Human Mutation Clock Confirms Creation
Jun 28, 2015 14:33:17 #
Quote:
LarJgrip wrote:
What are you talking about threat? Where do you see a threat?
What are you talking about threat? Where do you see a threat?
Racmanaz wrote:
the content of my post are a threat to his Darwinian religion faith
You, Rac, are not powerful enough, credible enough, believable enough, smart enough or faithful enough to be a threat to me, and I doubt to many others. You live in la-la land and pretend with imaginary creatures.
You do not threaten evolution which has had strong scientific support for over 150 years, and continues to strengthen. Where have you been, Rac? Lost in ls-ls land I suppose?
Creationism, according to Genesis, which is supported by your Creationism advocates, now, that is the one in trouble. Learn to think rationally, Rac:
http://www.rawstory.com/2014/06/uk-bans-teaching-of-creationism-in-any-school-that-receiv...
Why not quit being the clown for others to laugh at.
Jun 28, 2015 14:38:46 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
If science really supported darwinism (which it doesn't), Darwinian evolution does not even fall within the definition of science, it can not be observed, tested or repeated. If Darwinian evolution is supported by science, why are there more and more scientist jumping ship and sailing with ID/Creation than there are Creationists/ID scientists jumping to the Darwinian religion?
Jun 28, 2015 14:47:33 #
Jun 28, 2015 14:49:08 #
Racmanaz wrote:
If science really supported darwinism (which it doesn't), Darwinian evolution does not even fall within the definition of science, it can not be observed, tested or repeated. If Darwinian evolution is supported by science, why are there more and more scientist jumping ship and sailing with ID/Creation than there are Creationists/ID scientists jumping to the Darwinian religion?
What you claim is just that, what you claim. Your claims in the past have not been credible, actually false, so anything you say here or later will not likely be credible either. You are a fool and everyone, but you, knows it.
Jun 28, 2015 15:10:06 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
James Shaw wrote:
What you claim is just that, what you claim. Your claims in the past have not been credible, actually false, so anything you say here or later will not likely be credible either. You are a fool and everyone, but you, knows it.
whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
YOU are not credible, you are superstitious about Darwinian evolution which is not science but a false religion.
Jun 28, 2015 17:24:40 #
Racmanaz wrote:
Evolution Is Religion, Not Science
There is no point in debating this if we are speaking different languages that have different definitions of religion. Please define "religion" as you use the term.
Jun 28, 2015 18:00:43 #
Quote:
James Shaw wrote:
What you claim is just that, what you claim. Your claims in the past have not been credible, actually false, so anything you say here or later will not likely be credible either. You are a fool and everyone, but you, knows it.
What you claim is just that, what you claim. Your claims in the past have not been credible, actually false, so anything you say here or later will not likely be credible either. You are a fool and everyone, but you, knows it.
Racmanaz wrote:
whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
YOU are not credible, you are superstitious about Darwinian evolution which is not science but a false religion.
YOU are not credible, you are superstitious about Darwinian evolution which is not science but a false religion.
Rac, what do you know about hell? Have you been there and returned to tell us about it or are you talking about the hell you may live in on earth? Or might you be referring to volcanoes, thunder and lightening that your ancestors believed in until Science destroyed those myths?
Regarding evolution, well, it is obvious you know nothing about that. Dream on Rac.
Evolution is a theory. This supports the theory
Jun 28, 2015 18:05:10 #
Racmanaz wrote:
Evolution Is Religion, Not Science
So you have said so many time, Rac. How many believe you and support you in this thought? Certainly not main stream science, and evolution is in the realm of science; thought, without evidence, lies in the realm of superstition, Rac.
What you claim, Rac, flies ugly in the face of overwhelming scientific support for the theory of evolution, which has survived for more than 150 years. Pip-squeaks like you, Rac, who attempt to distort what-is with what-is-not, have been present throughout that period of 150 years, and they have fallen along the way side, like you are doing Rac.
Jun 28, 2015 19:16:31 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
James Shaw wrote:
You, Rac, are not powerful enough, credible enough... (show quote)
Why would that link story be troubling? I don't support or advocate Creationism being taught in public schools, neither do I support the false teachings of darwinian evolution in public schools, both should be left at the home of parents or private schools.
Jun 28, 2015 19:21:58 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
James Shaw wrote:
So you have said so many time, Rac. How many beli... (show quote)
Don't you worry about who supports me or not, it's non of your business nor mine. I'm not concerned with what others believe, that's their business, why are you so obsessed with who's following who? Nobody follows me nor should they, they should follow whoever they want to follow, it's not my concern as it is yours. I do hope and pray they believe in Jesus as their Savior yes, but only Christ can convict and reveal His nature to them....I have no power to convert souls. YOU have no power to stop Christ from conversion whom He wishes...you try but you fail. You are a worker of the devil himself, yet God can still reach you regardless.
Jun 28, 2015 19:27:08 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
James Shaw wrote:
Rac, what do you know about hell? Have you been there and returned to tell us about it or are you talking about the hell you may live in on earth? Or might you be referring to volcanoes, thunder and lightening that your ancestors believed in until Science destroyed those myths?
Regarding evolution, well, it is obvious you know nothing about that. Dream on Rac.
Regarding evolution, well, it is obvious you know nothing about that. Dream on Rac.
LOLOL Archaeopteryx supports darwinian evolution? LOL not even close, how can one bird or dinosaur be evidence of Darwinian evolution? lol It's been knocked off it's perch not long ago by another bird that is est at 10 million years earlier, Archaeopteryx can not be the transition between dinosaur and birds....it's been pushed off by Xiaotingia. Your evolutionary tree is a complete disaster, doesn't make any logical sense.
Jun 28, 2015 19:30:00 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
Archaeopteryx Reclassified as a Different Kind of Evolutionary Icon?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/archaeopteryx_i079351.html
Unfortunately, it looks like Archaeopteryx may have to be reclassified as a different sort of icon -- symbolizing evolution by loss of function. Nature reports:
Although it has long been debated whether the proto-bird Archaeopteryx was able to actually fly or merely evolving toward that ability, to date nobody had yet seriously suggested that it could have been instead in the midst of losing its ability to fly. But that is precisely what Michael Habib, a biologist at the University of Southern California proposed last week to a packed hall at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Los Angeles.
With the skeleton of a dinosaur and the feathers of a bird, Archaeopteryx has long been hailed as marking the transition from dinosaurs to birds.
The idea that it was instead evolving to lose its flight and becoming flightless again, or 'secondarily flightless', occurred to Habib while he was calculating limb ratios and degrees of feather symmetry in Archaeopteryx, and comparing the values to those of living birds, to better understand its flying ability. In doing so, he found that the creature's traits were surprisingly similar to those of modern flightless birds such as rails and grebes that frequently dwell on islands.
"We know Archaeopteryx was living on an archipelago during the Jurassic. And with its feathers and bones looking so much like modern flightless island birds, it just makes me wonder," says Habib.
Oh, now that's got to be a bit of a disappointment. Far from "freeing itself from the constraints of the horizontal world," it sounds more like Archaeopteryx was in the process of rejoining the world of creatures bound to the earth."
"Evolution by loss of function, in this case flight, is something that no one doubts. It's explaining the gain of new function, in the absence of intelligent design, that remains the shimmering, ever receding mirage toward which Darwinian theory continuously, wearily, hopelessly trudges.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/archaeopteryx_i079351.html
Unfortunately, it looks like Archaeopteryx may have to be reclassified as a different sort of icon -- symbolizing evolution by loss of function. Nature reports:
Although it has long been debated whether the proto-bird Archaeopteryx was able to actually fly or merely evolving toward that ability, to date nobody had yet seriously suggested that it could have been instead in the midst of losing its ability to fly. But that is precisely what Michael Habib, a biologist at the University of Southern California proposed last week to a packed hall at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Los Angeles.
With the skeleton of a dinosaur and the feathers of a bird, Archaeopteryx has long been hailed as marking the transition from dinosaurs to birds.
The idea that it was instead evolving to lose its flight and becoming flightless again, or 'secondarily flightless', occurred to Habib while he was calculating limb ratios and degrees of feather symmetry in Archaeopteryx, and comparing the values to those of living birds, to better understand its flying ability. In doing so, he found that the creature's traits were surprisingly similar to those of modern flightless birds such as rails and grebes that frequently dwell on islands.
"We know Archaeopteryx was living on an archipelago during the Jurassic. And with its feathers and bones looking so much like modern flightless island birds, it just makes me wonder," says Habib.
Oh, now that's got to be a bit of a disappointment. Far from "freeing itself from the constraints of the horizontal world," it sounds more like Archaeopteryx was in the process of rejoining the world of creatures bound to the earth."
"Evolution by loss of function, in this case flight, is something that no one doubts. It's explaining the gain of new function, in the absence of intelligent design, that remains the shimmering, ever receding mirage toward which Darwinian theory continuously, wearily, hopelessly trudges.
Jun 28, 2015 21:03:29 #
Quote:
James Shaw wrote: br You, Rac, are not powerful en... (show quote)
Racmanaz wrote:
Why would that link story be troubling? I don't support or advocate Creationism being taught in public schools, neither do I support the false teachings of darwinian evolution in public schools, both should be left at the home of parents or private schools.
Rac, the teaching of evolution is Science, and Science should indeed be taught in public schools. Creationism is superstition and should be left at home and/or in the church.
Jun 28, 2015 21:06:23 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
James Shaw wrote:
Rac, the teaching of evolution is Science, and Science should indeed be taught in public schools. Creationism is superstition and should be left at home and/or in the church.
Yes I agree science should be taught in schools, no disagreement there. However, darwinian evolution should not be included because it is not science, it can NOT be observed therefore is not science...it is faith based.
Jun 28, 2015 21:22:57 #
Racmanaz wrote:
LOLOL Archaeopteryx supports darwinian evolution? LOL not even close, how can one bird or dinosaur be evidence of Darwinian evolution? lol It's been knocked off it's perch not long ago by another bird that is est at 10 million years earlier, Archaeopteryx can not be the transition between dinosaur and birds....it's been pushed off by Xiaotingia. Your evolutionary tree is a complete disaster, doesn't make any logical sense.
Science and evolution at work Rac. Xiaotingia is a new kid on the fossil block. Archaeopteryx the old kid. If the Chinese find holds or not, you are watching the way science works through theories. Evolution and the thinking about how birds evolved can be changed based on new conflicting findings. That hasn't happened yet. Evolution is strong and is holding its own. Evolution is not religion, it's science based.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.