Joined: July 2006
|Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:21)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:18)|
|Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:14)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:09)|
|Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)|
|Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:36)|
|Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)|
|Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)|
|NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...|
unSupersport, you are a tard.
the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.
Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.
the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time. There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.) Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes. The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them. Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they? Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around. But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.
The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.
Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.
Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
you have yet to show that they aren't degenerating.
Supersport, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?
Sanfords generic entropy puts an upper limit on the number of available reproduction events.
Supersport, I know they are not degenerating because they are still there after the maximum amount of reproductive events Sanford says are available to them.
I ask again, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?
And how many generations does that give us per year?
sorry that doesn't cut it -- if you are going to make an assertion that bacteria aren't degenerating you are going to have to provide proof. Besides that, degeneration happens in ways that cannot be seen in genes. For example, many diseases are heritable, thereby degenerating a population, but these diseases cannot be seen in the genome, but in the epigenome. The degeneration is not with the genes themselves, but in the mental processes that control the genes.
It's a simple point and it's telling that you won't plug in the numbers.
a) What are the maximum number of reproduction events available to a bacteria?
b) How long does would it take to reach that number?
c) If the bacteria exist after that number, the Sanford must be wrong - right or wrong?
Here is an example of bacteria reproducing for millions of years. Please point out how these bacteria have degenerated. Please predict when we could expect them to reach the end of the available reproduction events for them.
|Scientists descending more than 2 miles into the hot, fractured rocks of a South African gold mine have discovered clans of microbes that have thrived there in total isolation for millions of years.|
"These bugs come from a formation at least 3 million and probably tens of millions of years old," said biologist Terry Hazen, head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ecology department and a co-author of the report. "They're living happily down there, remote and secluded, and they have the ability to adapt to anything that comes their way."
Now, I think I have reasonably "proven" that these bacteria are not degenerating, as if they were then they've had millions of years to do it and if they were degenerating then iwhy are they still here?
Your contention is that bacteria are degenerating, yet they happily live and reproduce for millions of years. You have been misled.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand