Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[The Barbarian]

Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away.

Actually, the sun is hardly ever precisely 93 million miles away. It varies by over a million miles. When it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere, it's more like 94 million miles. The consensus is that the average distance is about 93 million miles.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hmm.. Who should we believe.. YOU or our LYING EYES!!

You've been fooled by fossilization. You see, when things are fossilized, the organic structures are largely replaced by minerals. What's amazing is that the mineralized structures of what were RBCs, sometimes contain some organic molecules. No hemoglobin; that all decayed. But some fragments of hemoglobin remain. Now and then we find fossilized scales or even hair. But it's not keratin. It's minerals. The elastic "tissue" isn't tissue at all, but collagen. "Tissue" has a very specific meaning in biology. It's a group of cells, organized to one or more functions.

And so far, no DNA. If you read the paper, you see that.

These bind specifically to DNA fragments in extant material, and some of the isolated dinosaur cells showed internal, positive binding in the same pattern as seen in modern cells, suggesting some original dinosaur DNA is preserved

So fragments of DNA, which is what you'd expect. If there was DNA, they would be able to sequence genes from dinosaurs. Which would give you information you really wouldn't want to see; as you already know, heme from dinosaurs confirms that dinosaurs are most closely related to birds. I would love to see actual DNA found, rather than mere fragments of DNA (which are already known to last much longer than DNA). But I don't think that's going to happen. Would be interesting, though.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

(Argumentum Ad Vercundiam / Ad Populum / Ab Auctoritate Logical fallacies galore....)



Barbarian chuckles:
But here's a way to test it:

The Discovery Institute publishes a list of "Scientists Who Doubt Darwin." Project Steve is a list of scientists with PhDs in biology or a related field, who accept evolutionary theory, and are named "Steve" or some variant of that name, like "Stephanie."

Go through the Discovery Institutes's list, counting the Steves with PhDs in biology or a related field and compare. Last time I checked, the doubters comprised about 0.3% of the scientists who accept evolutionary theory. That's not three percent; it's three-tenths of a percent.

Pretty much says it all, um? Do you now see why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationism?



"If you do, it wasn't a very smart move for you to be posting this:"
"As you now realize, that was a huge mistake for you. The bandwagon argument is logically faulty to begin with.

Apparently you missed the word MINORITIES in the phrase FASTEST GROWING MINORITIES!


"And as you have seen, it's also factually wrong; only a tiny percent of biologists doubt evolutionary theory."

You simply CANNOT know such a thing.. The only way you could possibly KNOW what biologists actually BELIEVE were to be if you were God and could READ THEIR THOUGHTS... (But then again, you are amazing with your ability to correct God about HIS Creation! Maybe it was YOU who were there in the beginning and NOT God! LOL.... Arrogant much? You cant KNOW what people believe by what they CLAIM to believe!! Every Person in North Korea KNOWS that Kim Jong Il is the Most Intelligent kindest and the most benevolent human on the planet.. Just ASK THEM!!! Saddam Hussein won his election by 11 million to ZERO!! EVERY SINGLE IRAQUI voted for Saddam! He must have been the best president ever..

THE SAME KIND OF CULTISH MADNESS is happening in "Science" today. We live in an age of intellectual fascism where a few people who happen to control the narrative set the agenda and anyone who dares to stray from the group think / mob rule will be sanctioned, have funding withdrawn., tenure denied, ridiculed, intimidated, fired, or demoted.. it happens over and over and over today..

It amounts to a few crazy ideologues who happen to share a neurotic agreement who try to shove square pegs into round holes and force it to be taught to every single public school science student in the land.. The students who get branwashed and indoctrinated become scientists teachers and professors THEMSELVES and the vicious cycle continues.. But the emperor has no clothes, and the rotting corpse of Darwinism is stinking up the joint and everyone knows it is pure garbage.. Even you..


"Last time I checked, the doubters comprised about 0.3% of the scientists who accept evolutionary theory."

Go and watch the movie "expelled" again to refresh your memory as to why they CLAIM to believe in the myth of Evolutionism...

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

You've been fooled by fossilization. You see, when things are fossilized, the organic structures are largely replaced by minerals. What's amazing is that the mineralized structures of what were RBCs, sometimes contain some organic molecules. No hemoglobin; that all decayed. But some fragments of hemoglobin remain. Now and then we find fossilized scales or even hair. But it's not keratin. It's minerals. The elastic "tissue" isn't tissue at all, but collagen. "Tissue" has a very specific meaning in biology. It's a group of cells, organized to one or more functions.

And so far, no DNA. If you read the paper, you see that.



So fragments of DNA, which is what you'd expect. If there was DNA, they would be able to sequence genes from dinosaurs. Which would give you information you really wouldn't want to see; as you already know, heme from dinosaurs confirms that dinosaurs are most closely related to birds. I would love to see actual DNA found, rather than mere fragments of DNA (which are already known to last much longer than DNA). But I don't think that's going to happen. Would be interesting, though.

"So fragments of DNA, which is what you'd expect."

WHY WOULD YOU "EXPECT" TO SEE DNA IN A 100 MILLION YEARS OLD CREATURE?

 

[The Barbarian]

Being told ignorant assertions is not "Learning something new" It is the opposite.. It is ANTI Knowledge...

Here is a good Article by Kim Balogh (FOR OUR READERS)

I'm guessing that she knows a lot more than you do on this subject as does Tomkins.. LOL

Well, let's take a look.
But then again, you think she knows more than God about his creation so I wont put it past you.

The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for “ape to human evolution” theory to adequately explain.

Because she says so...

For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome

True of different varieties of horses. So you're saying some horses aren't horses?

and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.

Let's take a look...

Human and chimp chromosomes are more similar than the chimp is similar to gorilla and orangutan chromosomes. So strike one for your doc.

There are laws of embryology that directly contradict “ape to human evolution.” One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes.

And yet the gene for lactose tolerance evolved in humans. The Milano Mutation, providing immunity to hardening of the arteries evolved recently enough that we know the specific person who first had it. Strike two for our doc.

The laws of genetics prevent “ape to human evolution” from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes.

Gene duplication, followed by mutation. One common way. Would you like to see some examples? Another way is by mutation of non-coding DNA (sometimes called by creationists "junk DNA")

Want some examples?

But “ape to human evolution” relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes,

Nope. In humans, for example, morphology is different due to a change in the pacing of genes. We stay juvenile longer than other apes, and so we as adults retain many juvenile ape characteristics. No new genes in that; just a change in pacing. Over a hundred years ago, D'Arcy Thompson demonstrated this:

Chimp skulls change a lot in maturity. Humans not so much. So smaller face and jaws, upright posture due to the foramen magnum retaining a forward position, and larger braincase, relative to the size of the skull.

So called “gene duplication” is not evidence that organisms can create new genes.

She got that wrong, too. Strike three.

Global analysis of human duplicated genes reveals the relative importance of whole-genome duplicates originated in the early vertebrate evolution
BMC Genomics. 2016; 17: 71.
Abstract
Background
Gene duplication is a genetic mutation that creates functionally redundant gene copies that are initially relieved from selective pressures and may adapt themselves to new functions with time. The levels of gene duplication may vary from small-scale duplication (SSD) to whole genome duplication (WGD). Studies with yeast revealed ample differences between these duplicates: Yeast WGD pairs were functionally more similar, less divergent in subcellular localization and contained a lesser proportion of essential genes. In this study, we explored the differences in evolutionary genomic properties of human SSD and WGD genes, with the identifiable human duplicates coming from the two rounds of whole genome duplication occurred early in vertebrate evolution.

Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through “gene duplication,” this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.

See above. Strike 4.

Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that “chromosome fusion” of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of “chromosome fusion” in mammals.

Chromosome analyses of domestic mammals were started over 50 years ago. Their importance in animal breeding was pointed out by Ingemar Gustavsson, who identified a centric fusion (Robertsonian translocation) between chromosomes 1 and 29 in the Swedish Red and White cattle [10]. Five years later, an adverse influence on fertility of the carriers was documented [11]. Since this discovery, the development of veterinary cytogenetics of livestock species has been very rapid. It was found that 1/29 centric fusion is widespread in cattle breeds, with an exception of Holstein-Friesian cattle [12]. In horses, X monosomy appeared to be the most frequent chromosome abnormality [6], while in pigs reciprocal translocations were predominant.
Chromosome Abnormalities in Domestic Animals as Causes of Disorders of Sex Development or Impaired Fertility | IntechOpen

Strike five on your doc. She's not doing very well, is she?

But apes do not have any “gene generating system.”

A team led by scientists from the University of Chicago (UChicago) has published a study (“Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza“) in Nature Ecology and Evolution that challenges one of the classic assumptions about how new proteins evolve. The research shows that random, noncoding sections of DNA can quickly evolve to produce new proteins. These de novo, or from scratch, genes provide a new, unexplored way that proteins evolve and contribute to biodiversity, according to the scientists.

“Using a big genome comparison, we show that noncoding sequences can evolve into completely novel proteins. That’s a huge discovery,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, the Edna K. Papazian distinguished service professor of ecology and evolution at UChicago and senior author of the new study.
Random Non-Coding DNA Can Quickly Evolve to Produce New Proteins

Strike six.

Similarities in no way mean likeness

We can test that on organisms of known descent. Turns out genetic similarity does indicated close relationship. It's how you can find long-lost relatives by DNA analysis, for example.

Strike 7.

DNA analysis shows that humans and chimpanzees are genetically more like each other, than either is to other apes:

 

[The Barbarian]

"So fragments of DNA, which is what you'd expect."

WHY WOULD YOU "EXPECT" TO SEE DNA IN A 100 MILLION YEARS OLD CREATURE?

Fragments of DNA molecules yes. Actual intact DNA, no. That would be a surprise. But so far, no such thing has been demonstrated, as you now realize.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

You've been fooled by fossilization. You see, when things are fossilized, the organic structures are largely replaced by minerals. What's amazing is that the mineralized structures of what were RBCs, sometimes contain some organic molecules. No hemoglobin; that all decayed. But some fragments of hemoglobin remain. Now and then we find fossilized scales or even hair. But it's not keratin. It's minerals. The elastic "tissue" isn't tissue at all, but collagen. "Tissue" has a very specific meaning in biology. It's a group of cells, organized to one or more functions.

And so far, no DNA. If you read the paper, you see that.



So fragments of DNA, which is what you'd expect. If there was DNA, they would be able to sequence genes from dinosaurs. Which would give you information you really wouldn't want to see; as you already know, heme from dinosaurs confirms that dinosaurs are most closely related to birds. I would love to see actual DNA found, rather than mere fragments of DNA (which are already known to last much longer than DNA). But I don't think that's going to happen. Would be interesting, though.

"And so far, no DNA. If you read the paper, you see that."

Special pleading noted...

"If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck walks like a duck its a duck."

HOWEVER, IF ONE IS DESPERATE TO DEFEND SATANS FAIRYTALE OF EVOLUTIONISM...

"If It looks like DNA, seems like DNA, and appears identical to DNA, it ISNT! LOL...

Here is a good 8 min video of a prominent paleontologist (Lil Jack Horner) explaining why he cannot accept $20,000 to simply radiometric date 5 different dinosaur samples to see if they contain any MEASUREABLE C14.... This is a CLASSIC!!! Our readers will surely get a kick out of it... So much for "Science" being interested in truth....LOL This is a good one!! DONT MISS IT!!

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Fragments of DNA molecules yes. Actual intact DNA, no. That would be a surprise. But so far, no such thing has been demonstrated, as you now realize.

WHY WOULD YOU "EXPECT" TO SEE DNA FRAGMENTS IN A 100 MILLION YEARS OLD CREATURE?

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Well, let's take a look.
But then again, you think she knows more than God about his creation so I wont put it past you.



Because she says so...



True of different varieties of horses. So you're saying some horses aren't horses?



Let's take a look...

Human and chimp chromosomes are more similar than the chimp is similar to gorilla and orangutan chromosomes. So strike one for your doc.



And yet the gene for lactose tolerance evolved in humans. The Milano Mutation, providing immunity to hardening of the arteries evolved recently enough that we know the specific person who first had it. Strike two for our doc.



Gene duplication, followed by mutation. One common way. Would you like to see some examples? Another way is by mutation of non-coding DNA (sometimes called by creationists "junk DNA")

Want some examples?



Nope. In humans, for example, morphology is different due to a change in the pacing of genes. We stay juvenile longer than other apes, and so we as adults retain many juvenile ape characteristics. No new genes in that; just a change in pacing. Over a hundred years ago, D'Arcy Thompson demonstrated this:

Chimp skulls change a lot in maturity. Humans not so much. So smaller face and jaws, upright posture due to the foramen magnum retaining a forward position, and larger braincase, relative to the size of the skull.



She got that wrong, too. Strike three.

Global analysis of human duplicated genes reveals the relative importance of whole-genome duplicates originated in the early vertebrate evolution
BMC Genomics. 2016; 17: 71.
Abstract
Background
Gene duplication is a genetic mutation that creates functionally redundant gene copies that are initially relieved from selective pressures and may adapt themselves to new functions with time. The levels of gene duplication may vary from small-scale duplication (SSD) to whole genome duplication (WGD). Studies with yeast revealed ample differences between these duplicates: Yeast WGD pairs were functionally more similar, less divergent in subcellular localization and contained a lesser proportion of essential genes. In this study, we explored the differences in evolutionary genomic properties of human SSD and WGD genes, with the identifiable human duplicates coming from the two rounds of whole genome duplication occurred early in vertebrate evolution.



See above. Strike 4.



Chromosome analyses of domestic mammals were started over 50 years ago. Their importance in animal breeding was pointed out by Ingemar Gustavsson, who identified a centric fusion (Robertsonian translocation) between chromosomes 1 and 29 in the Swedish Red and White cattle [10]. Five years later, an adverse influence on fertility of the carriers was documented [11]. Since this discovery, the development of veterinary cytogenetics of livestock species has been very rapid. It was found that 1/29 centric fusion is widespread in cattle breeds, with an exception of Holstein-Friesian cattle [12]. In horses, X monosomy appeared to be the most frequent chromosome abnormality [6], while in pigs reciprocal translocations were predominant.
Chromosome Abnormalities in Domestic Animals as Causes of Disorders of Sex Development or Impaired Fertility | IntechOpen

Strike five on your doc. She's not doing very well, is she?



A team led by scientists from the University of Chicago (UChicago) has published a study (“Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza“) in Nature Ecology and Evolution that challenges one of the classic assumptions about how new proteins evolve. The research shows that random, noncoding sections of DNA can quickly evolve to produce new proteins. These de novo, or from scratch, genes provide a new, unexplored way that proteins evolve and contribute to biodiversity, according to the scientists.

“Using a big genome comparison, we show that noncoding sequences can evolve into completely novel proteins. That’s a huge discovery,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, the Edna K. Papazian distinguished service professor of ecology and evolution at UChicago and senior author of the new study.
Random Non-Coding DNA Can Quickly Evolve to Produce New Proteins

Strike six.



We can test that on organisms of known descent. Turns out genetic similarity does indicated close relationship. It's how you can find long-lost relatives by DNA analysis, for example.

Strike 7.

DNA analysis shows that humans and chimpanzees are genetically more like each other, than either is to other apes:

"Well, let's take a look.
But then again, you think she knows more than God about his creation so I wont put it past you."

Well, SHE isn't the one claiming that God made filthy, flea infested, maggot eating, fecal matter throwing foul smelling disgusting apes IN HIS OWN IMAGE... That would be YOU.. And you will answer for it. My job here is to expose your lies, not to judge you for them..

BTW wow, a graph with lines and pictures of monkeys with humans That is quite impressive! (Sarc Off)

"DNA analysis shows that humans and chimpanzees are genetically more like each other, than either is to other apes:" you mean Apes, not OTHER Apes.. I have no desire to participate in your sick wannabe ape fetish.

DNA analysis? Common design = COMMON DESIGNER!!!

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Well, let's take a look.
But then again, you think she knows more than God about his creation so I wont put it past you.



Because she says so...



True of different varieties of horses. So you're saying some horses aren't horses?



Let's take a look...

Human and chimp chromosomes are more similar than the chimp is similar to gorilla and orangutan chromosomes. So strike one for your doc.



And yet the gene for lactose tolerance evolved in humans. The Milano Mutation, providing immunity to hardening of the arteries evolved recently enough that we know the specific person who first had it. Strike two for our doc.



Gene duplication, followed by mutation. One common way. Would you like to see some examples? Another way is by mutation of non-coding DNA (sometimes called by creationists "junk DNA")

Want some examples?



Nope. In humans, for example, morphology is different due to a change in the pacing of genes. We stay juvenile longer than other apes, and so we as adults retain many juvenile ape characteristics. No new genes in that; just a change in pacing. Over a hundred years ago, D'Arcy Thompson demonstrated this:

Chimp skulls change a lot in maturity. Humans not so much. So smaller face and jaws, upright posture due to the foramen magnum retaining a forward position, and larger braincase, relative to the size of the skull.



She got that wrong, too. Strike three.

Global analysis of human duplicated genes reveals the relative importance of whole-genome duplicates originated in the early vertebrate evolution
BMC Genomics. 2016; 17: 71.
Abstract
Background
Gene duplication is a genetic mutation that creates functionally redundant gene copies that are initially relieved from selective pressures and may adapt themselves to new functions with time. The levels of gene duplication may vary from small-scale duplication (SSD) to whole genome duplication (WGD). Studies with yeast revealed ample differences between these duplicates: Yeast WGD pairs were functionally more similar, less divergent in subcellular localization and contained a lesser proportion of essential genes. In this study, we explored the differences in evolutionary genomic properties of human SSD and WGD genes, with the identifiable human duplicates coming from the two rounds of whole genome duplication occurred early in vertebrate evolution.



See above. Strike 4.



Chromosome analyses of domestic mammals were started over 50 years ago. Their importance in animal breeding was pointed out by Ingemar Gustavsson, who identified a centric fusion (Robertsonian translocation) between chromosomes 1 and 29 in the Swedish Red and White cattle [10]. Five years later, an adverse influence on fertility of the carriers was documented [11]. Since this discovery, the development of veterinary cytogenetics of livestock species has been very rapid. It was found that 1/29 centric fusion is widespread in cattle breeds, with an exception of Holstein-Friesian cattle [12]. In horses, X monosomy appeared to be the most frequent chromosome abnormality [6], while in pigs reciprocal translocations were predominant.
Chromosome Abnormalities in Domestic Animals as Causes of Disorders of Sex Development or Impaired Fertility | IntechOpen

Strike five on your doc. She's not doing very well, is she?



A team led by scientists from the University of Chicago (UChicago) has published a study (“Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza“) in Nature Ecology and Evolution that challenges one of the classic assumptions about how new proteins evolve. The research shows that random, noncoding sections of DNA can quickly evolve to produce new proteins. These de novo, or from scratch, genes provide a new, unexplored way that proteins evolve and contribute to biodiversity, according to the scientists.

“Using a big genome comparison, we show that noncoding sequences can evolve into completely novel proteins. That’s a huge discovery,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, the Edna K. Papazian distinguished service professor of ecology and evolution at UChicago and senior author of the new study.
Random Non-Coding DNA Can Quickly Evolve to Produce New Proteins

Strike six.



We can test that on organisms of known descent. Turns out genetic similarity does indicated close relationship. It's how you can find long-lost relatives by DNA analysis, for example.

Strike 7.

DNA analysis shows that humans and chimpanzees are genetically more like each other, than either is to other apes:

So called “gene duplication” is not evidence that organisms can create new genes.
She got that wrong, too. Strike three.


NOPE SHE GOT IT RIGHT.. THAT MEANS YOU ARE WRONG!

 

[Job 33:6]

I've seen it before.. no sense wasting my precious time

I suspect that you don't understand what the video is saying.

Why don't you demonstrate that you actually understand what the video is about.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about it. For example, you don't seem to even know the four key points of Darwinian theory. What do you think they are?



Sorry, but the postmodernist idea that truth is whatever you make it out to be, doesn't play with me.



Shouldn't you first know what evolution and evolutionary theory are, before you tell us about it?



So first tell us which of the four points of Darwinism you think are faulty, and your evidence for that.



You have it mostly backwards. Biochemistry, for example, supports evolutionary theory, not the other way around.



Because it's directly obseved. Think back to earlier posts. What is the scientific definition of "evolution."



That's an error laymen often make. To the unscientific, "theory" means something like "guess." But in reality, a theory in science is an idea or group of ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. You appear to have confused "theory" with "hypothesis." Would you like to learn how they are related and how they are different? It's something people without much scientific training often get confused.



Sloppy thinking, I suppose.

I KNOW OVAL-EARTHERS HATE THE BIBLE AND DECIDED TO WRITE THEIR OWN BIBLE.. I AM STILL WAITING FOR THE OFFICIAL "OVAL-EARTHER BIBLE" WHERE THEY THROW OUT ALL OF THE "FALSE STUFF" AND ONLY POST THE "TRUE STUFF".. LOL

WHEN WILL THE "REAL" BIBLE BE WRITTEN FOR UA MERE MORTALS?

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Rather the dishonest creationist game of semantics. "Evolution" has a very specific meaning in science. Originally, it was "descent with modification." Then, with the discovery of genetics, it was "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Creationists often try to avoid the actual pheonomena, and confuse agencies of evolution (like natural selection), or consequences of evolution (like common descent) with the real thing.



Only inheritable variation is evolution.



Only inheritable adaptation is evolution.



Technically, that's what is called "macroevolution." Microevolution is evolution within a species, and macroevoltuion is the evolution of new taxa.



No, that was the one-hit joke of a 1980s pop group. There is no "de-volution." Only change. What did you think "de-volution" is?

Stuff like resistance to viruses, or change in pigmentation, or evolution of a new digestive organ, is adaptive evolution. Not all evolution is adaptive. Some is merely genetic drift or neutral changes that have little or no adaptive consequences.



Actually, all humans evolved from other pimates. There's a huge amount of genetic, fossil, and anatomical data documenting the fact. As you learned, even honest YE creationists admit that the many fossil transitionals of hominids is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."



As you learned, it's mutation and natural selection. And direct observation shows that's all that is needed.



I think if you calmed yourself, and tried to put a cogent argument together, you'd probably do better than you're doing.



So far, lots of fun. And we're just starting.



Fields. My first degree was in the area of biology. Without being specific enough to be identifying myself, I did graduate work in immunology and another degree in systems, as it applies to biological systems and human structure and capabilities.

Studied entomology, mainly systematics/parasitology/medical ent. And I completed all my pre-med courses, getting drafted and then married before deciding not to go on there.

Barbarian, regarding creationist admissions of common descent:
Or forming new ones. Or modifying old ones. Usually, breaking genes won't produce new taxa. AIG and ICR admit to new species, genera, and families descending from common ancestors, and sometimes,they go a bit beyond that. That's a load of common descent.

"As you learned, its mutations and natural selection.. LOL..


So you want Creationists to believe that MUTATIONS allowed for for an organless Microbe to S L O W L Y evolve into a Microbiologist with 10 interlocked, interdependent, interconnected VITAL organs AND their support systems all working perfectly together in tandem and harmony or we DIE when NO ONE can even provide a plausible chronological evolutionary order for man's (Or ANY mammal's) VITAL organs??

Which VITAL organ evolved FIRST? Liver?
Which VITAL organ evolved SECOND? Lower Intestine?
Which VITAL organ evolved THIRD? Stomach?
Which VITAL organ evolved FOURTH? Pancreas?
Which VITAL organ evolved FIFTH? Lungs?
Which VITAL organ evolved SIXTH? Kidneys?
Which VITAL organ evolved SEVENTH? Upper intestine?
Which VITAL organ evolved EIGHTH? Brain?
Which VITAL organ evolved NINTH? Heart?
Which VITAL organ evolved LAST? Skin?

You see, We are IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!

If you want to continue to believe in Evolutionism due to an emotional attachment because its IMPLICATIONS happen to align with your philosophical worldview, You are doing the right thing by avoiding me like the plague.. I am an Evolutionist's worst nightmare.. However, if you want to know the truth, even if that truth isn't what your itching ears want to hear, then respond with answers instead of bumper stickers and talking points.. Either way, I will continue to expose the myth of Evolutionism for our readers as the truth will set you free...

The Bible predicted all of this 2000 years ago with stunning accuracy!!

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

2 Timothy 4:3-4

 

[The Barbarian]

So you want Creationists to believe that MUTATIONS allowed for for an organless Microbe to S L O W L Y evolve into a Microbiologist

How silly. Humans evolved from other primates. Thought you knew.

with 10 interlocked, interdependent, interconnected VITAL organs

You still haven't explained why you think there are only 10 in humans, and why you think they all had to be there at once. Sponges lack almost all of them, and they do fine. Cnidarians lack most of them, but they do have a nervous system. Planarians don't have hearts or lungs, but they do fine. You're trying to project your imagination on the world, and it's not a good fit.

AND their support systems all working perfectly together in tandem and harmony or we DIE when NO ONE can even provide a plausible chronological evolutionary order for man's (Or ANY mammal's) VITAL organs??

You got that wrong, too. For example, lungs. The most primitive lungs are in fish. Small chordates were able to absorb enough oxygen from their digestive tract to live. Some still do. As they got larger, the digestive tract increased surface area to form pockets. Some still have these very primitive lungs. As the fish got larger and more active, the surface area of the lungs increased by infolding. So we have primitive alveoli. And so on. As yo now realize this evolved gradually over time. There are plenty of examples; would you like me to show you some?

Pick a different organ and I'll show you that, if you like.

However, there is an important clue as to the first organelle absolutely necessary for cellular life. That is, the cell membrane. No membrane, no cell. And it's instructive that the cell membrane remains the simplest and most easily-formed organelle, even in humans. It's a simple phospholipid bilayer that spontaneously forms sheets and vesicles. So there you are.

You believe in your fairy-tale idea of "evolutionism", because you're emotionally unable to accept God's creation as it is. Evolution is far more sensible than your "evoltuionism", and it has the virtue of being true.

You are doing the right thing by avoiding me like the plague.. I am an Evolutionist's worst nightmare.

I'm not trying to upset you. I'm trying to help you. You won't necessarily go to hell for being a creationist, but if you accept God's creation as it is, you will have a better relationship with Him and with His people.

I fear you've made an idol of your new doctrines, and that can separate you from Him. Let it be His way, and make your peace with His creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

WHY WOULD YOU "EXPECT" TO SEE DNA FRAGMENTS IN A 100 MILLION YEARS OLD CREATURE?

Because DNA tends to degrade over time. Just as the hemoglobin in that T-rex broke down into heme and some other fragments, so did the DNA in other fossils. It's not surprising. Physical chemistry says it's theoretically possible for DNA to persist for that long, but it's highly unlikely. Still, if we find it, and there was enough of it to sequence, it would be another nail in the coffin of YE creationism.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, SHE isn't the one claiming that God made filthy, flea infested, maggot eating, fecal matter throwing foul smelling disgusting apes IN HIS OWN IMAGE... That would be YOU.. And you will answer for it. My job here is to expose your lies, not to judge you for them..

Calm yourself. God is a spirit, and as Jesus says, spirits have no bodies. Our likeness to God is in our immortal souls and in knowing good and evil, as God says. You're learning a lot of new things, and it's troubling you. Don't let your fear turn to anger. Face it and learn from it. A Christian should never fear the truth.

 

[The Barbarian]

Special pleading noted...

"If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck walks like a duck its a duck."

But as you learned, this isn't DNA, it's reported to be fragments of decomposed DNA.

You've fooled yourself.

If It looks like DNA,

But as you learned, it looks like fragments of DNA. Would you like me to show you, again?

seems like DNA

DNA is a double helix, made of nitrogenous bases, joined by deoxyribose. That wasn't found, as you learned earlier.

and appears identical to DNA

But of course, it wasn't. It appears to be fragments of decomposed DNA. Which is what you'd expect from fossils that old.

 

[The Barbarian]

DNA analysis? Common design = COMMON DESIGNER!!!

So God's design is this?

That's what DNA analysis says about ape DNA. You're claiming that God designed humans and chimpanzees to be more alike than either of them is like gorillas or orangutans.

You sure you want to do that?

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Calm yourself. God is a spirit, and as Jesus says, spirits have no bodies. Our likeness to God is in our immortal souls and in knowing good and evil, as God says. You're learning a lot of new things, and it's troubling you. Don't let your fear turn to anger. Face it and learn from it. A Christian should never fear the truth.

"You're learning a lot of new things, and it's troubling you"

LOL... None of this insane garbage is new to me..


"A Christian should never fear the truth"

Nor should they call Christ a liar..

"Darwin made it possible to be an intelectually fullfilled Atheist" Richard Dawkins

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Because DNA tends to degrade over time. Just as the hemoglobin in that T-rex broke down into heme and some other fragments, so did the DNA in other fossils. It's not surprising. Physical chemistry says it's theoretically possible for DNA to persist for that long, but it's highly unlikely. Still, if we find it, and there was enough of it to sequence, it would be another nail in the coffin of YE creationism.

WHY WOULD YOU "EXPECT" TO SEE DNA FRAGMENTS IN A 100 MILLION YEARS OLD CREATURE?

"Because DNA tends to degrade over time"

LOL. So THATS your answer? Because DNA degrade over time THEREFORE you should EXPECT (you words) to see it after 100,000,000 years? BECAUSE IT DEGRADES OVER TIME??????

Exhibit A for out readers ....