|
By:
if you are going to cut and paste 3000 words of sh1te, at least have the courtesy to put in some paragraphs.
|
|
By:
That was a fantastic read about "evilution"!
I didn't quite follow, so will read again later.... |
|
By:
More - we want more....
he was a nut, he spent all his time fighting Dilberts online. In the image of God. why do you want to be in the image of Cheetah? |
|
By:
It's condensed for blogs. I wrote it months ago.
|
|
By:
I agree the talking snake makes more sense
|
|
By:
Brilliant from Aunty
![]() |
|
By:
Main problem I have with evilution is the spelling
|
|
By:
Darwin talks bull,the Apes we see today did not turn into humans.
.how come that happened.? |
|
By:
The issue with the people who doubt evolution (I think that's what the opening post is about!), is that they never consider what a long time it all takes.
It's impossible to comprehend how long a million years is, or 100 million, or a billion and how gradual changes are looked at with millions of years of gaps between looks. I'll just deal with the top line of what you wrote. 1. Fossils ARE intermediate already. New ones are discovered all the time and fill the gaps as time goes on, but they're not that common as a lot of time has passed since they were living creatures and they mostly got eaten or rotted away. It took special conditions to make fossils and the reason there are quite a few is just that there weren't many but they gathered over a VERY LONG TIME. 2. Loads of fossils, most in fact are NOT fully formed. Also it is reckoned that 99.9% of every creature that has existed on earth is extinct. There are many reasons for this. We simply don't know what happened in the past, there is much to discover and learn. In the meantime a God or several Gods will do by way of explanation, for most. 3. DNA was only recently discovered. Mechanisms of its manipulation are being developed all the time. Again we just haven't learned or discovered enough yet to unravel every answer to every question, much less deal with people who refuse to believe it wasn't all made in 6 days by a being no-one has actually seen. I could go on, I really could. The biggest advice I have zorro, is don't try to publish it, even if you do tidy up the syntax and grammar. |
|
By:
I think it's best to leave religion off of chit chat. Evangelicals like zorro will not change their mind and people such as myself and other atheists on here won't accept a god without scientific evidence. You seem like a nice guy zorro but I think I'll stick to looking at your efforts on the drawing thread which are excellent.
|
|
By:
Apes we see today did not turn into humans
Well done, Brassneck, that's absolutely true. We ARE one of the apes we see today. We all evolved from a common ancestor. |
|
By:
YES,the apes today should be wearing skirts and trousers and living in houses and betting,and drinking,and dancing the night away.
so Darwin has a lot to explain. ![]() |
|
By:
civil partnershis played their part
|
|
By:
Grooming thread (ape style).
|
|
By:
NOBODY in all history questions Micro evolution. It's Macro evolution that is problematic.
If you do not know the difference. Then you are lazy in your beliefs. |
|
By:
lol. there is no difference you chump.
|
|
By:
dstyle.........its just time
|
|
By:
a man with a big nose passes that feature onto his children. micro evolution.
a man with a big nose has a child with wings and a new species is born. macro evolution. pigs breed pigs, not otters. not one animal changes into another animal. Richard Lenski has been breeding e-coli for thirty years, 67,000 generations, he's still got e-coli. Some are better some are worse. But none have became another bacterium. 67,000 generations. (that's times x 20 years for humans, age you might have offspring) 1.34 million years equivalent time passing for humans. 1.34 million years, and nothing....? spiders are the same? scorpions are the same? crocs, bats and tens of thousands of other critters all around millions of years ago? Maybe you are dreamers? enjoy the cartoons and animations of monkeys turning into men. Of fish turning into birds. looking at an owl and comparing it's structure to a whale is a hoot. |
|
By:
You only have to look at the advances in gene therapy, to appreciate that any animal can be subject to genetic adaptations, that can change the course of its evolution.
Some of these adaptations occur naturally. If you concede that percentage wise, we're genetically very very similar to some of the great apes, it's not such a big leap of faith to accept that one might have evolved from the other. It's our intellect, consciousness and ability to reflect, that give us that feeling of superiority and uniqueness. These could easily be bi-products of our evolution. Take a trip to the local pub on a saturday night, and you'll appreciate that we're driven by many of the same instincts as other species. |
|
By:
Evilution is satan personified !!
|
|
By:
a man with a big nose has a child with wings and a new species is born. macro evolution.
No it's not it's mutation. |
|
By:
Richard Lenski has been breeding e-coli for thirty years, 67,000 generations, he's still got e-coli. Some are better some are worse. But none have became another bacterium.
I have no idea whether this is true, but you don't seem to understand the process of evolution in any case. For a mutation to be passed on and flourish, it either has to enable an organism to take advantage of a new resource or, if there are no new resources, be at least as good as the competition at taking advantage of these unchanged conditions. Bacteria have been about for 100s of millions of years. They are perfectly adapted to their environment. It is highly unlikely that mutations from cell division would lead to a superior method of utilising environmental resources. ie Highly unlikely that a new "species" - (I'm not even sure that species is a proper term for bacteria)- will develop unless the environment changes. btw you also do not appear to understand that sexual reproduction will produce far more variance and possibility of adaption to changing environments than reproduction from cell division. |
|
By:
Richard Lenski - Michigan University - Google it .
Why are Apes like humans? because of the opposable thumb? the DNA resemblance has been taken down from (99 percent in 1995) to 97 percent. a two percent drop in a scale of 100, 100 containing every life form on the earth. Millions of species. They don't ever phrase it that way? why? KOALA BEAR - marsupial. Has opposable thumbs. here is the usual fare.... Human thumbs are called opposable thumbs. They are called opposable because the thumb can be moved around to touch the other fingers, which gives people the ability to grasp things. Most primates (humans, apes, and Old World monkeys) and some other animals have opposable thumbs. |
|
By:
a man has 46 chromosomes.
a potato has 46 chromosomes. a chimp has 48 chromosomes.(24 pairs) no animal has changed chromosome count and remained fertile. if it gains 1 it loses the ability of reproduction. Such as the mule. So I could make a spurious connection that we have the same amount of chromosomes as a POTATO. indeed we have a 100 percent match. in numbers at least. This is what I would term massaging the figures. (lying) All the figures are correct, but the content is debatable. |
|
By:
isn't there some creationist nutbag forum you can torture people zorro.......in other words....f*** off this forum spouting your rubbish
|
|
By:
Zorro gets some of his posts from creationist websites. I would rather encourage him to read the scientific viewpoint starting with Darwin's book in order to have a more balanced view. There are alternatives written in a more modern style if preferred.
|
|
By:
Another thing I think you should read about is quotation mining, which is prevalent on creationist websites and is deliberately done in order to give a false impression of the views of respected scientists. I have noticed that you often copy such misinformation on this forum. Have a look at this for example.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part6.html |
|
By:
The last post addressed to Zorrostrikes.
|
|
By:
just 65 questions - nobody addressing them?
just locked on course down the road... no turning back... straight into the barbecue. they all bought the lie, we are monkeys.. I'm God's creation. i gave you the warning. I've fulfilled my duty. I told you what was coming. but you all prefer to go over the cliff. ------------------------ In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Sir Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand". Referring to that as a future time ("the last age, the age of opening these things, be now approaching"), Newton also anticipated "the general preaching of the Gospel be approaching" and "the Gospel must first be preached in all nations before the great tribulation, and end of the world".[42] Over the years, a large amount of media attention and public interest has circulated regarding largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, that indicate he believed the world could end in 2060. While Newton also had many other possible dates (e.g. 2034) 2016 vs 2060 However, between the time he wrote his 2060 prediction (about 1704) until his death in 1727 Newton conversed, both first hand and by correspondence, with other famous theologians of his time. Those contemporaries who knew him during the remaining 23 years of his life appear to be in agreement that Newton, and the "best interpreters" including Jonathan Edwards (founder of Princeton), Robert Fleming, Moses Lowman, Phillip Doddridge, and Bishop Thomas Newton, were eventually "pretty well agreed" that the 1,260-year timeline should be calculated from the year 756 AD.[48] F.A. Cox also confirmed that this was the view of Newton and others, including himself: “The author adopts the hypothesis of Fleming, Sir Isaac Newton, and Lowman, that the 1260 years commenced in A.d. 756; and consequently that the millennium will not begin till the year 2016.”[49] ------------------------------------- Oct 1 2016 to September 23 2017 - the last jubilee year. on the jewish calendar year 5777. the enemy at the top know it's coming - see above. |
|
By:
![]() the economist - review of the forthcoming year - their predictions issue. for 2017. Magazine owned by Rothschild, Cadbury, Schroder, Agnelli. |
|
By:
Darwin talks bull,the Apes we see today did not turn into humans.Laugh.how come that happened.?
![]() |
|
By:
Richard Lenski has been breeding e-coli for thirty years, 67,000 generations, he's still got e-coli. Some are better some are worse. But none have became another bacterium.
67,000 generations. (that's times x 20 years for humans, age you might have offspring) 1.34 million years equivalent time passing for humans. 1.34 million years, and nothing....? Most species that have existed , of whatever size , would have lasted more than 67,000 generations without going extinct completely or the survivors evolving into something else. eg Tigers have existed exactly as they are now for 1.5 million years , 200,000 generations unchanged . The creationist view seems to be 'if i don't see a fish evolve into a bird in my lifetime then it's proof evolution is a myth'. 1.34 M years ago the species ancestral to modern humans was H0mo erectus . Though some scientists - notably Milford Wolpoff - argue that was essentially the same species as us anyway ( not a widely accepted view) |
|
By:
They desperately need a GK & CH..
|
|
By:
Can I address number 63 then. You state that the odds of 1 amino acid forming are 10 to the power of 260, ten with 260 zeroes running behind it – calculated by Francis Crick himself. As you sometimes tell us to look these things up or google it, i did. I couldn't find any reference of Crick saying this. The closest I got was that he actually said
“If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would that be? “This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros!” But this is very different to what you said, this refers to a chain of 200 amino acids not just 1 amino acid as you stated. I also read that the simplest theorised self-replicating peptide is 32 amino acids long and would have a 1 in 10^40 chance of forming randomly which then got me thinking. how many opportunities have their been for a self-replicating peptide to form. When you talk of things having a 1 in 10^50 chance of occurring there seems to nothing mentioned of how many opportunities have been available and it seems to be assumed that there is just 1. A 1 in 10^40 chance if very unlikely if you have just 1 attempt but a bit more likely if you have 10^40 attempts. Let me ask you Zorro, if god hadn't intervened how many opportunities would there have been for the simplest form of self-replicating life to occur. 1? 97? 10^66? Wouldn't you agree this is an important factor to consider when referring to how unlikely something is to happen? |
|
By:
indeed UA. crick uses it as a preface to argue for evolution.
i've already told zorro threes times about what's wrong with his using that line, and he still keeps posting it. As you point out, implicit in it, is a lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary biochemistry. I would suggest your time is better spent elsewhere rather than trying to enter into what you might assume to be a reasonable discussion, which is the last thing it will be. |
|
By:
tick tock - eternity awaits. six months to decide. then the window closes. place your bet. the soul is the stake. Do you want your inheritance or do you want the fire.
|
|
By:
lol. there is no difference you chump.
![]() |
|
By:
It's easy to see how they got you.
tick tock carrot and stick, tick tock pie in the sky. Why are you so desperate for forgiveness? What did you do to be so frightened? |
|
By:
I'm not scared of man or beast.
i'm just smart enough to see the truth. You believe Satan's lies. You are blinded by God. you have not been chosen. I just served the notice of what's coming. Satan's side does the same. both sides have given you the warning. You don't have an excuse when the **** comes now. it's like a notice sent thru the mail, Ezekiel says i have to give a warning. Sir Isaac Newton - arguably the smartest guy to have lived wrote a million words on the book of Daniel and revelation. He wasn't doing it out of a curiosity? he knew it was reality. You've chosen to deny the maker all his rights. He's not going to reward you for that. So you get the booby prize of eternal quarantine. You are hanging onto your sins as if they were a prize. you don't want a rightful king with wisdom. You are content with Satan's representatives. Ted Heath, Castro,Mugabe,Hitler,Mussolini and Sturgeon? All the fallible BS peddlers. Giving you one liners to cheer at. six thousand years - the land lease runs out. the land reverts to the original owner. God will take the land back and toss out the squatters. |