Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[JWGU]

True but the fact that mutations occur in all life forms then they (life forms) are in a state of transition.

You know what? I should just stop posting arguments against creationism and use that picture.

 

[USincognito]

Extinction of a species does in no way means it was not transitional. So long as mutations occur then suffice it to say that all life is in a transitional state. Given time and the ability to survive a changing environment then any species will transition.

ToE would not be possible were this not to be true.

Sorry for not being more clear. I was specifically referring to this part:

This means that all fossils are transitional too.

And showed that that assertion isn't correct with the example of Taung Child. I wasn't referring to species and my point was that one needs to be clear one is referring to populations (Au. africanus for example) instead of individual fossils (Taung for example).

 

[frogman2x]

True but the fact that mutations occur in all life forms then they (life forms) are in a state of transition

Mutation do not put one in a state of transition. Mutations do not add trait, they alter a trait the kid would have gotten without the mutation. Mutations are not a mechanism for evolution. Post one exampel of a mutation being the cause for an A to evolve into a B.

[/quote]


If you have evidence that evoluiton is true, then write it down, get it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.

I can prove evolu tion isnot true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for. I can also prove "after it kind" a scientific truth. You can't prove anything the TOE preaches.

Also you little tag at the end of you opinions is silly. Ask any question you want to and you will receive many answers from teh Christians in the fourm.

 

[lasthero]

I can prove evolu tion isnot true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for.

Explain where nylon eating bacteria got their genes from.

 

[OllieFranz]

If you have evidence that evoluiton is true, then write it down, get it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.

Already done (not by me, alas) several times over: in 1910, 1933, 1946, 1958, 1959, 1962*, 1968, 1969, 1983*, 1989*, 1993*, 2006*, 2007, 2009, and 2012. The years with asterisks indicate research that had the most direct impact on the theory of evolution. The other years are more genetics in general, though there was an effect on evolution studies.

 

[bhsmte]

Mutation do not put one in a state of transition. Mutations do not add trait, they alter a trait the kid would have gotten without the mutation. Mutations are not a mechanism for evolution. Post one exampel of a mutation being the cause for an A to evolve into a B.

If you have evidence that evoluiton is true, then write it down, get it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.

I can prove evolu tion isnot true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for. I can also prove "after it kind" a scientific truth. You can't prove anything the TOE preaches.

Also you little tag at the end of you opinions is silly. Ask any question you want to and you will receive many answers from teh Christians in the fourm.[/QUOTE]







Congratulations on your proof that evolution is not true, whatever that may be. Have they knocked on your door with the nobel prize yet?

 

[mzungu]

Sorry for not being more clear. I was specifically referring to this part:



And showed that that assertion isn't correct with the example of Taung Child. I wasn't referring to species and my point was that one needs to be clear one is referring to populations (Au. africanus for example) instead of individual fossils (Taung for example).

Point taken

 

[mzungu]

If you have evidence that evoluiton is true, then write it down, get it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.

I can prove evolu tion isnot true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for. I can also prove "after it kind" a scientific truth. You can't prove anything the TOE preaches.

Also you little tag at the end of you opinions is silly. Ask any question you want to and you will receive many answers from teh Christians in the fourm.

Congratulations on your proof that evolution is not true, whatever that may be. Have they knocked on your door with the nobel prize yet?

Fix your post else one may think it is you who is anti evolution.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Baby girls are born with all the eggs they will ever possess in their lifetime. Tween testes begin sperm production in that approximate timeframe.

Where in particular does sperm get the DNA from to contribute to the offspring?

 

[frogman2x]

Since characteristics (phenotype) are expressions of genes (genotype) changes in the latter will axiomatically result in changes to the former. Some of those will be novel changes.

They won't be changes. They will be aterations of what the person would have gotten without the mutation. It really doesn't matter, mutations are not a mechanism for evolution.

 

[frogman2x]

You know what? I should just stop posting arguments against creationism and use that picture.

No, what you should do is post the evidence for what you say. Just make sure it is biological evidence, not the regular eve rhetoric.

 

[frogman2x]

Explain where nylon eating bacteria got their genes from.

From their parents of course. BTW way were they still bacteria? It is always amusing that the evos start with bacteria, end up with bacterial, and call that evolution. You do understand that evolution preaches one species evolving into a different species, right?

 

[frogman2x]

Fix your post else one may think it is you who is anti evolution.

I Am.

 

[frogman2x]

Already done (not by me, alas) several times over: in 1910, 1933, 1946, 1958, 1959, 1962*, 1968, 1969, 1983*, 1989*, 1993*, 2006*, 2007, 2009, and 2012. The years with asterisks indicate research that had the most direct impact on the theory of evolution. The other years are more genetics in general, though there was an effect on evolution studies.

If you check more closely you will find that what they received their award for was for proving something and none of it was about evolution. It was about real science.

 

[frogman2x]

If you have evidence that evoluiton is true, then write it down, get it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.

I can prove evolution is not true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for. I can also prove "after it kind" a scientific truth. You can't prove anything the TOE preaches.

Also you little tag at the end of you opinions is silly. Ask any question you want to and you will receive many answers from teh Christians in the fourm.[/quote]


I gave you my evidence, why not try to refute it? Let me guess, you can't.

Congratulations on your proof that evolution is not true, whatever that may be. Have they knocked on your door with the nobel prize yet?

Don't avoid my answer. Tell me why it is wrong or run away. Either way you will be emparassed.

 

[lasthero]

From their parents of course.

No, they didn't get it from their parents. Nylon didn't even exist before then, so they couldn't have had the ability to digest it.

Also, where did these Italian Wall Lizards get their cecal valves?

Italian wall lizard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When the lizards came to the island, they didn't have cecal valves. Now they do. Where did that come from? Their parents didn't have them.

BTW way were they still bacteria?

Are all bacteria one kind? They reproduce asexually, so how does that work? Wouldn't ever bacteria be a kind unto itself, then? Why are you acting like bacteria are one kind?

evolution. You do understand that evolution preaches one species evolving into a different species, right?

Which has happened. For instance, these sheep were breed to the point where they can no longer interbreed with other sheep. They can't bring forth with other sheep anymore, so by your definition, they're a new kind.

Molecular analysis of wild and domestic sheep ... [Proc Biol Sci. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[essentialsaltes]

I can prove evolution is not true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for.

The trait of nylon eating was not present in the genes of the predecessors of the nylon eating bugs.

Your 'proof' that evolution is not true is faulty.

 

[Split Rock]

I can prove evolution is not true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for. I can also prove "after it kind" a scientific truth. You can't prove anything the TOE preaches.

Wrong yet again. Here is an example from the thread archive of herbicide resistance due to a specific mutation, not present earlier in the population.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3309652/

Don't avoid my answer. Tell me why it is wrong or run away. Either way you will be emparassed.

Maybe you should be "emparassed" by your awful spelling. Or maybe by the fact that you are admitting how narrow-minded you are.

 

[JWGU]

They won't be changes. They will be aterations of what the person would have gotten without the mutation. It really doesn't matter, mutations are not a mechanism for evolution.

No one has denied your ability to assert that mutations are not a mechanism for evolution. But asserting something repeatedly does not make it so. We have given you many examples of how mutations are, in fact, a mechanism for evolution, and your response has essentially been, "no, they aren't." You have given no evidence to back up your assertion and we have given plenty. So even if you don't believe the evidence, why should anyone believe your argument?

 

[WithLoveFromAlyssa]

NOT A Fairytale