Evolution/Creation on Trial

[joshua 1 9]

Who are these experts? Where are the scientific studies backing their claims?

Why don't you give me an expert on diet and we will take a look at what you recommend. I will go by your expertise, can you handle your assignment?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why don't you give me an expert on diet and we will take a look at what you recommend. I will go by your expertise, can you handle your assignment?

And here is the usual evasion. The expected shift in the burden of proof.

YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIMS. YOU BACK IT UP.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, lets compare those H erectus skull with a human.

 

[bhsmte]

What is ridiculous is that science can not agree among themselves what a good diet is. For a long time (FDR) the government has to step in to pull the reigns back on science to keep them from harming people with the junk garbage food they are trying to feeding the American public. Look at the Atkins diet for example. They want high protein high fat and low carbs. Other experts claim we need just the opposite a high carb low fat diet. There does not seem to be any sort of agreement.

What kind of diet is best for you, is not always the same for everyone.

The person sitting on the couch all day, is not going to benefit from the same diet a marathon runner would need who runs 60 miles a week.

The human body can function quite well on a variety of diets, but the key factor in which one is best, is what each person needs based on their lifestyle.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, vaulted foreheads. You failed again.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I thought corporations were feeding people these foods, not science.

Who do you think works for those corporations? Bozo the clown? Not only do they hire science to produce the food, they use science to sell the food and convince people that something harmful to their health is good for them. If anyone can straighten this out it is the evolutionist but you fumbled the ball. Your theory does not seem to have any practical application in the real world. Nutritionists seem to be doing their fair share, still there is controversy and lack agreement among them. The people that make the most difference are the coronary doctors because they can check to see if people are getting better or worse on different diets. So if evolution has practical application then produce your diet and we will give it to the coronary expert to test to see if you can reverse heart disease or not. This is very simple, feed the diabetic your diet and then lets check his blood sugar to see if it improves or gets worse. As a evolutionist what do you recommend? What did we evolve to eat? (yes there is a high correlation between heart disease and diabetics because they both show improvement with diet.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are quote mining, and doing so badly. Abiogenesis is not a theory of spontaneous generation. It is a pre-biotic theory involving complex chemistry reactions as a precursor for life, i.e. it is a theory of chemical evolution that ultimately led to life and biological evolution of cells. That is what the 'a' stands for in a-biogenesis, i.e it is theory of that which was before the begging of life.

No I'm not, I'm telling you what the scientists say, you just want to practice the Ostrich Theory instead.

I.e. it tells of of life evolving from non-living matter - life not coming from similar organism's - the exact definition of spontaneous generation.

No what it stands for is "Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

So explain to me why the rocks around me are also not alive if they are similar organisms to that we first came from?

How you get a natural explanation to be the same as spontaneous generation is beyond me.

You haven't explained anything natural yet, just that I "believe" that we came from dust - and I already believe that. I also know science, and that decent from dissimilar organisms is considered an obsolete thought, and impossible. And I already believe that - that's why it's called a miracle.

No, the only one lost here is you if you do not realize that before life there must be a precursor to life that was non life - something simpler than life.

Says you. But science says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It merely transforms into matter and exists in all things and from which all things are. Where is the precursor to energy? But if you understood what consciousness is - you'd know what Romans 1:20 was trying to tell you. You would stop with those excuses.

To draw an analog: you are chemicals collected from the environment. Before your mother was was born, you was not a living creature, not even a cell, "you" did not even exist (at they very least there is nothing that even sightly indicates that this would be the case). In a sense "you" was spread out in nature all over the place as lifeless molecules. At the time you was formed in your mother womb all these chemical that are "you" were assembled from the environment to form you - and this still goes on in everyone of us - about every 7th year you have replace every molecule in your body. So who are "you"? Definitley not the same matter as you was 7 years ago. None of these chemical you are made of can be said to have been "you" or to be alive or be life by them self. This implies you are created from non-life! You, yourself, was actually formed from none-life - and still are every 7th year. So what is the big deal here - why do you make such a big fuzz about (prebiotic) chemistry?

And yet we never see chemicals become living matter - but this only happened in the past right? Under strict specific conditions that are one and all experimentally proven to not be compatible with one another. What allows you to create proteins - kills everything else. Not to mention in less than a month those proteins just turn to inorganic sludge and no more can be produced. And I won't mention it was the 6th day in which they began to be produced.

And what allows something else - kills all the others. You don't even have a viable theory yet to explain anything.

 

[In situ]

The same way everything else exists. From breed mating with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species.

Missing the point - with purpose - do we?

The point is - yangi is clearly half bird (wings feathers etc but no beak) and half dinosaur (mouth with teeth, claws and tail) - i.e. yangi is a beautiful example of a transitional species between bird and dinosaur which YEC's always been asking for.

The problem with yangi (for YEC's) is the fact that it is a dinosaur with modern bird feathers. If it wasn't for this YEC's would call it a dinosaur. But since birds has feathers and this fossil obviously has feathers then YEC's need to say it is bird - despite it has a tail, claw and mouth full of teeth - unless they like to be called a fool by their own as well. This is why it is so hilarious when YEC's call this as bird. What kind is yangi if not a transitional species?

If we go backward in time we see less birdlike and more dinosaur like transitional creatures (called dinosaurs kinds by YEC's) and if we go forward in time we see more birdlike and less dinosaur like transitional creature (called birds kinds by YEC's).


So not only do we have a single species we need to explain but a whole chain of progressive changes over time from one form to another form, in YEC's words, we need to explain the change from one kind to another kind. But how is this possible if YEC claims modern birds are not the same kind as dinosaurs and at the same time claim micro evolution only can create a variation within the same kind ?

"variation with in kinds" cannot explain this....unless birds and dinosaurs are the same kind.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The person sitting on the couch all day, is not going to benefit from the same diet a marathon runner would need who runs 60 miles a week.

Yes there can be some variation. I am only asking for if the theory of evolution can tell us if we should be on a high fat low carb diet or a high carb low fat diet. Can they contribute to the discussion that science is having on this subject right now?

My son is in the marching band so of course they want to balance his electrolytes where they may not be an issue for people that do not exert themselves they way younger people do. That is more fine tuning then anything else. Although if a band director is worth anything then he should be able to recommend the best diet and how to keep people from dehydration.

Not very long ago they gave the sports team a high fat high protein diet before the big game. Now they are recommending a high carb diet. Perhaps we should be grateful that science is no longer giving out bad advise and they have come so far from where they were last Thursday. Although Dr Atkins still seems to still be popular even though the Wall Street Journal gave details from Dr. Atkins's confidential medical report. The report concludes that Dr. Atkins, 72, had a history of heart attack and congestive heart failure and notes that he weighed 258 pounds at death.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who do you think works for those corporations? Bozo the clown?

Actually, yes.

The goal of a corporation is to make money, not make sure people get a healthy meal. You do know this, right?

Not only do they hire science to produce the food, they use science to sell the food and convince people that something harmful to their health is good for them.

They use science to develop foods that will make them the most money, and then they hire advertising agencies to sell it to the public.

Your theory does not seem to have any practical application in the real world.

Why do they have a new flu vaccine every year? How do they develop that flu vaccine? Ever looked into that?

I think it would be helpful if you started looking past the world you have invented and started learning about the real one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes there can be some variation. I am only asking for if the theory of evolution can tell us if we should be on a high fat low carb diet or a high carb low fat diet. Can they contribute to the discussion that science is having on this subject right now?

My son is in the marching band so of course they want to balance his electrolytes where they may not be an issue for people that do not exert themselves they way younger people do. That is more fine tuning then anything else. Although if a band director is worth anything then he should be able to recommend the best diet and how to keep people from dehydration.

Not very long ago they gave the sports team a high fat high protein diet before the big game. Now they are recommending a high carb diet. Perhaps we should be grateful that science is no longer giving out bad advise and they have come so far from where they were last Thursday. Although Dr Atkins still seems to still be popular even though the Wall Street Journal gave details from Dr. Atkins's confidential medical report. The report concludes that Dr. Atkins, 72, had a history of heart attack and congestive heart failure and notes that he weighed 258 pounds at death.

Still not seeing a single reference to a scientific paper in a peer review journal. Where is the science?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Still not seeing a single reference to a scientific paper in a peer review journal. Where is the science?

http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

 

[Loudmouth]

http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

Not a scientific peer reviewed journal.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes there can be some variation. I am only asking for if the theory of evolution can tell us if we should be on a high fat low carb diet or a high carb low fat diet. Can they contribute to the discussion that science is having on this subject right now?

My son is in the marching band so of course they want to balance his electrolytes where they may not be an issue for people that do not exert themselves they way younger people do. That is more fine tuning then anything else. Although if a band director is worth anything then he should be able to recommend the best diet and how to keep people from dehydration.

Not very long ago they gave the sports team a high fat high protein diet before the big game. Now they are recommending a high carb diet. Perhaps we should be grateful that science is no longer giving out bad advise and they have come so far from where they were last Thursday. Although Dr Atkins still seems to still be popular even though the Wall Street Journal on gave details from Dr. Atkins's confidential medical report. The report concludes that Dr. Atkins, 72, had a history of heart attack and congestive heart failure and notes that he weighed 258 pounds at death.

Hunter gatherers ate tons of meat and they likely consumed the fat as well and especially so if they were in a cold climate, because fat is an insulator and keeps the body warm.

Eskimos consume a very high percentage of fat and have little heart disease.

Cultures around the world have shown us, you can consume a wide variety of diets and not have a major issue with heart disease, because the body can adapt to different diets and it is very much dependent on activity levels as well.

Sugar (table sugar) and highly processed foods, are something that appear to be the major problem and when you look at the variations of diet that can produce health, none of them consume much sugar or processed foods.

Marathon runners have a very high demand to store glycogen in their muscles and liver, because it is their fuel tank to sustain the exercise they perform, for long periods of time. The most efficient way to store glycogen, is with complex carbohydrates and a marathon runner will readily store carbohydrates as glycogen and NOT FAT. If a sedentary person consumes a high complex carb diet, they don't have the demand to store glycogen, so much of that carbohydrate, is stored as fat and hence, they have completely different dietary needs.

Athletes who are extremely active, burn fuel at a high rate, so less chance of anything getting stored as fat, or building up of fatty acids in the blood stream. Sedentary people need to be much more cautious in what they eat, because the fuel burn level is so much lower, the body is more prone to store fat and build up fatty acids in the blood. Also, high amounts of exercise increase insulin sensativity, which is a natural protective measure against diabetes.

The body has also shown, it can adapt to a high protein, high fat diet and still be very physically active, when ketosis is activated and the body turns into more of a fat burning machine, vs a glycogen burning machine.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Actually, yes.

The goal of a corporation is to make money, not make sure people get a healthy meal. You do know this, right?

They use science to develop foods that will make them the most money, and then they hire advertising agencies to sell it to the public.

So you admit then that science is being used to kill people not help them. How is science good when they have cause so much mass destruction?

Why do they have a new flu vaccine every year? How do they develop that flu vaccine? Ever looked into that?

"A study in the January issue of Pediatrics was unable to find a correlation between influenza vaccination rates for children under 5 years old and a decline in children hospitalized for influenza-related illness.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/48976

 

[Loudmouth]

So you admit then that science is being used to kill people not help them. How is science good when they have cause so much mass destruction?

If we use a hammer to kill someone, does that disprove the claim that we can build a house with one. Science is just a tool like any other.

"A study in the January issue of Pediatrics was unable to find a correlation between influenza vaccination rates for children under 5 years old and a decline in children hospitalized for influenza-related illness.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/48976

Didn't answer my question.

 

[In situ]

Yes, lets compare those H erectus skull with a human.

Instead of showing pictures that cannot be compared - i.e. proves nothing - why don't you refer to studies with geometric data that shows a human skull more similar to an erects skull than any human skull?

 

[In situ]

I am only asking for if the theory of evolution can tell us if we should be on a high fat low carb diet or a high carb low fat diet.

Can you use a screw driver to hammer nails?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Missing the point - with purpose - do we?

The point is - yangi is clearly half bird (wings feathers etc but n beak) and half dinosaur (moth with teth, claws and tail) - i.e. yangi is the beautiful example of a tspeciemnt we need to explain but the progressive ranstional species between bird and dinosaur YEC's always been asking for.

First, don't confuse me with believing in YEC, that's as flawed as evolution.

No yangi is a beautiful example of this:

http://bestpets.biz/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dog-breeding.jpg

when you compare it with archeopteryx if we can get an artist to do a more accurate rendering. Just different breeds of the same species.

The problem with yangi (for YEC's) is that is a dinosaur with modern bird feathers. If it wasn't it for this YEC's would call it a dinosaur. But since birds has feathers and this fossil obviously has feathers andy YEC need to say it is bird - despite it has a tail, claw and mouth full of teeth - unless the like to called a fool by their own as well. This why it so hilarious when YEC call this as bird.

No, the problem with yangi (for YEC's and evolutionist's,) is they both ignore the fossil record. Both accept flawed translations of the Bible though.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-2.htm

Look up that word "hayah" and tell me it means (was.) The earth "became" desolate and waste, and darkness "became"
upon... Science says a meteorite or comet, I'll accept that. Hence the dinosaurs went extinct. Wrong theories are wrong - no matter if it's Christian or Evolutionist that argues them.

Stop asking me to accept a false interpretation of the Bible so you can prove it wrong. And also stop asking me to ignore the world around us. I expect next you will ask that I believe that Finches that have been interbreeding since they arrived on the islands underwent speciation?

If we go backward in time we see less birdlike and more dinosaur like transitional creatures (called dinosaurs by YEC's) and if we go forward in time we see more birdlike and less dinosaur like transitional creature (called birds by YEC's).

And stop with the YEC, as if that is supposed to mean something to me. What, you think I believe the pope that started the inquisition was a believer? Just a wolf in sheep's clothing. I don't accept your mainstream version - nor theirs.

And no mammals which just appeared miraculously? You mean those dinosaurs not classified as Avian, but once Reptilian, even if they no longer believe that, but now warm blooded?

EDIT: What happened to all the lineages from when dinosaurs were reptilian?

So not only do we have a single sepciment we need to explain but the whole chain of progressive changes over time from one form to another form, in YEC's words, we need to explain the change form one kind to another kind. How is this possible if micro evolution only is supposed to create a variaty within the same kind?

So the question is; are maniraptors and bird the same kind or not? Are maniraptors the same kind as Therapoda or not? Where do w

Except I don't believe the mainstream version that the Bible says this earth is young, but tells you of several creations and their accompanying destruction - when mankind and the animals with him were created after the last one. I accept those 6 creations and 5 destruction's, after which new life sprang up fully formed, mixed amongst those that survived. Don't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

 

[In situ]

No yangi is a beautiful example of this:

http://bestpets.biz/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dog-breeding.jpg

I do not have the time nor the lust to argue with someone that clearly declares all biologist to be incompetent idiots and thus announce them self to suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

All I said was; you missed my point. And I clarified how YEC's denies evidence in order to deny all evidence. I did not talk about you. I am also to tried atm to argue with you about your misunderstandings of what I said.

What happened to all the lineages from when dinosaurs were reptilian?

I dunno, ask a paleontologist or read a book on the subject if it is of interest for you.