Godlike Productions - Reply to Thread

Users Online Now: 1,173 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 61,863
Pageviews Today: 98,861	Threads Today: 40	Posts Today: 620
01:04 AM

REPLY TO THREAD

Subject For ALL those who believe in Evolution.

User Name

Font color: Font:

In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.

[quote:nomuse (NLI) 617218:MV83MzM0MDlfMTEyNzMzNDJfQTc2QzgwOTQ=]
[quote:NeoFistOfTheGolgoNinja]

[b]Learn how to use the quote tags.[/b]

Well that is clear.  I was tired, cut me slack, oh don't I don't give a shit.
[/quote]

No problem.  Your post was clear enough, I thought.

[quote:NeoFistOfTheGolgoNinja]
I was not the one who brought "micro-evolution" into the discussion.  I was attempting to remove it, because, like you, it seemed that it was, well, for a lack of better words, bullshit, or just a distraction from the base.

I did not know it was a "Creationist" ideal.  From the little I had seen it about in the past, it was used by "Darwinist", if that is a label, to throw off the "Creationist".
[/quote]

Part of the heartache of the internet.  Discussions take off so quickly, and whole languages spring up.  If you weren't in at the beginning, it can take a while to catch up and learn what are the catch-phrases, the slang, and the verbal trip-wires.

"Darwinist" is another of those shibboleths; the only people who use the term non-ironically are die-hard Creationists.  The term "Micro-evolution," similarly, is usually a direct tip-off that the poster is a Creationist.  Worse; since the term does not appear in scientific literature, it would never be casually used by an independent thinker; it betrays, instantly, someone who is getting their arguments from another source (often as not traceable back to the Discovery Institute, think-tank of organized Creationism).

On the flip side, the only people who would use the term "cdesign proponentsists" are those who are very active in certain skeptical circles; people who have debated on Creationism before.  The term is known but rarely if ever referred to or applied by outsiders to the debate.  So it also functions as a shibboleth, identifying the poster as belonging to a certain faction (if I might stretch the biblical meaning a little!)

[quote:NeoFistOfTheGolgoNinja]
Changes to a bacteria are not like a human becoming an elephant.  It is not even like a human growing another arm in many cases.  It would be more like growing additional stomachs, or a better stomach, or a better chemical process in dealing with certain material in the process of metabolism.
[/quote]

Fair enough.  I didn't mean to imply, by the way, that the human BECAME an elephant.  I meant that as far as the bacteria were concerned, all us mammals look alike.

Given both the mature form of mammal innards, and the mutations just one hox gene away, growing another limb is a lot less unlikely than growing a better stomach.

(And, heck, if we are really dragging in a hypothetical intelligent bacteria to this discussion, said bacteria would probably care a heck of a lot more about the ph balance of its host.  How many limbs it had wouldn't be worthy of note.)
[/quote]

Original Message This very brief and straight to the point to prove God created the universe:-

1. Darwin doubted his theory, read Origin of Speciey page 302.

2. Zoologoists and paelatologists concede that species appear and disappear abruptly.

3. If species evovled then why dont we have any fossils of a creature that is half bird and half dinasaur, etc?

4. Another example is that crocodiles, birds, tortoises have eixsted for over 100 million years then why hasnt this evolved in to another creature.

But some people with all the proof, still refuse to believe in God's creation.

Pictures (click to insert)





\| Next Page >>