RunRyder RC
WATCH
 711 pages [ <<    <     300     ( 301 )     302     NEXT    >> ] 326363 views TOPIC CLOSED
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › God Did Create Mankind.
05-15-2011 03:31 AM  7 years agoPost 6001
Gearhead

rrMaster

Vt

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

""just when did said life form step in and do what??""

every time when there was a step in evolution/splice Genes maybe

no proof it didn't happen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim
Buzz Buzz Buzz

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 03:51 AM  7 years agoPost 6002
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

every time when there was a step in evolution/splice Genes maybe
one big problem there.

we have seen evolution in a lab, no alien required.

I dont think aliens went in and splice genes on every creature on the planet or we would see them at work daily LOL

Your funny

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 04:00 AM  7 years agoPost 6003
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Cmon,Really?ok,I ALWAYS quote items I copy and paste is that better
Well, make up your mind man. Do you ALWAYS post links or do you just USUALLY post links?

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 04:02 AM  7 years agoPost 6004
Gearhead

rrMaster

Vt

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

""we have seen evolution in a lab""

oh have we ?? real evolution or just some mummbo jummbo evolution

Jim
Buzz Buzz Buzz

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 04:07 AM  7 years agoPost 6005
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Just saying that there is no documentation to prove otherwise.
Equally, you cannot 'prove' that the documentation you refer to is 6000 years old, going by that documentation alone. How do you think that we know that this documentation is 6000 years old?
Because evolutionists use this as the means to establish a time line.
First of all, what is an 'evolutionist'? You will generally only find this term being used on creationist websites, in an attempt to equate creation as an alternative scientific theory to evolution, which of course it is not. Since as we all know, creationism is based on religion.

Secondly, scientists do not use carbon dating to establish such a timeline. It would be foolish for them to attempt to do so, as they know fine well that carbon dating is only accurate for dating fossils that are less than around 60,000 years old, because carbon deteriorates too rapidly. The fact you mentioned carbon dating leads me, again, to believe that you've been getting your 'information' from creationist websites.
Once again...established how?
Once again... established by radiometric dating of such isotopes as Uranium-235.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 04:44 AM  7 years agoPost 6006
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Getting Wilder all the Time
I just Love the cretaceous period. I have personally had the privilege of touching a so called (80 million old) fully fossilized Tranasourous Femur, along with standing under a 9' long skull with teeth the size of bannana's./

I just love the look's when they insist it is "some where" between 65 and 80 million year's old.

OK that 's cool : So you are Really telling me that time as Man Knows it is Linear or from point to point ?? ANd How can you prove it's 80 million year's old ??

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 05:22 AM  7 years agoPost 6007
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

oh have we ?? real evolution or just some mummbo jummbo evolution
Ill use creationist terms

creationist love to use macro and micro evolution.

they "creationist" use the term micro evolution as it is obvious many things change in small ways, what they do not understand is,,,,, that micro is still a evolutionary step leading to speciation IE macro evolution.

NOW macro evolution has been observed in labs and links have been posted you ignored earlier.

[this may be over your head lol]

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

and

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21...the-laboratory/

Evolution can easily be observed in the laboratory and in the world around us. We can see moths evolve their coloring to match the color of soot that covers their habitat, watch bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance in hospitals, and my favorite variety of grapefruit (that’s Rio Star) was made by scientists who exposed seeds to radiation to increase the mutation rate. In the face of such overwhelming evidence – including knowing the exact DNA changes effecting such change – it is impossible for the creationists to deny evolution with a straight face.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 05:26 AM  7 years agoPost 6008
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

first
OK that 's cool : So you are Really telling me that time as Man Knows it is Linear or from point to point ??
time as we know it goes back almost 14
billion years yes linear
ANd How can you prove it's 80 million year's old ??
radio dating

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 05:36 AM  7 years agoPost 6009
Gearhead

rrMaster

Vt

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

sorry outhouse,, I don't agree that is evolution, growing, or mutating maybe but not evolution

Jim
Buzz Buzz Buzz

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 05:44 AM  7 years agoPost 6010
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

or mutating maybe
LOL that is one of four steps in evolution

your %25 of the way there LOL

the other %75, your religous background wont let you swallow

this is proof of the real danger of religion against humanity.

there is no debate at all in the scientific community regarding evolution.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 06:50 AM  7 years agoPost 6011
Life_Nerd

rrVeteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I have personally had the privilege of touching a so called (80 million old) fully fossilized Tranasourous Femur, along with standing under a 9' long skull with teeth the size of bannana's
And two of these were on a boat with Noah? ...along with two each of 1,000,000+ other known species? Oh I know, they didn't have to be full grown adults.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 12:55 PM  7 years agoPost 6012
Rogman88

rrElite Veteran

West Monroe, LA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

that micro is still a evolutionary step leading to speciation IE macro evolution.
Never been proven to lead one species to another.
radio dating methods that are not up for dispute due to there high accuracy rate
So did they radio date a known 16th century skeleton and a known 18th century skeleton and get accurate dates? Oh let me guess, it only works with thousands of years in between. Once again the materials that the skeletons were petrified with have much to do with accuracy. As stated, radio dating is not accurate either.
First of all, what is an 'evolutionist'? You will generally only find this term being used on creationist websites, in an attempt to equate creation as an alternative scientific theory to evolution, which of course it is not.
An evolutionist is one who put's blind faith in Darwin's principles that started to be adopted (100 year celebration of his book) and taught in the 1960's...about the same time drugs became main stream in the USA co-incidentally.
please your embarrassing yourself.

the age of the world is not up for debate
No actually you are embarrassing yourself blindly believing in something that hasn't been proven. It is THEORY that you are stating as fact.
Equally, you cannot 'prove' that the documentation you refer to is 6000 years old, going by that documentation alone. How do you think that we know that this documentation is 6000 years old?
It is easy to infer how old due to the well documented human time lines based on generations mentioned in the Bible. The ages at which humans died were also frequently mentioned. Documentation from various peoples who had very little to do with each and were in different languages all were written in roughly the same time period.
anyone can belittle what they do not know

its a poor rebuttle
How is giving medical facts as to why that skeleton would look that way be a poor rebutle? Blindly stating that skeleton is some foreign species because it looks different from others...now that's just plain silly and ignorant. You should be ashamed of yourself to blindly believe that rubbish without question. I question everything including creationism because I'm educated and open minded. I offered a very good explanation and you state that it's a "poor rebuttle?" Ridiculous and greatly discredits you as an educated person.

High Voltage just works better

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 03:36 PM  7 years agoPost 6013
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I offered a very good explanation and you state that it's a "poor rebuttle?" Ridiculous and greatly discredits you as an educated person.
+1

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 05:50 PM  7 years agoPost 6014
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

current dating methods are not up for debate at all.

only young earth creationist who are a minority and not involved in any part of science have issues with dating methods

do you believe in the global flood myth???

so what your really saying is your smarter then all of science, and choose a 3000 year old myth written by ancient man who did not know if the earth was flat or round

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 05:53 PM  7 years agoPost 6015
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

current dating methods are not up for debate at all.
You, outhouse are an extremely poor representative for science:

When a scientist tells you ‘The science is settled’ in regard to any subject, he’s ceased to be a scientist, and he’s become an evangelist for one cult or another.
The entire history of science is that nothing in science is ever settled. New discoveries are continuously made, and they upend old certainties.

That should be obvious.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 05:54 PM  7 years agoPost 6016
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I offered a very good explanation and you state that it's a "poor rebuttle?" Ridiculous and greatly discredits you as an educated person.
No you offered a poor excuse

you claim a disease that is easiliy recognizable by scientist.

only your blind faith in a ancient book with known lies has led you to your conclusion.

did you stidy the bones in person to make your diagnosis???

your surely no professional to even make a guess that flys ion the face of all modern science

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 05:57 PM  7 years agoPost 6017
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

When a scientist tells you ‘The science is settled’
who said the science is settled

dating methods are very accurate today.

do you think the world is 6000 years old???

I know you dont believe that hogwash

the only people who belive the god myth and have a problem with dating methods are YEC which are really brainwashed and beyond help.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 06:01 PM  7 years agoPost 6018
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:

Millions of fossils have been discovered.

•They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds — have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.

Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.

•Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.

Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.

•The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.

anyone who questions and disbelieves the validity of dating methods has screws loose

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 06:23 PM  7 years agoPost 6019
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

thisis a excellent unbiased article on many of the current dating methods

http://www.enotes.com/earth-science/dating-methods

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
05-15-2011 07:34 PM  7 years agoPost 6020
Rogman88

rrElite Veteran

West Monroe, LA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Great article Outty. I found this in it.
Relative dating methods determine whether one sample is older or younger than another. They do not provide an age in years.
Interesting...

Also I never claimed to be a homo sapien palentologist. I merely pointed out an obvious reason why that human skeleton looked like the rest. If someone came across Andre the Giant's skeleton,or someone else with a growth hormone disorder, it would be easy to infer to you that it was some sort of 7'10" homo neanderthall... Oh no it can't be the obvious reason. It's got to be some new species altogether...

High Voltage just works better

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
WATCH
 711 pages [ <<    <     300     ( 301 )     302     NEXT    >> ] 326363 views TOPIC CLOSED
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › God Did Create Mankind.
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 30  Topic Subscribe

Monday, November 19 - 7:45 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online