tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6154803354193384544..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Dinosaur “Explosion”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82848655645532292482018-05-01T11:59:25.541-07:002018-05-01T11:59:25.541-07:00Ghostrider,
"The common point is they've...Ghostrider,<br /><br />"The common point is they've all been scientifically verified 100x over. :)"<br /><br />That's not the answer I was looking for but that's fine.<br /><br />How exactly did they independently confirm their results? :)Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81244531335647484482018-04-30T20:12:30.634-07:002018-04-30T20:12:30.634-07:00And what do all the many techniques have in common...<i>And what do all the many techniques have in common regards their processes?</i><br /><br />The common point is they've all been scientifically verified 100x over. :)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76637375622536816822018-04-30T12:22:25.220-07:002018-04-30T12:22:25.220-07:00Ghostrider,
And what do all the many techniques h...Ghostrider,<br /><br />And what do all the many techniques have in common regards their processes?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50833294423925358012018-04-28T13:24:25.329-07:002018-04-28T13:24:25.329-07:00The ignorance is all yours, as usual.What you said...The ignorance is all yours, as usual.What you said proves that you are a closet YEC, timmy.<br /><br />Nice own goal.<br /><br />BTW there isn't anything in evolutionism that prevents a dog from evolving into a cat or vice versa<br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84027412877295791912018-04-28T11:03:21.789-07:002018-04-28T11:03:21.789-07:00I checked out your link from 6 years ago Joke. Lo...I checked out your link from 6 years ago Joke. Looks like people were trying to correct your ignorance once again. You were arguing evolution is wrong because we don't see extant cats evolving onto extant dogs. I would say no one could possibly be <b>that</b> stupid but I've seen you in action before. :DGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29685343473110331842018-04-28T07:18:55.968-07:002018-04-28T07:18:55.968-07:00And for the record- ghosty has argued for baramino...And for the record- ghosty has argued for baraminology on this very blog:<br /><br /><a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/how-legs-evolved-acompanado-de-otros.html?showComment=1355281186078#c5145180722141569777" rel="nofollow">Thorton said:</a><br /><br /><br /><i>A cat is a member of the family Felidae. Its parents were Felidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Felidae.<br /><br />A dog is a member of the family Canidae. Its parents were Canidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Canidae.</i><br /><br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53651181021553238792018-04-27T18:20:12.543-07:002018-04-27T18:20:12.543-07:00I believe Genesis 1 is intended to establish Elohi...I believe Genesis 1 is intended to establish Elohim as THE Creator of all things. The Hebrews had just been released from 400+ years of Egyptian indoctrination and needed instruction to differentiate themselves from other neighboring people groups. I believe Genesis 2 goes on to establish the special relationship God (as Yahweh) offered to humanity. Figurative language is evidence in chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis. In a literalistic reading of Genesis 2, God brings every single "bird of the air" and "beast of the field" to Adam to be named. But this is not physically possible. Genesis 2 also implies states "But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him". Clearly, this is also figurative since there would not be a bird or beast suitable to help Adam. Chapter 3 and the details of mankind's fall into sin also suggest figurative language. For example, a serpent could not have a conversation with Eve. Adam and Eve are given instructions to not eat the fruit (which I think is also metaphorical). Several versions of the Bible say that they will die on the day that they eat the fruit. They do not suffer physical death after their choice, but suffer a spiritual separation from God (or spiritual death). Later Biblical passages, such as Romans 5, indicate that sin entered the world through one man. Thus I believe that the choice of Adam and Eve introduced sin to the rest of humanity.<br /><br />That's the quick version, but I'd be happy to discuss it further.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14818404010710070781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46720302006072625262018-04-27T17:27:17.496-07:002018-04-27T17:27:17.496-07:00Curtis,
"I just don't think the first th...Curtis,<br /><br />"I just don't think the first three chapters of Genesis are intended to be a literal account of the unfolding of creation."<br /><br />Then what are they intended to be?<br /><br />"I believe Adam and Eve were more likely spiritual, rather than biological, progenitors."<br /><br />Could you provide your exegesis to support that idea?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12129463841196284662018-04-27T17:19:24.212-07:002018-04-27T17:19:24.212-07:00What a desperate little imp you are timmy.
Do you...What a desperate little imp you are timmy.<br /><br />Do you really think that your pathetic lies mean something? Really?<br /><br />All scientific evidence supports limited descent with modification.<br /><br />And I never said anything against the scientific theory of evolution because there isn't any scientific theory of evolution.<br /><br />But thanks for proving that you are too stupid and pathetic to follow along.<br /><br />Everyone who reads this sees that you are a pathetic excuse for a human being.<br /><br />And they also see that no one can link to any scientific theory of evolution. No one can say who the author was, when it was published, or what journal published it.<br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68244687466130826322018-04-27T15:17:12.031-07:002018-04-27T15:17:12.031-07:00BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Joke one minute "all scient...BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!<br /><br />Joke one minute "all scientific evidence supports baraminology"<br /><br />Joke the next minute "I never said anything againt the scientific theory of evolution"<br /><br />Joke the next minute: "The scientific theory of evolution doesn't exist".<br /><br />Then Joke wonders why everyone who reads his blithering thinks he's a clueless YEC idiot. :DGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1608156342081874472018-04-27T14:56:36.233-07:002018-04-27T14:56:36.233-07:00In your own words what is the scientific theory of...<i>In your own words what is the scientific theory of evolution Joe?</i><br /><br />Non-existent. Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2974864723311820302018-04-27T13:54:45.751-07:002018-04-27T13:54:45.751-07:00What? timmy you are pathetic.
What I said was th...What? timmy you are pathetic. <br /><br />What I said was that the evidence supports limited descent with modification. You have been corrected on this many times and yet you choose to spew your lies. And I NEVER said anything about the evidence supporting the ToE.<br /><br />There isn't any scientific theory of evolution, moron. That is why I have never railed against it.<br /><br />Strange how you have to lie all of the time in order to score mental midget points.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9166772053932974062018-04-27T13:18:18.462-07:002018-04-27T13:18:18.462-07:00I do not and never have railed against any scienti...<i>I do not and never have railed against any scientific theory of evolution.</i><br /><br />HAH! Joke is the same knob who has claimed for years all scientific evidence supports baraminology, or Biblical "kinds". Now suddenly he supports ToE. <br /><br />In your own words what is the scientific theory of evolution Joke?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84340300562328919802018-04-26T16:38:52.721-07:002018-04-26T16:38:52.721-07:00You are a moron, timmy- and a LIAR. I rail against...You are a moron, timmy- and a LIAR. I rail against evolutionism. I do not and never have railed against any scientific theory of evolution.<br /><br />Strange how you have to lie all of the time in order to score mental midget points.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33256433316253336492018-04-26T16:24:45.620-07:002018-04-26T16:24:45.620-07:00LOL! Funny there isn't a theory of evolution ...LOL! Funny there isn't a theory of evolution yet you spend hours a day, every day, impotently ranting against it.<br /><br />Joke is like the obnoxious little yap dog who barks at everyone then piddles on the rug. Most of us ignore him except to poke fun when he says something <i>really</i> stupid, which is quite often. :)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70527622162461215712018-04-26T14:24:42.720-07:002018-04-26T14:24:42.720-07:00You are a liar and loser, timmy. And there isn'...You are a liar and loser, timmy. And there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. But then again you are just an ignorant trollJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83821052908899307582018-04-26T12:26:53.347-07:002018-04-26T12:26:53.347-07:00Joe, there's a difference between "there ...<i>Joe, there's a difference between "there isn't any evidence" and "there isn't any evidence I find convincing". </i><br /><br />Just blanket denying any and all scientific evidence he can't explain is Joke's main tactic. That's why he constantly vomits out "there is no theory of evolution".<br /><br />Joke is an angry YEC who isn't very bright. Most gave up trying to get an informed adult discussion out of him decades ago.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10539227550327471392018-04-26T11:07:41.141-07:002018-04-26T11:07:41.141-07:00There isn't any evidence for any RNA world. Pe...There isn't any evidence for any RNA world. Period.<br /><br />Finding catalytic RNA is not evidence for a RNA world. Being able to produce RNA nucleotides is not evidence for a RNA world. <br /><br />Spiegelman's Monster and other experiments are evidence against it. Self-sustained replication of RNA's failed to produce anything beyond faster replication. And that was with designed RNA's that used designed RNA strands and only created one bond.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64072838026018980782018-04-26T10:21:05.609-07:002018-04-26T10:21:05.609-07:00Joe, there's a difference between "there ...Joe, there's a difference between "there isn't any evidence" and "there isn't any evidence I find convincing". Cech and Altman won Nobel Prizes for their discoveries of catalytic RNA. These discoveries were deemed Nobel-worthy largely because they lent evidence to the RNA World hypothesis. I'm still not convinced by the evidence, but it is erroneous to say that the evidence doesn't exist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14818404010710070781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48931091755769843502018-04-26T07:16:10.543-07:002018-04-26T07:16:10.543-07:00Right- the method requires that all crystals that ...Right- the method requires that all crystals that were part of the original space debris that made up the earth to have been melted and then reformed.<br /><br />If any crystals survived then the dating method doesn't give the age of the earth, just the crystal.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76808574548848445372018-04-26T03:15:43.675-07:002018-04-26T03:15:43.675-07:00There isn't any evidence for any RNA world, ju...There isn't any evidence for any RNA world, just a need.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73284041219029604682018-04-26T03:14:23.569-07:002018-04-26T03:14:23.569-07:00Wrong! They are talking about "evolution"...Wrong! They are talking about "evolution" in the sense of Common Descent (otherwise known as universal common descent).<br /><br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51222383171947267902018-04-25T19:28:57.126-07:002018-04-25T19:28:57.126-07:00But how do they determine dates from these factors...<i>But how do they determine dates from these factors? </i><br /><br />Like this.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html" rel="nofollow">Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective</a><br /><br />Formatting of the web page seems a bit wonky but hopefully still readable.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23708359631128099372018-04-25T17:54:02.946-07:002018-04-25T17:54:02.946-07:00Speaking for myself, I believe atheistic abiogenes...Speaking for myself, I believe atheistic abiogenesis is much more problematic than atheistic evolution. However, Gauger's quote ignores research ignores the "RNA world" hypothesis and others. An argument could be made (but not by me) that the first cells were significantly different from the cells we see today. I think that the lack of progress in this area since abiogenesis research began about 70 years ago suggests that this "God of the gaps" argument might actually present a real gap in a purely naturalistic explanation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14818404010710070781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59440313998751577402018-04-25T17:22:07.688-07:002018-04-25T17:22:07.688-07:00“I'm certainly not opposed to God as a Creator...“I'm certainly not opposed to God as a Creator that either "stacked the deck" for evolution to turn out as He intended, or He might have "nudged" evolutionary processes toward His desired outcome.”<br /><br />“To get the first cell, you need DNA and you also need RNA and you need protein. You need DNA to make RNA to make protein, but you also need protein to make DNA. Coming up with that out of a process of random mutation and natural selection is just not possible.”<br />Anne Gauger <br /><br />Curtis <br />It sure would have needed quite a nudge. <br />Phillymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074043605165238761noreply@blogger.com