My Stupid Challenge

[Kylie]

A few alluded to that there were no records of Adam, but there are of Darwin.

Why is the written record in the Bible, not considered a record? Do people think they weren't capable of keeping records that far back or what?

If I chose to, I could easily assume the record of Darwin was not accurate.

The problem is that there are so few records of Adam, and they contradict known science. There are many records of Darwin (including the DNA that was passed onto his offspring), and they present no contradiction at all.

And let me ask you - Do you consider all holy texts to be records of the things they contain?

 

[Kylie]

No
But they were written by a man led by GOD to write down thee records that a man might desire to know the truth

and Moses knew GOD and had heard HIS VOICE and knew that there had to have been a starting point

How can you tell the difference between a book written by a man who was led by God, knew God and heard the voice of God...

... and a man who wrote a book in which he simply claimed these things happened?

 

[AV1611VET]

Lemme guess - the Bible. Shame we can't test that claim, isn't it?

Yasser Arafat already tested It, and It came through with [literally] flying colors.

 

[AV1611VET]

People of every religion say that.

Yup -- even false prophets.

 

[Kylie]

I love to pwn this example (and its grayscale counterpart).

Are you suggesting evolution can be demonstrated with this example?

If so, then why does evolution have so many missing links?

And if there aren't any missing links, then are you saying you can daisy chain cyanobacteria to man by laying physical evidence down side-by-side?

Because you don't understand evolution.

The fact that we don't have examples of every single life form that has ever existed, from one generation to the next does not mean we don't know what we are talking about.

 

[Kylie]

Exactly where I thought this was going

And yet I notice that you provide nothing to show what I said is wrong...

 

[AV1611VET]

There are many records of Darwin (including the DNA that was passed onto his offspring), and they present no contradiction at all.

Just mistakes.

Darwin’s second mistake was to assume that humans were in some ways different from all oher organisms. He expressed this difference by the very mechanism of evolution – of SELECTION. The process of selection from a set of offspring contending for survival can cover the spectrum of complete accident (such as the luck to survive a disaster) to deliberate measures to obtain an advantage. There is no need for a distinction between different organisms. Yet Darwin chose to make a distinction between NATURAL SELECTION and ARTIFICIAL Selection. Implying that Darwinian selection carried out by humans is different or superior to selection that occurs with non humans.

SOURCE

 

[Kylie]

You are here
You are a testament to the truth that there was a first.......parent

I am testament to the fact that I have a parent. Her name is Sandra and she is a photographer (a rather good one too).

The many genetic similarities I have with other life forms are testament to the fact that I am the result of an evolutionary process which began hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

[miknik5]

So now you accept not only evolution, but ultra-rapid evolution?

It won't work
There will be an ultra rapid work but it won't lead to evolution

And it will be similar to your example used

 

[Kylie]

Again you are changing the outside package, the superficial outward man by changing and altering and unnaturally changing the gene makeup so that "super genes" are expressed

How about the inner man?

Will this outer package guarantee a perfect inner quality human goodly man?

It didn't work for Eve who was taken out from Adam

The outer packaging was different but one would have thought that the inner image should have remained (again not talking about the gene makeup but the spirit)

Woah, hold on there dude.

-57 is the one who claimed that all the millions of species we have today speciated out from the ones that were on the ark. Evolution as we understand it can't do that in only a few thousand years. So there must have been some kind of rapid-evolution. If you disagree, fine. Take your beef up with him - he's the one saying it.

 

[miknik5]

I am testament to the fact that I have a parent. Her name is Sandra and she is a photographer (a rather good one too).

The many genetic similarities I have with other life forms are testament to the fact that I am the result of an evolutionary process which began hundreds of millions of years ago.

And Sandra will tell you who her parent is
And her parent will tel you who her parent is

And so on and so on and so on

Do you know your first parent who is also your mother,Sandra's, first parent?

 

[Kylie]

Yasser Arafat already tested It, and It came through with [literally] flying colors.

Yeah, that's not how that works, though, is it? Truth is not determined by who has the strongest army.

 

[miknik5]

By the way is that what defines a "good person"?

 

[Kylie]

Yup -- even false prophets.

People of every religion say that too, that anyone from another religion is a "false prophet.

 

[miknik5]

Woah, hold on there dude.

-57 is the one who claimed that all the millions of species we have today speciated out from the ones that were on the ark. Evolution as we understand it can't do that in only a few thousand years. So there must have been some kind of rapid-evolution. If you disagree, fine. Take your beef up with him - he's the one saying it.

I do not respond to dude
Sorry

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hardening your heart, are you?

Nope. Just stating facts that are rather obvious to everyone but you.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that we don't have examples of every single life form that has ever existed, from one generation to the next does not mean we don't know what we are talking about.

Just don't try to convince us you know what you're talking about by using that grayscale example on us ... or I'll pwn it.

 

[Kylie]

Just mistakes.

SOURCE

Oh, Darwin got a few things wrong, therefore everything we have learned about genetics since then is wrong! Scientists all around the world will be so relieved to learn this!

(BTW, the Wright brothers didn't know about jet engines, so I guess I can tell my hubby he doesn't need to worry about them anymore! He's an airline mechanic.)

 

[miknik5]

People of every religion say that too, that anyone from another religion is a "false prophet.

Yes many claim to have god(s) but deny THE SON

GOD in HIS WISDOM shut up the mouths of every lying whispering spirit who whispers and mutters everything and anything but the HIDDEN WISDOM of GOD made known to mortal man

Except they don't shut up

It isn't our problem
But it is the problem of those who listen to every and any other but THE TRUTH and TESTIMONY of GOD

 

[Kylie]

It won't work
There will be an ultra rapid work but it won't lead to evolution

And it will be similar to your example used

How can it cause massive rapid speciation if it is not evolution?