This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Hundmutter on 25 October 2013 - 03:10
Shtal, you left out "Cut & Paste" ...
by vk4gsd on 25 October 2013 - 03:10
where's the encouragement, at least he is using text more now instead of just posting the same old links to the same old youtube clips.
by Shtal on 25 October 2013 - 03:10
vk4 wrote: all your amateurish proofs are futile at best and attempted fraud at worst. your arguments were all dealt with in the 17'th century and the serious thinkers from both camps moved on.
by Hundmutter on 25 October 2013 - 16:10
vk4 - before your time, mate; this is just the stuff we used
to get prior to his video obsession. Like I said, SSDD.
to get prior to his video obsession. Like I said, SSDD.
by Shtal on 28 October 2013 - 04:10
Carlin wrote: Evolution...I'm a subscriber.
Then let me clarify that for you for being subsriber; natural selection has no evolutionary power; no one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. When it was clear mechanism of natural selection propose by Darwin had no evolutionary power. Evolutionist had to make fundamental change in the theory; in edition to the concept of natural selection they added second mechanism called mutation. Mutations are alterations or distortions that take place in the DNA of living beings, mostly as the result of the external effects such as radiations or chemical action. The theory of evolution now holds that living things are differentiated from one another and develop of the result of the mutations. This cannot be true, for mutations only damage the information in the DNA and give only harm to living being; no beneficial mutation has yet been observed either in nature or in laboratories, since mutations do not add new genetic information, it is impossible for living beings to acquire new organs through mutations.
You can click the links below that I provided for you; neither experiment adds genetic information. Therefore, this is not evolution in the molecules-to-man sense. A new trait is not the same as new genetic information. No new genetic information was produced spontaneously in this experiment. In fact, it would be impossible for such information to be produced.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2012/11/08/bacteria-evolve-key-innovation-or-not/
Creationist had asked this same question to Richard Dawkings.
Btw Carlin, if you are Christian or at least you say that you are, Bible says animals will bring forth after there kind, they don't make brand new things; never seeing in the Bible that animals evolved. There are variations within the kind, which is true; but that's about - it.
Then let me clarify that for you for being subsriber; natural selection has no evolutionary power; no one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. When it was clear mechanism of natural selection propose by Darwin had no evolutionary power. Evolutionist had to make fundamental change in the theory; in edition to the concept of natural selection they added second mechanism called mutation. Mutations are alterations or distortions that take place in the DNA of living beings, mostly as the result of the external effects such as radiations or chemical action. The theory of evolution now holds that living things are differentiated from one another and develop of the result of the mutations. This cannot be true, for mutations only damage the information in the DNA and give only harm to living being; no beneficial mutation has yet been observed either in nature or in laboratories, since mutations do not add new genetic information, it is impossible for living beings to acquire new organs through mutations.
You can click the links below that I provided for you; neither experiment adds genetic information. Therefore, this is not evolution in the molecules-to-man sense. A new trait is not the same as new genetic information. No new genetic information was produced spontaneously in this experiment. In fact, it would be impossible for such information to be produced.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2012/11/08/bacteria-evolve-key-innovation-or-not/
Creationist had asked this same question to Richard Dawkings.
Btw Carlin, if you are Christian or at least you say that you are, Bible says animals will bring forth after there kind, they don't make brand new things; never seeing in the Bible that animals evolved. There are variations within the kind, which is true; but that's about - it.
by Carlin on 28 October 2013 - 08:10
shtal - there isn't a whole lot about my worldview that is "typical". Philosophy relies heavily upon definition. What I believe about the concept of evolution begins and ends with what is empirical. Don't get carried away. In general terms, I question anyone who blindly subscribes wholesale to a pre-packaged worldview (Christian or secular), without first examination, understanding, and actuation. I don't fit in the box you have currently chosen to occupy, or the one you imagine me in based on the statement you misconstrue.
by beetree on 28 October 2013 - 08:10
Just what you wanted to wake up to this morning, I bet!
Here ya' go Carlin, this one is on me ....
! At least the Red Sox won last night! 
Here ya' go Carlin, this one is on me ....
! At least the Red Sox won last night! by Carlin on 28 October 2013 - 10:10
Top of the morning to you Bee!
Go Sawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwx!
Patriots beat Miami as well; always a bonus.
Go Sawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwx!
Patriots beat Miami as well; always a bonus.
by Shtal on 28 October 2013 - 23:10
My apologies Carlin,
Sorry.
Shtal.
Sorry.
Shtal.
by Carlin on 28 October 2013 - 23:10
No worries.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top