is not your mother tongue or you have not had formal training in the language. A change in trait is a change in the organism and the organism will remain the same species as per ToE.

ToE does not claim that a trait change will change the species. Stop making things up.

We don't need that kind of an example. "After its kind" disproves evolution. That is what we can see and repeat. which more than you can do.

You are not making any sense!

How silly. I probably heard of him while you still had training wheels on your bike.

Science has come a long way since the horse drawn carriage!

Are you here to discuss our differencnes or are you trying to get a job with the typo police.

I am sure that even you are able to use the spell check. Stop being lazy!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I thought you understood that a change in a trait does not change the organism. It remains he exact same species as it parents. You know it that old "after its kind" thing that gives the evos such a problem.



We don't need that kind of an example. "After its kind" disproves evolution. That is what we can see and repeat. which more than you can do.



How silly. I probably heard of him while you still had training wheels on your bike.




Are you here to discuss our differencnes or are you trying to get a job with the typo police.

Evolution does not predict a crocoduck. You have a misconception of what evolution is.

 

[OllieFranz]

I thought you understood that a change in a trait does not change the organism. It remains he exact same species as it parents. You know it that old "after its kind" thing that gives the evos such a problem.

Instead of pretending that using the word "alter" instead of the word "change" answers our questions, how about describing the nature of the barrier that allows a mutation in the gene to alter a trait but does not allow a mutation of the gene to create a new trait. The people who work with genetic matreial (DNA) cannot find such a barrier.

We don't need that kind of an example. "After its kind" disproves evolution. That is what we can see and repeat. which more than you can do.

Please explain how "after its kind" disproves evolution when evolution relies on "after its kind."

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought you understood that a change in a trait does not change the organism. It remains he exact same species as it parents.

What about its great, great, grandparents, or its cousins? What is stopping the accumulation of different mutations in different populations from producing two populations that can no longer produce fertile offspring? We have already seen that horses and donkeys can no longer produce fertile offspring.

You know it that old "after its kind" thing that gives the evos such a problem.

What problems?

We don't need that kind of an example. "After its kind" disproves evolution.

The common ancestor of humans and chimps was a primate. We are still in the primate kind.

The common ancestor of humans and bears was a mammal. We are still in the mammal kind.

The common ancestor of trout and humans was a jawed vertebrate. We are still in the jawed vertebrate kind.

Where is the problem again?

 

[mzungu]

The common ancestor of humans and chimps was a primate. We are still in the primate kind.

The common ancestor of humans and bears was a mammal. We are still in the mammal kind.

The common ancestor of trout and humans was a jawed vertebrate. We are still in the jawed vertebrate kind.

Where is the problem again?

Good thing you stopped there else he would have a brain seizure

 

[Doveaman]

"Alter" means "change."

When a scientific theory is altered does this mean the theory has changed?

Was evolution theory ever altered? Did it change into a different theory?

 

[OllieFranz]

When a scientific theory is altered does this mean the theory has changed?

Yes.

Was evolution theory ever altered? Did it change into a different theory?

Not as dramatically as when Einstein's Relativity replaced Newton's mechanics, but yes.

 

[CabVet]

When a scientific theory is altered does this mean the theory has changed?

Yes.

Was evolution theory ever altered?

Yes

Did it change into a different theory?

No, it is just more detailed now.

 

[Doveaman]

Hahahaha......what a joke....! You have the hide to call that " logical"...!?

Hide?

Premise 1: Energy has no cause. Where is your evidence for this claim....?

It's a scientific claim.

Premise 2: God is pure energy. Where is your evidence for this claim.....?

The universe was formed from energy, eternal energy that can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change forms.

The original form of this eternal energy we call God-energy.

 

[OllieFranz]

Yes.



Not as dramatically as when Einstein's Relativity replaced Newton's mechanics, but yes.

Just to clarify, even Relativity, as revolutionary as it was, did not re-establish physics from scratch. A few equations were drastically changed and a few explanations were tweaked, but physics as a science survived relatively unscathed.

Science is designed to allow for change, as we understand new details.

 

[Doveaman]

Hogwash!

But it's true.

Even more hogwash.

But it's also true.

They just don’t admit it.

Must you keep making things up to suit your claims?

Those are observations.

Why are you continuously bearing false witness?

Why am I continuously bearing false witnesses?

Don't you respect your religion that forbids bearing false witness?

Of course.

My religion also encourages bearing false witnesses.

Talk about hypocrisy!!!

Talking about hypocrisy doesn't make it so.

 

[USincognito]

When a scientific theory is altered does this mean the theory has changed?

Was evolution theory ever altered? Did it change into a different theory?

When you alter a suit, does it turn into a dress?

 

[frogman2x]

Evolution does not predict a crocoduck. You have a misconception of what evolution is.

Have I ever said or even implied such a silly thing?

So help clear up my misconception. What was a duck before it was a duck and what did it evolvle into? Don't forget to include the biological evdience.

 

[frogman2x]

Either English is not your mother tongue or you have not had formal training in the language. A change in trait is a change in the organism and the organism will remain the same species as per ToE. <<

I have found when someone does not have the intellectual capability to defened what they say, they resort to insults.

If you ever get the training wheels off, get back to me.

 

[biggles53]

Either English is not your mother tongue or you have not had formal training in the language. A change in trait is a change in the organism and the organism will remain the same species as per ToE. <<

I have found when someone does not have the intellectual capability to defened what they say, they resort to insults.

If you ever get the training wheels off, get back to me.

Do you know what projection is......?

 

[frogman2x]

Instead of pretending that using the word "alter" instead of the word "change" answers our questions, how about describing the nature of the barrier that allows a mutation in the gene to alter a trait but does not allow a mutation of the gene to create a new trait. The people who work with genetic matreial (DNA) cannot find such a barrier.

Take and albino. The mutation cause a change in the skin and eyes. The mutation did not give the albino the skin and eyes, it simply ALTERED those traits.

Please explain how "after its kind" disproves evolution when evolution relies on "after its kind."

Not true. Evolution says at some point in the life span, the species will evolve into something other than what it started out as. After its kind say it will not. If what you are saying is true, the universe would still be that simple-celled blob that came out of the primordial soup.

You cannot tell me what the second, third, fourth, fifth etc life forms were but you have me belteive that first one is responsible or all the animal and plant life we have today. Do yuo really not see how unscientific that is?

Of course there is always the possibility that thatg you know what theose life form were and a biological explanation as to how they became somehing more than what they were.

 

[frogman2x]

What about its great, great, grandparents, or its cousins? What is stopping the accumulation of different mutations in different populations from producing two populations that can no longer produce fertile offspring? We have already seen that horses and donkeys can no longer produce fertile offspring.

It may have happened, you just have no evidence thatg any mutation has evere caused a change in the species. All you have is necessary speculation.

The common ancestor of humans and chimps was a primate. We are still in the primate kind.

Which primate came first? If chimps are our cmmon ancestor, why is our DNA different? Why can't we mate with them and bear offsprsing? Lemers are also primates, why are they not our common ancester?

The common ancestor of humans and bears was a mammal. We are still in the mammal kind.

Where is your evidence? Why is our DNA different than that of ALL other primates.

The common ancestor of trout and humans was a jawed vertebrate. We are still in the jawed vertebrate kind

Talk is cheap, How about some evidence

Where is the problem again?

The problem for you is that DNA proves you wrong.

 

[biggles53]

It may have happened, you just have no evidence thatg any mutation has evere caused a change in the species. All you have is necessary speculation.



Which primate came first? If chimps are our cmmon ancestor, why is our DNA different? Why can't we mate with them and bear offsprsing? Lemers are also primates, why are they not our common ancester?



Where is your evidence? Why is our DNA different than that of ALL other primates.



Talk is cheap, How about some evidence



The problem for you is that DNA proves you wrong.

Wow..........you know, it looks awfully pompous and arrogant when someone makes it really clear that they know very little about a subject, but criticise it nevertheless........

 

[florida2]

But it's true.
But it's also true.

They just don’t admit it.
Those are observations.
Why am I continuously bearing false witnesses?
Of course.

My religion also encourages bearing false witnesses.
Talking about hypocrisy doesn't make it so.

You can't just say 'It's true! It's true!' You need to provide some evidence to back up your claims.

'Many scientists and evolutionists agree that reality is not limited to the physical.'

Really? Who are they? How do you know 'most' feel this way?

Since when does your religion encourage bearing false witness? That's a new one to me.