When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[rjs330]

That is exactly the hubris that creationists have. They think they can read a story written in a book by men and tell God how he created the universe.

At least the scientists are using evidence from the creation itself to figure it out.

There is,no hubris in accepting God at his word. The hubris lies with man who says God is a liar.

Let God be true and every man a,liar.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy D]

Beneficial mutation are a theory.

Are you saying you don't accept that beneficial mutations occur and can increase an organisms chances of reproduction and survival?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Are you saying you don't accept that beneficial mutations occur and can increase an organisms chances of reproduction and survival?

Correct, there is no evidence for that and the chance of having a selectable random mutation is nill to none. Evolutionists have painted themselves into a corner and they are stuck with that lame duck theory until something better comes along. From the very beginning the argument against evolution has been irreducible complexity. Evolutionists may think that they defend their theory against this argument but they fail to do so.

 

[Jimmy D]

From the very beginning the argument against evolution has been irreducible complexity. Evolutionists may think that they defend their theory against this argument but they fail to do so.

LOL, have you heard of the Dover trial?

You're clutching at straws. Have a read of your copy of 'Language of God' to see what Francis Collins has to say about irreducible complexity - I'll give you a clue, it's an argument from incredulity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They were all fully formed creatures however.

Did you expect crockoducks?

They are only evolutionary because scientists want them to,be

No. Because the evidence shows them to be.

And bacteria in a lab is supposed to be proof of Evolution? So,man in a controlled environment is able to show bacteria evolving into something completely different?

Evolution doesn't make things evolve into something "completely different".

Evolutionary hypotheses says creatures evolved from something completely different by chance

*bzzzzt* wrong.
1. not by chance
2. not into something "completely different".

It seems not a single word of your claim turns out correct.

When you can get bacteria to evolve by chance into a,fish let me know.

The irony is, that such an observation would disprove evolution as it is presently understood..

Because that is what evolution says happened

Nope.

I know bacteria specifically isn't used in the hypothesis but you get my,point.

The only point you had here, was a gigantic strawmen and a blatant demonstration of your ignorance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Once humans get involved in trying to prove evolution in a lab they have just injected,themselves into the equation this making it void.

Congratulations, you have just managed to invalidate every single scientific experiment.

In this reasoning, the north pole is evidence of "intelligent freezing", because refrigirators.

And by admitting you can't show actual evolution You have just shown the fallacy of the process. Evolution is a belief system. It happened therefore I believe it. Without the actual ability to observe the process or repeat it Without intervention. It actually cracks me up how crazy it,all is. Its such nonsense yet humans are,tied to it. The wisdom of man really is foolishness.

What is foolish is to demand unreasonable evidence.

None of this is required.
We don't need 10.000.000 years of observation of a bloodline to know evolution occurs.

Just like we don't need to observer your parents having sex and getting pregnant in order to know that they are your biological parents.

 

[Loudmouth]

Correct, there is no evidence for that and the chance of having a selectable random mutation is nill to none.

There are 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. Are you saying that none of those mutations are beneficial to humans?

From the very beginning the argument against evolution has been irreducible complexity.

Since the beginning, not a single ID/creationist has produced evidence that IC systems can not evolve as they claim. In fact, we have examples of IC systems evolving in the fossil record, such as the step by step evolution of the three piece irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear:

 

[joshua 1 9]

Are you saying that none of those mutations are beneficial to humans?

I have never seen a beneficial mutation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have never seen a beneficial mutation.

All you need to do is look for the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. Among those mutations are the ones that have led to beneficial human adaptations.

It isn't a matter of you not seeing them. It is a matter of you not wanting to see them.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Have a read of your copy of 'Language of God'

Yes, I have read Language of God. I have a copy here and it is underlined so I know I have read all of it. Collins is trying to present an argument for gradualism.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I have never seen a beneficial mutation.

Have you ever seen, as in studied, any mutations whatsoever?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Have you ever seen, as in studied, any mutations whatsoever?

Yes and the facts are that so call beneficial mutations are rare and most mutations are harmful according to talkorigins. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

 

[rjs330]

Congratulations, you have just managed to invalidate every single scientific experiment.

In this reasoning, the north pole is evidence of "intelligent freezing", because refrigirators.




What is foolish is to demand unreasonable evidence.

None of this is required.
We don't need 10.000.000 years of observation of a bloodline to know evolution occurs.

Just like we don't need to observer your parents having sex and getting pregnant in order to know that they are your biological parents.

That just cracks me up! The hypothesis of evolution is thing evolving into something completely different. If we all have a common ancestor Then we have all evolved into something different. I have evolved from a fish. If that isn't somthing different I don't know what is.

You knock haven't debated evolution for quite some time. Its refreshing to once again do so and reconfirm just how silly it is.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

There are 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. Are you saying that none of those mutations are beneficial to humans?



Since the beginning, not a single ID/creationist has produced evidence that IC systems can not evolve as they claim. In fact, we have examples of IC systems evolving in the fossil record, such as the step by step evolution of the three piece irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear:

Only 40 million? Well that's interesting. If there was 1 mutation per year then it would only take 40 million years. But that doesn't really sound reasonable if it was all happening by chance. Unless if course all the mutations were happening at once.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only 40 million? Well that's interesting. If there was 1 mutation per year then it would only take 40 million years. But that doesn't really sound reasonable if it was all happening by chance. Unless if course all the mutations were happening at once.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Since evolution occurs in a population having multiple positive mutations a year is no problem at all. Also many of those changes are probably neutral changes. You have on the order of 150 mutations from your parents. If you have an average population on the order of one million, which is rather low actually and a generation is 20 years, then very year you wouldhave (1/20)150*1,000,000 = 7.5 million mutations per year to draw from. Over a period of 7 million years that is roughly 50 billion mutations and only 1 out of a million needs to be positive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, working on a dinosaur of a computer tonight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That just cracks me up! The hypothesis of evolution is thing evolving into something completely different. If we all have a common ancestor Then we have all evolved into something different. I have evolved from a fish. If that isn't somthing different I don't know what is.

You knock haven't debated evolution for quite some time. Its refreshing to once again do so and reconfirm just how silly it is.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

You have used very sloppy language and have come to a very sloppy conclusion as a result. Yes, our ancestors were "fish" both you and them are vertebrates, no change in kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and the facts are that so call beneficial mutations are rare and most mutations are harmful according to talkorigins. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

I doubt if Talk Origins said that since most mutations are neutral. But even if it is correct how is that "shooting yourself in the foot"?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I doubt if Talk Origins said that since most mutations are neutral. But even if it is correct how is that "shooting yourself in the foot"?

In context what they are saying is: "Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful". In general most mutations are considered to be neutral. Their effect is neither beneficial nor harmful.

 

[Herman Hedning]

In context what they are saying is: "Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful". In general most mutations are considered to be neutral. Their effect is neither beneficial nor harmful.

OK, so most mutations are neutral, and more are harmful than beneficial. So? Only the beneficial mutations are passed on, since harmful mutations are ... you know, harmful.