My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_The CCC]

I didn't write the Bible, nor do I face a lifetime of unanswered prayers. So, what exactly do you praise? Alcoholic beverages? Sex? Favorite sport or team? Drug addiction? The beauty man fabricates? The laws man establishes? Growing old and more feeble daily? A job you may lose tomorrow or never had?

What exactly do you have that I would want and for how long will you have it?

Count not on tomorrow, for you never know what a day will bring forth.[/quote]

Such an attitude leads to nowhere but back to the caves. But if you want to live in a cave being afraid of things that go bump in the night, be my guest. But don't expect the rest of the world to join you.

[_Maksutov]

IIt is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

That “something” actually is “Someone”—the Creator.

That's not a scientific post, Nipper. No scientific publication would make "the Creator" the solution to a problem, no matter how many articles they cite. Show me in the articles referenced that the authors of them accept divine intervention instead of evolution. Your fourth grade education is showing.

[_Maksutov]

Yes, we all age and some age a whole lot faster than others. But we all will die. A public school History teacher once said, "One either dies young or old --- but death is sure." Nothing you possess will you be able to take with you except for God's love.

I can love better than God. I don't threaten people to make them love me. That's the love of wifebeaters and rapists. You can have your abusive "love". Really, if your God was a person he would be locked up as a nut or a criminal. With good reason.

[_spotlight]

I thought this scientific post was being buried (for obvious reasons) and needed to be bumped

The following response is to the bolded part:

I thought this scientific post was being buried (for obvious reasons) and needed to be bumped

The following response is to the bolded part:

I thought this scientific post was being buried (for obvious reasons) and needed to be bumped

The following response is to the bolded part:


Altogether now:

[_spotlight]

CHROMOSOMAL COUNTS

This section reveals that you simply cut and paste without bothering to read what it is you are cutting and pasting. What was that comment from Franktalk about parrots? Differences in chromosomal counts are not evidence against evolution. Here it is again (since it is being buried for obvious reasons ):

Human chromosome 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Another example of chromosome number variation within the human population:
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask229

I guess you did not bother to look at these. It would appear that the arguments put forth in this section of your cut and paste prove that this man with a different number of chromosomes is not a human.

[_spotlight]

The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome). To help make this number understandable, consider the fact that if evolutionists had to pay you one penny for every nucleotide in that 1-2% difference between the human and the chimp, you would walk away with $800,000. Given those proportions, 1-2% does not appear so small, does it?

"You and your siblings are closer to 99.95% biochemically identical. Of course, since we have 6 billion bases, a 0.05% difference still translates to 3 million differences!"
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask166

So chimps are 26 to 27 times as different from us as you are from your siblings. Sounds about right. Being related evolutionarily speaking does not imply we are identical. Just that we wandered apart from each other from a common ancestor. It doesn't matter how much we are the same or how different we are, only that we could arrive at where we are from the same starting point. If you have an argument against that then you have an argument against evolution. Until then you are simply demonstrating that your comprehension of evolution is flawed both as to what it means and what evidence would support it or falsify it.

[_spotlight]

Quite the contrary, I see generally that righteous people have relatively long, joyous lives ----while people living selfishly usually have shorter lives full of turmoil and feelings of insecurity.

Well it helps when you clarify what it is you mean by what you say doesn't it? What I would disagree with is that religious people are generally more righteous by this definition than irreligious people.

[_spotlight]

There you go again. I write an example of an event that may have happened in the past and you assume I wish people to believe it. You may want to stop doing this. If you do not then I will use the same tactic on you. Even though it is inappropriate.

Frank,
So you don't believe that we are eternal beings making up this world to keep from getting bored and the TMs are sent to reveal this fact to us,etc? It doesn't matter if this particular hypothetical you posted is not what you believe Frank. What you do believe falls in the same category and is equally ludicrous. Just as I pointed out before that what you do believe, the electric universe, is just as silly as what you say you don't believe, the hollow earth.

I am sure you will not like it.

I am getting quite nervous. Where's the bong?

[_spotlight]

Science says believe this because we found some stuff and made up a story about it.

Again Frank you can't use this even if it were true (which it isn't) because you do the same to a greater degree yourself in fabricating your own world view. You failed to find some stuff but went right on ahead and made up a story about it anyhow.

[_Maksutov]

Christ cursed an innocent fig tree. He advocated tearing apart families to recruit for his cult, just like Jim Jones, David Berg, L. Ron Hubbard. Most of what you think you know about him was written by people who never met him. Funny how people make up stuff about somebody and then claim to "know" them. I could make up stuff about the Queen of England with just as much basis. I could post pictures of her every day and say all kinds of stuff and it would be just as factual.

Do you have a wall covered with sayings? Do you throw a dart at the wall and then write what it says? Not exactly a flowing post today.

I guess that's what you say when you don't have a point to make?