What Will They Find Next?
There is a reason why explorers have always gone forth—they are rewarded. And so not surprisingly there have been many rewards for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Okeanos Explorer which is exploring the ocean floor, several miles beneath the surface, near the Marianas Trench. In this far away land the mission has found all manner of strange life forms never before seen. You can watch the video live and, as one report put it, “The video makes for strangely addicting viewing. There's a constant cliffhanger: What will they find next?”
What they have found is an array of incredible, and lowly (pun intended), creatures. Surely Ralph Cudworth and John Ray would have, by this point, doubled down on their infra-dignitatem argument that such creatures are beneath the Creator’s dignity. There must have been an intermediate creative force to account for the muck and its inhabitants, not to mention those bungles and errors we find in creation.
Isn't it amazing what those random mutations will come up with? (And no, natural selection doesn’t help).
In many respects, we know more about the moon than we know about the deep ocean.
ReplyDeleteI had a prof who explained it quite well. If our entire knowledge of the surface of the earth was what we could garner by lowering small sampling devices from a balloon on a cloudy day, it would still be more that we know about the deep sea.
The same can be said for evolution. We know more about the moon than we do about evolution. Evolutionists don't have a clue but they sure can raise a fuss and bluff. Too bad they cannot test their claims.
DeleteJoke, you're the one always pushing YEC baraminology. What Biblical created "kinds" are these various marine animals?
DeleteTimmy, baraminology isn't just a YEC thing. Obviously you have mental issues and should seek help.
DeleteJoke G
Deletebaraminology isn't just a YEC thing.
Really Joke? Please post a few references where baraminolog is discussed with no mention of Biblical created "kinds".
The more desperate your claims the more stupid they become.
You enjoy being an ignorant dick, don't you? Being Biblical doesn't make it YEC, moron.
DeleteGrow up
And for the record- all I have said is that science supports baraminology. Lenski's long term experiment supports it. Every experiment ever conducted supports it.
DeleteThat bothers evoTARD Timmy so it is forced to lash out with its ignorance out of desperation.
claiming baraminology has nothing to do with Biblical created "kinds".
DeleteExcept I didn't make such a claim. Obviously you are a desperate ass.
I said being Biblical doesn't make it YEC.
Grow up, loser
LOL! Joke doubles down on the stupidity.
DeleteBaraminology = the study of Biblical created "kinds".
You say all the evidence supports baraminology. You also say all the evidence supports ID. That means ID posits Biblical created "kinds". Just what we've been pointing out for years.
Joke scores another own goal! :D
Wow, way to change the discussion you are losing. That is a sure sign of cowardly desperation.
DeleteJoke G
Deletescience supports baraminology. Lenski's long term experiment supports it. Every experiment ever conducted supports it.
Joke, how does this study support Biblical created "kinds"?
Phylogenomic datasets provide both precision and accuracy in estimating the timescale of placental mammal phylogeny
Abstract: The fossil record suggests a rapid radiation of placental mammals following the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) mass extinction 65 million years ago (Ma); nevertheless, molecular time estimates, while highly variable, are generally much older. Early molecular studies suffer from inadequate dating methods, reliance on the molecular clock, and simplistic and over-confident interpretations of the fossil record. More recent studies have used Bayesian dating methods that circumvent those issues, but the use of limited data has led to large estimation uncertainties, precluding a decisive conclusion on the timing of mammalian diversifications. Here we use a powerful Bayesian method to analyse 36 nuclear genomes and 274 mitochondrial genomes (20.6 million base pairs), combined with robust but flexible fossil calibrations. Our posterior time estimates suggest that marsupials diverged from eutherians 168–178 Ma, and crown Marsupialia diverged 64–84 Ma. Placentalia diverged 88–90 Ma, and present-day placental orders (except Primates and Xenarthra) originated in a ∼20 Myr window (45–65 Ma) after the K–Pg extinction. Therefore we reject a pre K–Pg model of placental ordinal diversification. We suggest other infamous instances of mismatch between molecular and palaeontological divergence time estimates will be resolved with this same approach.
Go ahead Chubs, show the support for baraminology.
How does it support unguided evolution? How does it support the evolution of different types of organisms?
DeleteHow can we test the claim that different types of mammals evolved?
Phylogeny is based on genetic similarities and genetic similarities are evidence for a common design- see Linnaean classification.
You're the one who made the stupid claims about baraminology
DeleteThat is your opinion, asswipe. However it is obvious that you are too stupid to understand what i post.
Baraminology is a CONCEPT of limited evolution. And that concept would exist regardless of the Bible and regardless of YEC. But then again you are too stupid to understand that
YEC Joke G
DeleteBaraminology is a CONCEPT of limited evolution.
LOL! This is what makes Joke Gallien so entertaining! It's when he gets caught saying something incredibly stupid then tries to lie his way out of it!
Baraminology does NOT refer to the general concept of limited evolution. It was a word specifically coined by a creationist combining the Hebrew "bara" (create) and "min" (kind) to describe the "kinds" that went on Noah's Ark. There is no place in any reference anywhere in which the word is used to mean anything but Biblical created "kind".
That's why we love Joke Gallien the IDiot Creationist clown. Always finding new ways to lie and embarrass himself. This one will go up there with his famous "ice isn't water" and "wavelength = frequency" brain farts. :D
I see that ghostrider, aka Timothy Horton, aka Christophobic atheist closet homosexual, can't let go of his homosexual obsession with Joe G.
DeleteBut his real obsession is with fundamentalist Christians.
Deep down, he wants to be their little bitch. He can't help it. And his dirt worshipping, evotyard buddy, Billy Spear Shaker, has the same problem. Life is hard, I know.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Baraminology does NOT refer to the general concept of limited evolution.
DeleteYes, it does. It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to understand that.
Joke G
DeleteYes, it does.
LOL! No it doesn't Chubs. My challenge still stands - find some examples of the use of baraminology that doesn't refer to Biblical created "kinds."
You are hilarious when you lie and squirm, that's for sure! :D
Look up "discontinuity systematics"- your ignorance, while amusing, still isn't an argument, Timmy.
DeleteJoe:
DeleteLoL! You are one willfully ignorant bitch, Timmy.
Be careful now, Joe. Timmy might like that.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
LOL! Look at Chubby Joke run from the challenge!
DeleteFind some examples of the use of baraminology that doesn't refer to Biblical created "kinds."
Chubs just can't be wrong about anything, so the quantity of his lies and obscenity spewing will increase. Wait for it. :)
I am talking about the CONCEPT you mental midget. The CONCEPT is all about limited evolution.
DeleteI challenge you to find anything to the contrary.
BTW Joke, I'm still waiting for you to show how the paper I provided above supports baraminology. Do you think all mammals are one Biblically created "kind"?
DeleteI guess you were lying about that too
I'm still waiting for you to show how the paper I provided above supports baraminology.
DeleteAnd I am waiting for you to show how it supports unguided evolution and evolution of different types of mammals.
I explained how phylogeny supports a common design.
Do you think all mammals are one Biblically created "kind"?
Only a moron like you would jump to that asinine conclusion.
"Baraminology is based on the idea that even though creatures do not evolve in an unlimited way, they were designed with an ability to adapt to their environment. This ability is not open-ended (per evolution), but within the limits of their design."
DeleteJust as I said.
I am talking about the CONCEPT you mental midget. The CONCEPT is all about limited evolution.
DeleteI challenge you to find anything to the contrary.
Still waiting...
BWAHAHAHA! Look at Joke squirm! It happens every time with Joke Gallien! The incredibly stupid claim followed bu the squirming, obscenities, and lies. We'll get the "tat" showing up soon. :D
DeleteJoke claims all the scientific evidence supports baraminology, the study of Biblical created "kinds". Then I show him a paper about mammal diversification and he has nothing but gaseous bluster to offer.
Poor Joke. Sucks to be him.
Chubby Joke G
Delete"Baraminology is based on the idea that even though creatures do not evolve in an unlimited way, they were designed with an ability to adapt to their environment. This ability is not open-ended (per evolution), but within the limits of their design."
Hey Chubs, why didn't you post the rest from your same source?
"Baraminology is a recent creation science origins model and classification system — technically, a creationist biosystematic method — consisting of the study of "baramins", or created kinds. It roughly coincides with cladistics, the system used by evolutionary scientists. Baraminology observes the fact that that all animals are descended from the original created kinds, and in the case of land-dwelling creatures, from the pairs taken on Noah's ark. It seeks, among other things, to establish the relationship between different species of the same baramin"
Joke shoots himself in the foot yet again! :D
Wow, just wow. Let me spell it out for you- I will type slowly so that you can follow along.
DeleteWhen I say "The scientific evidence supports baraminology I am saying that the scientific evidence supports the idea that even though creatures do not evolve in an unlimited way, they were designed with an ability to adapt to their environment. This ability is not open-ended (per evolutionism), but within the limits of their design."
But again Timmy Hooton is too stupid to understand that.
I claim all the scientific evidence supports baraminology, the idea that even though creatures do not evolve in an unlimited way, they were designed with an ability to adapt to their environment. This ability is not open-ended (per evolutionism), but within the limits of their design."
DeleteTimmy's biography will be titled:
"Seven Years in Third Grade: The Timmy "Hooty" Horton Story"
YEC Joke G
DeleteI claim all the scientific evidence supports baraminology, the idea that even though creatures do not evolve in an unlimited way, they were designed with an ability to adapt to their environment. This ability is not open-ended (per evolutionism), but within the limits of their design.
That's not baraminology Chubs. Even your own source says baraminology deals with Biblical created "kinds".
Your slipped and let out your YEC roots. Now you're lying that fat ass off to cover. Too funny!
Joke G
DeleteThis ability is not open-ended (per evolutionism), but within the limits of their design.
What are the limits of these designs Chubs? The paper above shows no limits in the mammal clade over the last 160+ million years. That certainly directly contradicts baraminology.
Where's your evidence for these claimed limits?
That's not baraminology
DeleteIt is- even my source says so.
What are the limits of these designs ?
DeleteGenetics. There is a different set of genes responsible for minor variations and changes in body type. One set is variable while the other isn't.
The paper above shows no limits in the mammal clade over the last 160+ million years.
No, it doesn't. It assumes it. The evidence they use is also evidence for a common design.
Where's your evidence for these claimed limits?
Lenski, all observational and experimental data.
And I am waiting for you to show how it supports unguided evolution and evolution of different types of mammals.
I explained how phylogeny supports a common design.
Your source said baraminology is Biblical created "kinds" Chubs. Even you can't lie your way out of that one.
DeleteI notice you were too cowardly to link to your source - I had to do it for you. What a joke you are Joke.
Baraminology is based on the idea that even though creatures do not evolve in an unlimited way, they were designed with an ability to adapt to their environment. This ability is not open-ended (per evolution), but within the limits of their design.
DeleteWhen I say "The scientific evidence supports baraminology I am saying that the scientific evidence supports the idea that even though creatures do not evolve in an unlimited way, they were designed with an ability to adapt to their environment. This ability is not open-ended (per evolutionism), but within the limits of their design."
And guess what else timmy? You don't get to tell me otherwise you desperate asshole.
Your source said baraminology is Biblical created "kinds"
DeleteYes I know. I also know that is irrelevant for the reason provided. And you don't get to tell me what I mean by what I say.
Liar Joke G
DeleteGenetics. There is a different set of genes responsible for minor variations and changes in body type. One set is variable while the other isn't.
Which genes aren't changeable and why not Joke?
As always you forgot your evidence for the stupid things you claims. Same as always.
Joke G
DeleteAnd you don't get to tell me what I mean by what I say.
Ah, a new Chubby Joke excuse! "Sure I said A but I really meant Not-A".
You're comedy gold Chubs. :D
Which genes aren't changeable and why not
DeleteThe developmental control genes- genes that your position can't even explain. They can't be changed because changing them causes deformities like legs for antenna in fruit flies.
But then again you are too stupid to understand that and you sure as hell can't find any evidence to refute it.
Clueless Joke G
DeleteThe developmental control genes- genes that your position can't even explain. They can't be changed because changing them causes deformities like legs for antenna in fruit flies.
Damn but you're an ignorant one Joke. There's a whole field of biology, Evo-Devo, that deals with development control genes and how changes to them can alter body plans. There's not a thing in any of the research that prohibits speciation, no magic barrier between "kinds".
You got caught with your YEC baraminology stupidity and are digging your hole deeper with every lie you post. You are indeed a great spokesman for ID. :D
Dumbass Timmy:
DeleteThere's a whole field of biology, Evo-Devo, that deals with development control genes and how changes to them can alter body plans.
Yes I know all about it. However no one has been able to show that is so- no one has been able to alter any body plans beyond having legs for antenna and other deformities. AND your position doesn't have any explanation for those control genes, moron.
But anyway, thanks for proving that you are nothing but an ignorant and gullible ass. Too bad you don't have any evidence nor science to support your tripe.
There's not a thing in any of the research that prohibits speciation,
LoL! Baraminology accepts speciation you ignorant ass.
And I am waiting for you to show how it supports unguided evolution and evolution of different types of mammals.
DeleteThat's in reference to your failed phylogeny comment.
Evodevo was the evoTARDs' great last hope. Too bad it hasn't supported any of their claims...
DeleteChubby Joke's TARDGASM continues into its 3rd day!
DeleteSorry you're a YEC who thinks the evidence supports Biblical created "kinds" Chubs. Dozens have tried to educate you on actual evolutionary biology but you are incapable of learning.
Yes, Timmy, you are sorry. You are also a pathetic loser and pathological liar.
DeleteI am not a YEC as I do not accept a 6000 year old earth. Also the evidence supports the dea that even though creatures do not evolve in an unlimited way, they were designed with an ability to adapt to their environment. This ability is not open-ended (per evolutionism), but within the limits of their design." And you have nothing to refute that.
You can't educate anyone as all you have are lies, bullshit and bluffs. If you had some science or evidence you would present it.
Dozens have tried to educate you on actual evolutionary biology
DeleteLoL! I know more about evolutionary biology than you ever will. That goes for most evolutionists I have ever met or had a discussion with.
Chubby Joke G
DeleteI know more about evolutionary biology than you ever will.
"The evidence supports Biblical created kinds"
"Earth is young but made out of old materials"
"ice isn't water"
"wavelength = frequency"
"OOL violates the 2nd Law of Thermdynamics"
That's what passes for science with ID's greatest spokesman, Creation Scientist Joke Gallien.
:D
You know you have won when Timmy just spews more lies and bullshit and cannot present any science nor evidence.
DeleteThanks for confirming what we already knew.
And when evoTARDs say that natural selection does not include mutations- see TSZ- then it is clear they don't know anything about evolutionary biology.
"The evidence supports Biblical created kinds"
DeleteI never said that.
"Earth is young but made out of old materials"
That is a possibility and more probable than your position's "explanation"
"ice isn't water"
It isn't. Only imbeciles would think otherwise.
"wavelength = frequency"
As evidenced by the fact when I turn the frequency knob on a signal generator the only thing tat changes is the wavelength
"OOL violates the 2nd Law of Thermdynamics"
As evidenced by Walter Bradley's argument- the one Timmy is ignorant of.
Why does Timmy think its ignorance and belligerence are arguments?
Why so beautiful, you ask?
ReplyDelete"Well," the dirt worshipper would undoubtedly reply, "beauty evolved like everything else. Natural selection selected for beauty because of environmental pressures. Survival required it, you see."
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha..
Only you would find that fish beautiful. But, considering what looks back at you from the mirror, maybe that is not unexpected.
DeleteLoL! Many people say that fish are beautiful. And when compared to you they are right.
DeleteSpear Shaker:
DeleteOnly you would find that fish beautiful. But, considering what looks back at you from the mirror, maybe that is not unexpected.
It's your closet homosexuality talking. It's OK. I understand.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Mapou: "It's your closet homosexuality talking."
DeleteWho said anything about being in the closet?
It really hurts that you are not willing to admit to the world our marriag.
DeleteAnother excellent post, Cornelius. Below is more good reading about Darwinism fraud. Darwinists are not just stupid, they are also deceitful.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/05/in_court_ruling102826.html
Here's another link exposing Darwinist hypocrisy. So glad to see the light finally shining on these lying, deceitful cockroaches.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/05/post_45102825.html