Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Is menopause the result of evolution?

The whole organism is a result of evolution, and menopause is a part of the organism.

real life wrote:
Does menopause provide a 'survival advantage' ?

Well, I don't think so. But USFHokie seems to think differently, judging from his previous post. I'll wait so see what he has to say on that.

But in general, not every structure or system of any creature necessarily provides an advantage. Many things simply don't have any selectable disadvantage, so they linger in the genome. It's this very diversity in the genome which allows for such tremendous variation within populations so that mutations are not always required to generate new forms and functions.

the evolutionary guess as why menopause occurs has already been brought up - the "grandma theory".

but more to the point, you are absolutely right in that not every part of every organism is required to show an advantage.

And even more importantly. When we evoloved our reproductive organs were completly functional for our entire life spans (30 years), menopause rarely would have come about in the evolution tree until the last few centuries with increase in human lifespan. Evolution does not change drastically in a few centuries.

Now, please answer my question about those folks in the OT who lived to 900 years old? Do you believe that to be true RL?

0 Replies

Anyone who is foolish enough to believe in Noah's Flood will also have to believe in 900 year old men.

And don't forget God made the sun stand still for a day so Joshua could kill more people.

And the sun, moon and stars were created after plants and fruit trees.

Yup, that's what God said and if science says otherwise than science is wrong.

I like the part where Creationist say T. rex ate coconuts before Eve ate the apple.

0 Replies

The Genesis account about Noah contains internal contradictions (no surprises there), such as that he is alleged to have been 600 years old, and in his 600th year, which meant that he was actually 599 goin' on 600.

But even leaving aside the number of times the narrative steps on its own dick, what is one to think about the proposition that a man who is more than half a millennium old, along with his geezer wife, his geezer sons and their geezer wives--built, loaded and "sailed" this most unseaworthy tub, for months on end? It doesn't just stretch credulity, it gets it down and murders it with malice aforethought.

0 Replies

Are we back to this flood thing? Im sure that JK Rowling coulda done better to story board the Bible and make it sell even more copies. Everybody loves a good tale especially when the TV wasnt invented yet.

0 Replies

No, we're not back to the Flood thing. RL is still dodging the issue by attacking people and strawmen.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Are we back to this flood thing?

Not really.

Setanta just likes to bring up the flood because , well just because it sidetracks the discussion I suppose.

btw if there really WAS a worldwide flood , what evidence would we expect to see? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers that have been laid down by water all over the earth.

What is it we actually DO see when we look at the geologic column?

Billions of dead things buried in rock layers that have been laid down by water all over the earth.

Hmmm.

(Does that mean that ALL sedimentary strata are postulated by creationists to be the result of the Flood? No, of course not. But I thought I'd answer that strawman before it was brought up for the umpteenth time.)

0 Replies

RL, what about people living over 900 years in the Old Testament of the Bible? Do you believe that to be true?

0 Replies

prior to making up this:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

you on the other hand know more about geology than the geologists, more about biology than the biologists, more about ecology that the ecologists, more about chemistry than the chemists, more about physics that the physicists, more about astronomy than the astronomers, and more about religion and the mind of God than anyone on this site

TCR made up this:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

After lecturing everyone on how the second law of thermodynamics i.e. ENTROPY is pure bunk.

and this:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Then trying to back peddle that it only works on closed systems

Other than caring about your technical expertise, do any of your business clients care that you make up conversations out of thin air?

Unless of course you can prove that these things you attribute to me were actually said.

Go ahead TCR. Back up your nonsense with facts.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

RL, what about people living over 900 years in the Old Testament of the Bible? Do you believe that to be true?

Yes.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
RL, what about people living over 900 years in the Old Testament of the Bible? Do you believe that to be true?

Yes.

900 literal years? 365.25 literal days in a year? 24 literal hours in a day?

0 Replies

Real Life wrote:

btw if there really WAS a worldwide flood , what evidence would we expect to see? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers that have been laid down by water all over the earth.

Wrong!

What you would see, if there was a flood as described by the Bible, are the fossils of all the animals that have ever existed all mixed together on the same strata.

But you don't see that do you?

You don't see human fossils mixed with dinosaurs.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

You don't see human fossils mixed with dinosaurs.

This is VERY important. Not a single human fossil mixed anywhere NEAR a dinosaur fossil (from a geological scale).

0 Replies

real life wrote:

TCR made up this:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
After lecturing everyone on how the second law of thermodynamics i.e. ENTROPY is pure bunk.

Are you now denying that you have ever claimed evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2875388#2875388

Some of your "lectures"
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2875687#2875687
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2877460#2877460
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2868835#2868835

Are you now claiming you have shown where the math was incorrect when I posted the proof that shows evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2864230#2864230

Let me repost the site again with the mathematical proof that shows that evolution does NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are free to point out the errors in the math anytime you want to.

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
Surely since posting so many times that evolution violates the 2nd law you will now be willing to show us the errors in Mr Oertner's math.

I would consider TCR's statement to be fairly accurate.

0 Replies

I love it. RL has a memory that must be like an old TRS-80 computer, it erases every time you shut it off. His 2nd Thermo and universal flood arguments are seasonal when (IMO) he believes there is a new crop of nubile converts awaiting at the altar of ignorance

0 Replies

I never could understand why these people love to display their ignorance; to be so proud of not knowing.

It's as if they're holding a sign up to God that says, 'Look at me. See how dumb I am. Are you proud of me?'

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

I never could understand why these people love to display their ignorance; to be so proud of not knowing.

It's as if they're holding a sign up to God that says, 'Look at me. See how dumb I am. Are you proud of me?'

Not everyone knows that creationists are being dumb. I'm not sure RL even knows he's being dumb. I have never been able to decide whether RL does all this just to pull our chain, or whether he actually believes what he's cut/pasting from creationist web sites.

0 Replies

I have relatives like Real. The Bible is absolute truth. God demands a firm belief in everything the Bible says. If you deny the Bible you deny His word. There is only one penality for this insolence; hell.

I can't say if that's Real's belief but there are many out there who believe in that way.

If science contradicts the Bible than science is wrong. Anything reasonable that will support the Bible and counter science will be accepted as truth.

Real thinks only in terms of a young earth. That's why all fossils are quickly buried and the Cambrian explosion occurred in a very brief time period. Dinosaurs lived with humans and their babies were on Noah's Ark. They died out after the Flood. Anything that says otherwise has to be false because the Bible can't be wrong.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
RL, what about people living over 900 years in the Old Testament of the Bible? Do you believe that to be true?

Yes.

900 literal years? 365.25 literal days in a year? 24 literal hours in a day?

I don't know if there were 365 days in a year and 24 hours in a day throughout the earth's history or not.

But that's kinda beside the point.

900 years is a long time , no matter what.

Interesting article.

They are talking about the possibility of nearly DOUBLING the current life span based on diet alone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/sunday/main3475140.shtml

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Only if you believe what you wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

you on the other hand know more about geology than the geologists, more about biology than the biologists, more about ecology that the ecologists, more about chemistry than the chemists, more about physics that the physicists, more about astronomy than the astronomers, and more about religion and the mind of God than anyone on this site.....

Again, where did I state or imply this?

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

After lecturing everyone on how the second law of thermodynamics i.e. ENTROPY is pure bunk......

Or this?

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Then trying to back peddle that it only works on closed systems.....

And how are you going to twist my words to make it look like I said this, when it is 180 degrees from what I said?

Unless you can document any of it, which of course you cannot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Again , my position (for those who joined us late) is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to the entire physical universe. That is why it is a law.

Evolutionists who say 'evolution doesn't violate the 2nd Law, because the earth is an OPEN system. it receives abundant energy input from the sun. the 2nd Law ONLY applies to closed systems' have a problem.

They cannot name any naturally occurring closed systems to which the 2nd Law would apply using their own misapplied definition.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know