Creationist child abusers close doors

Professor Baxter said:
You are getting confused by your own spin. First it is creation by God then evolution.

Honestly, your bizarre cult is boring and not the topic.
Click to expand...
true.....the errors of your own cult are the topic......God created, since then other species have evolved......we didn't start out with 37,000 different types of beetle.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
true.....the errors of your own cult are the topic......God created, since then other species have evolved......we didn't start out with 37,000 different types of beetle.....
Click to expand...

What errors?

All those different types of beetles, yet you claim there is no macroevolution. You are an idiot. Ken Ham is an idiot. Fools like you abusing children by brainwashing them and teaching them animus to science and knowledge is the topic.
 
tekkychick said:
As I said, "children who don't learn real science are behind the 8 ball when it comes to making it through life" - maybe she wouldn't be at Spencer's if she understood science?
Click to expand...
The reality is, almost nobody does. Either the vast majority of Americans are behind the eight ball, or you're using hyperbole, but either way you're simply wrong. Most people in the US don't understand science. It isn't about religion either, it's simply the fact that their science classes were of no real interest to them.

And yes, I think people make better decisions in life if they understand the basics of science - in terms of supporting politicians, in terms of making choices about where to donate money to, etc - they are less likely to be scammed if they understand science. Less likely to fall for a preacher that says the end of the world is coming. And if they understand a little math, they would understand the odds of lotteries and casinos a bit more (in the case of those who spend a lot of money on those two activities)

Can you make it through without science? yes. But you're always behind those who do understand it, at least its basics.
Click to expand...
The basics aren't enough... Almost everybody covers the basics in High School and most still don't understand the difference between an investigative theory and a scientific Theory.
 
Last edited:
Professor Baxter said:
What errors?

All those different types of beetles, yet you claim there is no macroevolution. You are an idiot. Ken Ham is an idiot. Fools like you abusing children by brainwashing them and teaching them animus to science and knowledge is the topic.
Click to expand...

lol......so you are claiming the evolution of one species of beetle from another is macro-evolution?........it's becoming obvious you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
LOL, that's your stupid little game. You are trying to change the subject from the known lies on that test (we know they are lies because the science proves it) to something on which the science is still somewhat hazy. Creationist ridiculously demand that science be completely certain on all possible questions or that it can all be rejected as speculative. Meanwhile, the small group on this board all sharing the same faith can't come to a coherent consensus on the flood. Was it real or just an allegorical fiction? Was it local or worldwide? And back to the points in the OP does it explain all fossils. You all add extra biblical nonsense and ignore reality to soothe your doubts about what is obviously an absurd story.
Click to expand...

Nor you or science can take us to where life begins, However the Bible does. In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol......so you are claiming the evolution of one species of beetle from another is macro-evolution?........it's becoming obvious you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.....
Click to expand...

To everyone but idiot creationists, macroevolution means evolution above the level of species. Kind is a made up and totally meaningless distinction.
 
patriot66 said:
Here ya go enjoy your reading!
http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/
Click to expand...

I refuted your nutter/denialist source last time.

Each of these evidences, examined individually, is enough to convince most rational people that evolution is a false doctrine and the earth is, in fact, young!


There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are “uphill” (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/s...-predictable-results.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

To better understand how the bacteria swarm, Dr. Xavier and his colleagues allowed them to evolve. They seeded petri dishes with a few hundred microbes and gave them a day to swarm and reproduce. The next day, they drew a small sample of the bacteria from the dishes and used them to seed new ones.


The scientists reasoned that, with each generation, new mutations would arise from time to time. If a mutation helped bacteria thrive in this new environment, it might become more common because of natural selection.


And so it did.


Within a few days, the evolution of the bacteria took a dramatic turn. The bacteria became 25 percent faster than their ancestors — Dr. Xavier dubbed them “hyperswarmers.” A movie of hyperswarmers starkly illustrates how different they had become, able to fill up the entire dish.


“We thought, ‘Something weird has happened,'” said Dr. Xavier.


The hyperswarmers emerged in three lines of bacteria overseen by Dr. Xavier’s post-doctoral researcher Dave van Ditmarsch. Dr. Xavier and another lab member, Jen Oyler, each ran the experiment again. “I wanted to make sure this wasn’t just due to Dave’s magic fingers,” said Dr. Xavier.


But no matter who applied their fingers to the task, the result was the same. Out of 27 lines of bacteria, 27 evolved into hyperswarmers.


When the scientists put the hyperswarmers under a microscope, they could see what had changed. An ordinary P. aeruginosa sports a single tail. The hyperswarmers had evolved so that they had as many as half a dozen tails. Those extra tails gave the bacteria more speed.


To determine how the bacteria had gained their tails, Dr. Xavier and his colleagues sequenced the DNA of 24 lines of hyperswarmers. In 24 out of 24 cases, they discovered that they have gained a mutation in the same gene, called FleN.


FleN encodes a protein that controls other genes involved in building tails. Somehow — Dr. Xavier doesn’t yet know how — the mutations cause FleN to produce a multitude of tails, all of which are fully functional.


Using their many tails, the hyperswarmers were able to get out in front of ordinary bacteria and reach fresh food first. They could then reproduce faster, leaving behind more offspring. As a result, each population of the bacteria rapidly turned into pure hyperswarmers.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Yeah, we know.

Those many species of beetles say macroevolution is real. Your cultish jargon about kind is what is meaningless.
Click to expand...

silly liberals pretending they know what macro-evolution is.....if 37k beetles are macro-evolution, what is micro-evolution......and what is the claim that mammals and crustaceans come from a common ancestor?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
silly liberals pretending they know what macro-evolution is.....if 37k beetles are macro-evolution, what is micro-evolution......and what is the claim that mammals and crustaceans come from a common ancestor?.....
Click to expand...

Stupid sister loving creationist. 2nd article on googling macroevolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48

Microevolution is change within a species.

Common descent is the term you are looking for. At least you are learning to admit your ignorance and ask for help.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Stupid sister loving creationist. 2nd article on googling macroevolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48

Microevolution is change within a species.

Common descent is the term you are looking for. At least you are learning to admit your ignorance and ask for help.
Click to expand...

do you realize that your link contradicts your claim that 37k different beetles was macro-evolution?.......

a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do you realize that your link contradicts your claim that 37k different beetles was macro-evolution?.......
Click to expand...

It doesn't. You dropped the context you shameless hack, to hide how it refutes your ignorant claims.

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
 
Last edited:
Prof Baxter, I admire you. You always have very cogent arguments.

I just have no idea why, in thread after thread, you take on PMP, who has proven himself incapable of listening to reason. He is an idiot; he will not learn; why do you keep taking him on?
 
PMP, I admire you. You always have very cogent arguments.

I just have no idea why, in thread after thread, you take on Baxter, who has proven himself incapable of listening to reason. He is an idiot; he will not learn; why do you keep taking him on?
 
Professor Baxter said:
Why don't you provide your definition
Click to expand...

I've given you my definition a half a dozen times in as many threads.....you just don't bother to read them.....when you pretend that humans and crustaceans have a common ancestor you are engaging in macro-evolution.....you think they are branches of the same sequoia.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top