creation vs evolution why the earth cannot be millions and billions of years old, evidence for noahs flood

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Maybe you should try reading my posts like the first few sentences
Please read my mutations and infomation post in the spoiler than respond please

no.

post it in a reply or I won't.

I can't understand OP and it's too long.

[total relism]

no.

post it in a reply or I won't.

I can't understand OP and it's too long.

just under the spoiler mutations and information i really dont want to take the time to exspain to you, please go read or watch any of the free debates i posted or material on creation websites

[removeduser_4536284751384]

"when they say bacteria becoming resistant to varoius things its never because something new evolves, or flu viruses evolving etc"

you're wrong

it is because something mutates that is different from the original, i.e. something new.

[total relism]

"when they say bacteria becoming resistant to varoius things its never because something new evolves, or flu viruses evolving etc"

you're wrong

it is because something mutates that is different from the original, i.e. something new.

please read my mutation and information post show me were something new has evolved give a exsaple they only destroy what was alredy there a alredy existing gene enzyme etc never new noval biolgical systems.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm article on what causes the resitance

great debate on this topic by auther of paper
http://creationresearch.org/Merchant...roduct_Count=0


watch any debate this is always broght up

[removeduser_4536284751384]

please read my mutation and information post show me were something new has evolved give a exsaple they only destroy what was alredy there a alredy existing gene enzyme etc never new noval biolgical systems.

no they don't

I mean, don't you eve understand how huntington's disease works?

you're just claiming stuff that isn't true.

[total relism]

no they don't

I mean, don't you eve understand how huntington's disease works?

you're just claiming stuff that isn't true.

lisen please post were somthing new has evolved be specific.

i have never herd of this b-4 but did quick google and found this


Huntington's disease (HD) results from genetically programmed degeneration of brain cells, called neurons, in certain areas of the brain. This degeneration ...

What research is being done?

Scientific investigations using electronic and other technologies enable scientists to see what the defective gene does to various structures in the brain and how it affects the body's chemistry and metabolism.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/h...huntington.htm


it just sounds like a mutated gene nothing new evolving a degeneration

[removeduser_4536284751384]

lisen please post were somthing new has evolved be specific.

i have never herd of this b-4 but did quick google and found this


Huntington's disease (HD) results from genetically programmed degeneration of brain cells, called neurons, in certain areas of the brain. This degeneration

What research is being done?

Scientific investigations using electronic and other technologies enable scientists to see what the defective gene does to various structures in the brain and how it affects the body's chemistry and metabolism.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/h...huntington.htm


it just sounds like a mutated gene nothing new evolving a degeneration

no it's a mutated defective gene.

it's a gene that has copied itself thousand of times.

[total relism]

no it's a mutated defective gene.

it's a gene that has copied itself thousand of times.

ok and your point is?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

ok and your point is?

that mutations can happen, not just degenerations or whatever you're talking about.

[total relism]

that mutations can happen, not just degenerations or whatever you're talking about.

that is your faith to say mutations can evolve new genes. Do you really belive this is it? i could email a phd imunne system exspert im sure he could clerify for you if you want me to?

[War lord]

It is plain to see that the genome of avian influenza viruses is not static, but constantly mutating and rearranging. Because viral proteins interact with proteins in the cells they infect, variation in the viral protein can and does have effects on what type of cells can be infected and what type of physical manifestations develop in infected hosts. However, this does not occur via natural acquisition of novel genes or differentiation of viral protein functionality; but on the contrary, it is due to loss of protein specificity (e.g., broader ranges of proteases may be able to cleave genetically altered HA0 proteins) or intraspecies switching of similar genetic materials which contain minor variations effecting protein/protein interactions (e.g., NA proteins between human and avian strains). So what should one say if asked, “Is the ‘bird flu’ evolving”? It could be said that the avian influenza genome is evolving only in the sense that it’s continually changing and modifying, and not in the sense that it will someday be something other than an influenza virus.

That's a Copy&Paste.

[total relism]

That's a Copy&Paste.

yes so its somthing i have never herd of before as i said i did a quick goggle search for it.
by the way were is that evidence for your religon got any yet?

my bad thoght it was a reply to his other post, what do you want from me that was the best way for him to understand or he could read my infomation post but he refuses to

[Stark of Winterfell]

Total Relism, I don't think you understand Gould. He's saying that he could see what sort of findings from an experiment could prove evolution false. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that he never came across an experiment with findings that disproved evolution. He's just saying that he sees that it could be proved false with certain findings, not that he has seen those findings,

[removeduser_4536284751384]

that is your faith to say mutations can evolve new genes. Do you really belive this is it? i could email a phd imunne system exspert im sure he could clerify for you if you want me to?

er it's my faith? I just showed you proof. Email whoever you want, they will confirm it unless they are an idiot.

it has come to my attention you don't know what you're talking about.

Do you understand high school chemistry? Do you understand how, say, introducing electrons or ions to some molecular structure could change that structure? If you have some vrey complex molecule and you throw a electrons near it they will mess up the bonding and it will change. DNA is just a molecule. These things can change it.

Here is a mutation in which something changed:

[Gordon Freynman]

what i was refering to was i replied to all your posts and you would not respond back did you even relize i responded?

That must have been after I was sick of responding and just let everyone else deal with you.

1] maybe you should read my posts, you will be able to respond to your own claims, much of my stuff is from evolutionist.

You mean all those quotes you like to mine out of context?

yes everyone has a agenda evolutionist and creationst, but please show me this made up info from creationist.

Look no further than here:

wiggum would you agree its wrong to say the tooth of a pig is a missing link between humans and apes?
or to say that we have gill slits human tails in our embreonic stage?
or that our apendix is vestigular? to fake drawings? teach things know to be false since the 1800s? doctor up fossils to look more human?
lie about were they found certain fossils? to say a loss is a gain?
there are on avg 28 lies in every textbook teaching evolution.

And there are on average one lie for every word in a creationist argument.

All of those claims are simply false or distorted facts. I have a Biology textbook with me, if you have any supposed lies and frauds that you proclaim are so prevalent in textbooks, I can easily look them up.

these are all things your high preist do to suport your religon.

2] I never said that they were more qualified its just a common misconception that no scintist is a creationist.
if you acually read anything i posted which you never will you will see there phds are from secular universitys like harvard etc
your not doing well with backing up your claims so far

I would strongly dispute that creationist scientists are even scientists at all. Actual scientists will pursue whatever their research leads them to without bounds. Creation scientists pursue only what supports their agenda

[total relism]

Total Relism, I don't think you understand Gould. He's saying that he could see what sort of findings from an experiment could prove evolution false. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that he never came across an experiment with findings that disproved evolution. He's just saying that he sees that it could be proved false with certain findings, not that he has seen those findings,

holy crap i think you might be right ill look into it more and will get rid of it if what your saying is true thank you very much.

er it's my faith? I just showed you proof. Email whoever you want, they will confirm it unless they are an idiot.

it has come to my attention you don't know what you're talking about.

Do you understand high school chemistry? Do you understand how, say, introducing electrons or ions to some molecular structure could change that structure?

Here is a mutation in which something changed:

lol u dont understand at all what im saying is the problem, i know what you are thinking i belive. and yes i would be a idiot please watch any debate read alittle so you can understand, you just keep giving evidence of mutations "changing things"
Show me somthing novel evolving somthing new to the animals genome.
know stop giving more exsaples everytime give me next post your best evidence for evolution, im kinda hoping on the last one were i was going to email the guy.
Even thoe the online site i gave you even showed it wasent evolution true evolution

[removeduser_4536284751384]

lol u dont understand at all what im saying is the problem, i know what you are thinking i belive. and yes i would be a idiot please watch any debate read alittle so you can understand, you just keep giving evidence of mutations "changing things"
Show me somthing novel evolving somthing new to the animals genome.
know stop giving more exsaples everytime give me next post your best evidence for evolution, im kinda hoping on the last one were i was going to email the guy.
Even thoe the online site i gave you even showed it wasent evolution true evolution

do you believe in currently accepted high school chemistry?

do you believe that some H2 molecule and an O2 molecule can be broken up and converted into H2O molecules?

[empr guy]

is all the "evidence" presented in the OP a bunch of quotes from random books and copy pastes of creationist websites?

[total relism]

[QUOTE=Comrade Wiggum;7927860]Tha

t must have been after I was sick of responding and just let everyone else deal with you.

no you were still on also i replied to every other persons email the whole time


[QUOTE=Comrade Wiggum;7927860]

You mean all those quotes you like to mine out of context?

and if you can show me were i will get ride of them i would like if you did that for me actually



[QUOTE=Comrade Wiggum;7927860]

Look no further than here:

were? you showed nothing


[QUOTE=Comrade Wiggum;7927860]

And there are on average one lie for every word in a creationist argument.

All of those claims are simply false or distorted facts. I have a Biology textbook with me, if you have any supposed lies and frauds that you proclaim are so prevalent in textbooks, I can easily look them up.

again nice claim were is the evidence?
i do not know your textbook so i cannot watch videos for many exsaples

I would strongly dispute that creationist scientists are even scientists at all. Actual scientists will pursue whatever their research leads them to without bounds. Creation scientists pursue only what supports their agenda

please read my discrmination post on post 5. So wiggum how would you describe a scintist? every major branch of scince was started by creationist would they count?





‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Reference

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.

Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer. See refutation of his Washington Post article attacking creation.

‘Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’

Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.





“evolutinst reject as a matter of princable not because of evidence “
F.M harold 2001 the way of the cell molacules organisms and the order of life oxford university press new york new york





Well, ladies and gentlemen, that only goes to show that many so-called educational institutions, so-called ‘universities,’ are not educational institutions at all or universities; they are institutes for miseducation."—*Op. cit., p. 120.










“ the idea of a cooly ratinal scintfic observer, copletly independent free of all preconcived theroies prior philosphical, ethical and religious comitments doing investigations and coming to dispasionate unbias conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serius philosophers of scince and indeed most scintist as a simplistic myth”
profesor john lennox, fellow in mathamaticks and philosphy of scince oxford university




“The streotype of a ratinal and objective scintfic method and indivudual scintist as logical and interchangable robots is selfserving mythology”
evolutinst stepehn j gould in the mind of the beholder natural history 103 feb 1994

[War lord]

is all the "evidence" presented in the OP a bunch of quotes from random books and copy pastes of creationist websites?

Yes,Which he himself admits he hadn't looked at it before presenting it as an argument for anything.