Has any atheist here provided even one iota of evidence for creation yet? I didn’t think so. They are just here to fight?and lose.
It’s really funny!
What? You think you have a free pass? Ahahahahahaa.
For those contesting evolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
Edit:
www.fuckchristmas.org
[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
For those contesting evolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
Edit:
www.fuckchristmas.org[/quote]
LOL - it’s all the evidence we finally needed…except for the 40 million differences in molecules!
-
Why would an athiest put forward evidence for creation?
-
If you meant evidence for evolution then there are these things called science books. Every single discipline of science points towards an ancient earth, a big bang type event, and evolution.
-
Creationism is popular because it is easy. Much easier than trying to understand that hard science stuff. I mean who has time for math, biology, physics, astronomy, and geology when you can just say God done it.
-
These same heritics who developed and use evolution and modern genetics are the ones that make the antibiotics, anti-virals, and other drugs that keep you alive when god is too busy to do his healing tricks.
Don’t worry though, 2000 years ago Jesus said he would return soon. Any day now he will prove you right…
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Has any atheist here provided even one iota of evidence for creation yet? I didn’t think so. They are just here to fight?and lose.
It’s really funny![/quote]
Yes, I meant to say that I have not seen any atheist here provide any evidence for evolution.
I’m still waiting for something good, and not that cheap little “5 billion years ago there was a big explosion, and here we are” garbage. Talk about the easy way out.
[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
-
Why would an athiest put forward evidence for creation?
-
If you meant evidence for evolution then there are these things called science books. Every single discipline of science points towards an ancient earth, a big bang type event, and evolution.
-
Creationism is popular because it is easy. Much easier than trying to understand that hard science stuff. I mean who has time for math, biology, physics, astronomy, and geology when you can just say God done it.
-
These same heritics who developed and use evolution and modern genetics are the ones that make the antibiotics, anti-virals, and other drugs that keep you alive when god is too busy to do his healing tricks.
Don’t worry though, 2000 years ago Jesus said he would return soon. Any day now he will prove you right…
terribleivan wrote:
Has any atheist here provided even one iota of evidence for creation yet? I didn’t think so. They are just here to fight?and lose.
It’s really funny!
[/quote]
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Yes, I meant to say that I have not seen any atheist here provide any evidence for evolution.
[/quote]
the iguana’s of the galapagose islands.
I’m still waiting for something good, and not that cheap little “5 billion years ago there was a big explosion, and here we are” garbage. Talk about the easy way out.
[/quote]
why? thats not the answer you would like to hear? what answer would make you feel better? somehow i think any answer other than your own would be “garbage” in your opinion. i could be wrong though.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
http://www.enlightened.org.uk/ev02-mathematics.html[/quote]
Great site. Very funny. The only sad part is that I think the author was serious when he wrote it.
Here’s one you’ll like, it’s “The Official God FAQ.” It answers every important question you might have about God: The Official God FAQ
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
DemiAjax wrote:
For those contesting evolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
Edit:
www.fuckchristmas.org
LOL - it’s all the evidence we finally needed…except for the 40 million differences in molecules![/quote]
You forgot about the two billion nine hundred sixty million similarities.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I was very much enlightened when I read the site that you posted.
This was one of my favorite lines:
I guess the “theory” of eveolution will stay an unsubstantiated theory.
pookie,
Thanks for the other web site. Here’s one for you my friend:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I guess the “theory” of eveolution will stay an unsubstantiated theory.[/quote]
Understanding evolution and science should be the least of your problems. I’d concentrate on finding that elusive historical Jesus if I were you. Still MIA, you know.
[quote]Ren wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
DemiAjax wrote:
For those contesting evolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
Edit:
www.fuckchristmas.org
LOL - it’s all the evidence we finally needed…except for the 40 million differences in molecules!
You forgot about the two billion nine hundred sixty million similarities.[/quote]
You should check into how similar we are to rats. Or grass. It’d be interesting, I’m sure.
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I guess the “theory” of eveolution will stay an unsubstantiated theory.
Understanding evolution and science should be the least of your problems. I’d concentrate on finding that elusive historical Jesus if I were you. Still MIA, you know.
[/quote]
So silly. We’ll never find his body on earth. He’s sitting in heaven.
“Oh nooo, not science!!! I can’t understand it so God must have done it.”
However, the most significant differences between mice and humans are not in the number of genes each carries but in the structure of genes and the activities of their protein products. Gene for gene, we are very similar to mice. What really matters is that subtle changes accumulated in each of the approximately 30,000 genes add together to make quite different organisms.
Further, genes and proteins interact in complex ways that multiply the functions of each. In addition, a gene can produce more than one protein product through alternative splicing or post-translational modification; these events do not always occur in an identical way in the two species.
A gene can produce more or less protein in different cells at various times in response to developmental or environmental cues, and many proteins can express disparate functions in various biological contexts. Thus, subtle distinctions are multiplied by the more than 30,000 estimated genes.
The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.)
Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are ?neutral? and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does.
Put these alterations in the context of known inherited human diseases: a single nucleotide change can lead to inheritance of sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or breast cancer. A single nucleotide difference can alter protein function in such a way that it causes a terrible tissue malfunction.
Single nucleotide changes have been linked to hereditary differences in height, brain development, facial structure, pigmentation, and many other striking morphological differences; due to single nucleotide changes, hands can develop structures that look like toes instead of fingers, and a mouse’s tail can disappear completely.
Single-nucleotide changes in the same genes but in different positions in the coding sequence might do nothing harmful at all. Evolutionary changes are the same as these sequence differences that are linked to person-to-person variation: many of the average 15% nucleotide changes that distinguish humans and mouse genes are neutral; some lead to subtle changes, whereas others are associated with dramatic differences.
Add them all together, and they can make quite an impact, as evidenced by the huge range of metabolic, morphological, and behavioral differences we see among organisms.
some copy + paste from:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/compgen.shtml
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I guess the “theory” of eveolution will stay an unsubstantiated theory.
Understanding evolution and science should be the least of your problems. I’d concentrate on finding that elusive historical Jesus if I were you. Still MIA, you know.
[/quote]
Done my man! That you don’t want to review quality evidence is your own decision.
DPH,
That was funny stuff.
Thank you.
