- They've told us we are fools for being creationists.
- They swear by the gods of science.
- Why then wont they debate us with REAL PROOF?

Evolutionist - Indeed I am, sorry I'm only getting your message right now.

I'll quickly tell you right now, if you're a creationist there's really no point in discussing evolution. It would be like bringing up Astrology in a conversation of Astronomy,  It's not Kosher,

My response - That's a funny way to sidestep the serious issue of evolution. So you only discuss evolution with those who believe evolution? What sort of debate then is that? Sorry, i am a creationist but i am also a scientist and after 4 solid yrs of reviewing plenty of evidence, science has strengthened rather than diminished my belief in creationism.
This attitude by "evolutionists" to shy away from exhaustive debates is really a disgrace and makes you wonder on what basis they base their irrational belief.
Creationism is a belief, evolution unfortunately IS A BELIEF that is not founded on ANY serious scientific reasoning. By simply looking at the millions of tiny processes by which the single cell regulates itself, it is immediately apparent that it is statistically impossible for those processes to have developed simply through a process of trial and error. We also know that the cell has inbuilt mechanisms to resist genomic change - gene silencing, DNA repair, intricately linked cell cycle progression mechanisms - it will interest you to note that there are no less than 5 proteins alone that are primed to stop cell division when there is a recognized change to DNA (p53, p14, p21) e.t.c.
Why do we have fossilized remains of well developed dragon flies, ferns, maple leaves . . . that stretch as far as 400 million yrs ago? Where are the intermediate life forms that shld have existed if evolution was indeed true?

these are just a tiny bit of the questions evolutionists like you who have no ability to reason for themselves love to shy away from. I am not one who is reluctant to actively investigate the bible from a scientific standpoint. I only wonder why those who swear by the gods of science are too scared to put their own scientific theories to the test.

Good day
David

Lets hope the misguided members of the church of science will care to respond to us.

Davidylan i dont know why but i personal like you ever since i met you on nairaland, i love the way you present and defend your case with boldness and intelligence, but the way you are going about this your religion of a thing, i wonder what you will do if you die and you did not see any God, Heaven, or even Hell,

Any way good luck.

davidylan:

- They've told us we are fools for being creationists.
- They swear by the gods of science.
- Why then wont they debate us with REAL PROOF?

Evolutionist - Indeed I am, sorry I'm only getting your message right now.

I'll quickly tell you right now, if you're a creationist there's really no point in discussing evolution. It would be like bringing up Astrology in a conversation of Astronomy, It's not Kosher,

My response - [color=#770077]That's a funny way to sidestep the serious issue of evolution. So you only discuss evolution with those who believe evolution? What sort of debate then is that? Sorry, i am a creationist but i am also a scientist and after 4 solid yrs of reviewing plenty of evidence, science has strengthened rather than diminished my belief in creationism.

If I may ask how has science strengethed your belief in creationism?

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

We have god creating men and animals as vegetarians in one of the genesis creation stories, Science does not support this assertion does it?

Science says that the sun was created first before the plants but the genesis account says other wise, So how has science strengethed your belief in creationism? since science does not agree with almost everything that is written in genesis?

By the way which of the creation accounts in genesis is the real creation account considering the fact that there are 2 different creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2?

banom:

Davidylan i dont know why but i personal like you ever since i met you on nairaland, i love the way you present and defend your case with boldness and intelligence, but the way you are going about this your religion of a thing, i wonder what you will do if you die and you did not see any God, Heaven, or even Hell,

Any way good luck.

What will you do if all those end up to be true?

toneyb:

If I may ask how has science strengethed your belief in creationism?

Read my first post.

toneyb:

We have god creating men and animals as vegetarians in one of the genesis creation stories, Science does not support this assertion does it?

That is false and is simply symptomatic of the problem with anti-religionists . . . take an entire verse and build a case on it. As early as that same book of genesis the people of those days knew that certain animals were carnivorous only.

toneyb:

Science says that the sun was created first before the plants but the genesis account says other wise, So how has science strengethed your belief in creationism? since science does not agree with almost everything that is written in genesis?

- Science does not know how the sun appeared in the first place and cant tell us who created it.
- the bible ACTUALLY affirms that daylight (the sun duh!) was created first.

toneyb:

By the way which of the creation accounts in genesis is the real creation account considering the fact that there are 2 different creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2?

We are debating evolution here not the accounts of genesis. Thank you.
No longer will i entertain wishy-washy "scientists" who do not want to discuss the folly of their own "theories".

davidylan:

Read my first post.

That is false and is simply symptomatic of the problem with anti-religionists . . . take an entire verse and build a case on it. As early as that same book of genesis the people of those days knew that certain animals were carnivorous only.

This is what is written in your bible.

Gen 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Gen 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Gen 1:30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

If you feel uncomfortable with what is written in the bible blame the bible writers not the person that is reading or quoting what is written in the bible word for word. It is very clear here to every body that can read what the passage says. we have god declearing that he has given all the animals green plants as food. If you dont agree with what the bible says tear off that page from your bible and stop saying that the bible does not say that because it more than cleary says so.

- Science does not know how the sun appeared in the first place and cant tell us who created it.
- the bible ACTUALLY affirms that daylight (the sun duh!) was

created first.

Neither do the writers of genesis

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

The light talked about in genesis does not refer to the sun in any way.

We are debating evolution here not the accounts of genesis. Thank you.
No longer will i entertain wishy-washy "scientists" who do not want to discuss the folly of their own "theories".

Are you tacitly admittiting the folly of the bible writers? Thanks to science and scientist and their "foolish theories" we now know much more about life and the world in general, thanks to their efforts we know that the bible(genesis) was written by people that know little or nothing about how the world works.

toneyb . . . the subject of the topic was on evolution. As much as i'd like to take on your poor reading of Genesis, desperate attempts to derail the thread will not be entertained. It has become the modus operandi of anti-religionists to attempt to defend evolution NOT by providing relevant and accurate scientific data but by foolishly attempting to decry Genesis itself.
That unfortunately is NOT the issue, if there was CONCRETE scientific proof for evolution i can bet you wont be reading Genesis now.

thank you.

toneyb:


The light talked about in genesis does not refer to the sun in any way.

really?? please tell us more. . . . what was this light refering to?
and since u arent a fan of the bible GOD, i m poised to ask when u became so versed in the bible to connote deeper meanings to the literal textual content of the bible.

Are you tacitly admittiting the folly of the bible writers? Thanks to science and scientist and their "foolish theories" we now know much more about life and the world in general, thanks to their efforts we know that the bible(genesis) was written by people that know little or nothing about how the world works.

please stick to the topic on board, . , . .

I hate the tendency of evolutionists insulting the intelligence of creationists. Lets stick to the topic on hand.
Can evolution stand the test of intellectual objectivity when juxtaposed with creation?. . . . .the ball is in ur court.

noetic:

I hate the tendency of evolutionists insulting the intelligence of creationists. Lets stick to the topic on hand.
Can evolution stand the test of intellectual objectivity when juxtaposed with creation?. . . . .the ball is in ur court.

Toneyb, that is the topic in a nutshell not Genesis. Thank you Noetic.

davidylan:

Toneyb, that is the topic in a nutshell not Genesis. Thank you Noetic.

Sorry for mixing everything up, I personally do not completely believe in the TOE. I am still trying to learn everything that I can about it.

toneyb:

Sorry for mixing everything up, I personally do not completely believe in the TOE. I am still trying to learn everything that I can about it.

So what do you believe in?

KAG and co haven't shied away from debating you on the issue of Evolution.  Lots of the proponents of Evolution have actually being Christians. The support for evolution has been overwhelming in the scientific community.

Can evolution stand the test of intellectual objectivity when juxtaposed with creation?. . . . .the ball is in ur court.

It sure has, considering biology and anthropology classes talk about it till this day.

bawomolo:

KAG and co haven't shied away from debating you on the issue of Evolution. Lots of the proponents of Evolution have actually being Christians.

I wont call KAG's style "debate", its more use of condescending language with plenty of verbose grammar to avoid answering critical questions.

bawomolo:

The support for evolution has been overwhelming in the scientific community.

It has to, what other alternative do they have? The support is based on exactly what? Where are the fossil records? Where are the intermediate life forms? why are there no cases of evolution today?

bawomolo:

It sure has, considering biology and anthropology classes talk about it till this day.

Biology classes still talk about vestigial organs in humans which we now know to be false. Like i said earlier, anthropology and biology have no other alternative besides evolution.
Physics textbooks talk about the "big bang" . . . but where is the proof?

I wont call KAG's style "debate", its more use of condescending language with plenty of verbose grammar to avoid answering critical questions.

ye na KAG you yab so.

It has to, what other alternative do they have? The support is based on exactly what? Where are the fossil records? Where are the intermediate life forms? why are there no cases of evolution today?

wouldn't pests and bacteria gaining resistance to antibiotics and pesticides be a form evolution.  I thought fossil records were regularly being found in places like Niger, Kenya etc.  you can argue there is a missing link in the evolutionary tree but more and more links are filled every here. I'm not an expert in biology so take it easy on me.

Like i said earlier, anthropology and biology have no other alternative besides evolution.

yes they do, perfect design or whatever is called has been proposed by scientists on the creationist side.  Evolution has withstood such proposals till this day

Physics textbooks talk about the "big bang" . . . but where is the proof?

Abbott labs, Fermi labs and the creators of the hadron collider would like to have word with you.  The big bang is a theory is in its nascent stages.  I still have more trust in scientific observation than a book based on faith.

bawomolo:

wouldn't pests and bacteria gaining resistance to antibiotics and pesticides be a form evolution.

Evolving to what? Cells have inbuilt mechanisms to resist genomic change . . . does that mean we are constantly evolving?
Mutation is not equal to evolution.

bawomolo:

  I thought fossil records were regularly being found in places like Niger, Kenya etc.  you can argue there is a missing link in the evolutionary tree but more and more links are filled every here. I'm not an expert in biology so take it easy on me.

Actually the more fossils found the more problematic it becomes to accept evolution. What we are discovering from fossil records are NOT intermediate life forms but highly developed organisms. We have fossils for fully formed dragon flies, fruits, leaves, fish as old as 400 million yrs ago that are just exactly the same as organisms we see today. Did evolution suddenly stop 400 million yrs ago?

Yeah most of you are simply experts at merely copying from the internet. Most of you dont understand the science you embrace in order to satiate your godless souls.

There are no "links" being filled AT ALL. We are YET to find JUST ONE SINGLE intermediate life form nor are we yet to demonstrate evolution in our labs.

bawomolo:

yes they do, perfect design or whatever is called has been proposed by scientists on the creationist side.  Evolution has withstood such proposals till this day

simply by virtue of the fact that we have more people who are not willing to consider that creationism might be true afterall. If christians were the proponents of evolution, the word would long have disappeared from use for the sheer lack of evidence.

bawomolo:

Abbott labs, Fermi labs and the creators of the hadron collider would like to have word with you.  The big bang is a theory is in its nascent stages.  I still have more trust in scientific observation than a book based on faith.

errr what have they done to prove it? Have they performed any big bang to show they can create simple life forms by smashing atoms together? I'm waiting.

Mutation is not equal to evolution.

are you saying drug resistance is a mutation? I guess tales of Adaptive Divergence are bologna. What makes you think bacterial evolution is a mutation, doesn't such resistance benefit the bacteria?

We have fossils for fully formed dragon flies, fruits, leaves, fish as old as 400 million yrs ago that are just exactly the same as organisms we see today

really, I guess the environment and the component of gases 400 million yrs ago are the same today. Similar yes but exactly the same? come on now.

There are no "links" being filled AT ALL. We are YET to find JUST ONE SINGLE intermediate life form nor are we yet to demonstrate evolution in our labs.

It's inevitable it would be found. Now, that's just my opinion.

simply by virtue of the fact that we have more people who are not willing to consider that creationism might be true afterall.

And why is that, becomes they find the theory of divine design laughable? we can't exactly observe divine design in a lab or call it a scientific theory.

errr what have they done to prove it? Have they performed any big bang to show they can create simple life forms by smashing atoms together? I'm waiting.

see this man not having respect for physicist . Those sub-atomic collisions would be responsible for advances in the Big Bang theory. The proof is coming.

bawomolo:

are you saying drug resistance is a mutation? I guess tales of Adaptive Divergence are bologna. What makes you think bacterial evolution is a mutation, doesn't such resistance benefit the bacteria?

the problem with a lot of you is that you love to use impressive words you dont understand. From what did bacteria evolve from and EXACTLY to what have ALL the bacteria that have shown antibiotic resistance evolved to?
Drug resistance is simply the cell's mechanism to resist change NOT an example of evolution because the organism isnt becoming a more complex organism (the essential story of evolution) . . . it remains the same bacteria it was yesterday only that now signalling pathways that make the drug less effective have been turned on.

I'll give you a simple example that i see everyday . . . when you stimulate human epithelial cells with low concentrations of cigarette smoke particulate matter for 4 hrs, the cells respond by generating micromolar amounts of pro-inflammatory mediators. Surprisingly when you significantly up the concentration of your stimulant, the reverse occurs - the cells simply shut down and generate even LESS inflammatory mediators than what you would ordinarily observe in non-stimulated cells.

What happened? Did the cells evolve? NO!

bawomolo:

really, I guess the environment and the component of gases 400 million yrs ago are the same today. Similar yes but exactly the same? come on now.

How do you know? Can you prove it or merely regurgitating the nonsense your professors have told you on google?

bawomolo:

It's inevitable it would be found. Now, that's just my opinion.

Yeah . . . imagine if a christian made such a comment.

bawomolo:

And why is that, becomes they find the theory of divine design laughable? we can't exactly observe divine design in a lab or call it a scientific theory.

Neither have we observed evolution in the lab . . . now can we both laugh at it pls?

bawomolo:

see this man not having respect for physicist . Those sub-atomic collisions would be responsible for advances in the Big Bang theory. The proof is coming.

When atoms collide and produce simple LIFE FORMS then i will start having respect for the nonsense that passes for the big bang theory.

What happened? Did the cells evolve? NO!

but a lot of your peers claim there is genome evolution going on in bacteria.  Are those experts lying 

How do you know? Can you prove it or merely regurgitating the nonsense your professors have told you on google?

na wa o, I'm just wondering if the conditions that appear today are the same as the ones 400 million years ago.  With my current set of lungs etc, can i survive if i'm teleported back 400 million years.  You have to admit those insects have changed over the years.  Your use of the word 'exact' is too extreme to be true IMO. 

Yeah . . . imagine if a christian made such a comment.

Science is flexible, Christianity is rigid.  Who am i too say a link won't be found when progress is made yearly.  Have Christians find Noah's Ark yet?

Neither have we observed evolution in the lab . . . now can we both laugh at it pls?

but some of your peers have, this may be a case of seeing what you want to see and what's exactly there.

When atoms collide and produce simple LIFE FORMS then i will start having respect for the nonsense that passes for the big bang theory.

Umm what does the big bang have to do with abiogenesis. Why do you want physicists to tell you how life started 

I have a question though, if divine design is true, Is it possible for a dinosaur to come back to existence through divine design?

bawomolo:

but a lot of your peers claim there is genome evolution going on in bacteria.  Are those experts lying 

No such thing is occuring . . . i transform E.coli (gram negative rods) almost every 2 months with plasmids carrying drug resistant genes. The plasmids dont change the E.coli genome, rather they simply confer transient drug resistance to the bacteria such that they can grow in the presence of antibiotics such as penicillin. After a few weeks at 4 degrees centigrade, you cant use those same transformed E.coli as they gradually lose the plasmids.

Another thing to keep in mind -  a lot of bacteria do not have linear chromosomes like us, E.coli for example has a circular chromosome (which is how plasmids came to be generated) and some bacteria can have multiple circular chromosomes carrying separate genes. Its very difficult to insert a gene into bacterial chromosomes, you can only do so by cutting the genome with restriction enzymes and then inserting your gene of interest.

Enough of merely regurgitating the nonsense you read online from so-called "experts". If bacterial genomes were changing we would be in serious trouble by now.

bawomolo:

na wa o, I'm just wondering if the conditions that appear today are the same as the ones 400 million years ago.  With my current set of lungs etc, can i survive if i'm teleported back 400 million years.  You have to admit those insects have changed over the years.  Your use of the word 'exact' is too extreme to be true IMO. 

Here is a simple example:


This shrimp is 170 million yrs old . . . what happened? It forgot to evolve?

bawomolo:

Science is flexible, Christianity is rigid.  Who am i too say a link won't be found when progress is made yearly.  Have Christians find Noah's Ark yet?

Rubbish, science is only "flexible" when it has no concrete idea. We havent found Noah's ark because it was built thousands of yrs ago . . . duh!

bawomolo:

but some of your peers have, this may be a case of seeing what you want to see and what's exactly there.

No they havent. Where are they?

bawomolo:

Umm what does the big bang have to do with abiogenesis. Why do you want physicists to tell you how life started 

We've rubbished abiogenesis already. It only exists in the minds of lunatics.

bawomolo:

I have a question though, if divine design is true, Is it possible for a dinosaur to come back to existence through divine design?

Ask God . . . or sorry as your scientific "gods".

What's this? Another Creationist lying for Jesus? Colour me surprised. In any case, like I said in the last thread on the theory of evolution (you remember the one that you, Davidylan, abandoned after the whole ERV debacle. See thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=241487.msg3545649#msg3545649), I will generally refrain from responding to you until:

KAG: Actually, here's your chance to answer a straightforward question that you seemed to have missed the last time:

'what would be your explanation for the "99%" of shared DNA?' Also, so what's your explanation for shared ervs? Simply saying humans share 99%, etc isn't an explanation in itself.

bawomolo:

KAG and co haven't shied away from debating you on the issue of Evolution.  Lots of the proponents of Evolution have actually being Christians. The support for evolution has been overwhelming in the scientific community.

It sure has, considering biology and anthropology classes talk about it till this day. 

That's true enough. In fact, anyone willing to do a little digging can find the thousands of words pther posters and myself have written to show why and how the theory of evolution remains unfalsified and is the best scientific explanation for the origin of species. Of course what tends to happen is that the Creationists either ignore and lie for Jesus like David~ is currently doing, or they, in spite of dogma, accept the evidence presented.

davidylan:

I wont call KAG's style "debate", its more use of condescending language with plenty of verbose grammar to avoid answering critical questions.

Lol. Dishonest Christian is dishonest. My posting history says otherwise 

God bless you Davidlyan,,,I will rather believe in the existence of God and if probably He does not exist after death,,I surely don,t have anything to loose,,,But for Banom and co who do not believe in God surely have everything to loose if after death they found out God isreal.

REAL TRUTH:

God bless you Davidlyan,,,I will rather believe in the existence of God and if probably He does not exist after death,,I surely don,t have anything to loose,,,But for Banom and co who do not believe in God surely have everything to loose if after death they found out God isreal.

What if you die and find out that the Islamic god is god

REAL TRUTH:

God bless you Davidlyan,,,I will rather believe in the existence of God and if probably He does not exist after death,,I surely don,t have anything to loose.

So what happens when die if you findout that Allah is the true God? Or Budha? Or Horus? There are 10'000 Gods why don't u worship every single one of them just incase u die and findout u were worshipping the wrong one?

REAL TRUTH:

But for Banom and co who do not believe in God surely have everything to loose if after death they found out God isreal.

How do you even know whats going to happen when u die anyway? When u eventually expire you don't have a mind to think or eyes to see nose to smell etc so u don't know. Since u don't know where u were 10 years before u were born how can u say u know whats going to happen to you when u die?

Rubbish, science is only "flexible" when it has no concretes idea. We havent found Noah's ark because it was built thousands of yrs ago . . . duh!

hmm but Egypt artifacts that have are just as old have easily survived, good luck with the quest . science is flexible, scientist are willing to admit Newton wasn't totally correct or Bohr's model isn't true.

Enough of merely regurgitating the nonsense you read online from so-called "experts". If bacterial genomes were changing we would be in serious trouble by now.

So there is no transfer of genes between genomes or divergence among the genomes. They haven't mutated over time? Hmm many of your peers disagree in their publications.



how specious, so their sizes are exactly the same? the internal organs haven't changed. are you trying to say the modern day dragon fly can survive 400 million years ago?

No they havent. Where are they?

lots of them,I bet they exist in your Uni's biology department.

Ask God . . . or sorry as your scientific "gods".

hmm intelligent design indeed.

the usual parade of delusionists.

KAG:

What's this? Another Creationist lying for Jesus? Colour me surprised. In any case, like I said in the last thread on the theory of evolution (you remember the one that you, Davidylan, abandoned after the whole ERV debacle. See thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=241487.msg3545649#msg3545649), I will generally refrain from responding to you until:

Dont be too full of urself, i didnt abandon the thread. I simply got bored of repeating the same things over and over and over again to people who merely READ the internet and think they know. I work with genes and proteins 7 days a week . . . when you actually start saying something other than what you cull from wikipedia or atheist websites then i'd be more than willing to give up part of my work time to debate you.

KAG:

KAG: Actually, here's your chance to answer a straightforward question that you seemed to have missed the last time:

what would be your explanation for the "99%" of shared DNA?' Also, so what's your explanation for shared ervs? Simply saying humans share 99%, etc isn't an explanation in itself.

- Humans and chimps share 99% of their DNA and yet possess STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT PHENOTYPES - WHY?
- Identical twins share 100% of their DNA and YET sometimes exhibit strikingly different phenotypes and behaviour - WHY?

Start from there. You atheists have a way of subtly refusing to answer the questions that expose your theories for the falsehoods they are . . . rather you would prefer creationists (whom you despise) to answer them for you?

KAG:

That's true enough. In fact, anyone willing to do a little digging can find the thousands of words pther posters and myself have written to show why and how the theory of evolution remains unfalsified and is the best scientific explanation for the origin of species. Of course what tends to happen is that the Creationists either ignore and lie for Jesus like David~ is currently doing, or they, in spite of dogma, accept the evidence presented.

How does the theory of evolution explain the fact that the dragon fly has remained unchanged for 400 million yrs?
How does the theory of evolution explain the missing intermediate life forms?
How does the theory of evolution explain the complete failure of single-celled organisms to evolve after thousands of yrs? Why have bacteria remained the same for so long?

What you and your ilk have done is NOT provide evidence but simply condescendingly knock the theories of others.

bawomolo:

hmm but Egypt artifacts that have are just as old have easily survived, good luck with the quest . science is flexible, scientist are willing to admit Newton wasn't totally correct or Bohr's model isn't true.

Have you found EVERY SINGLE Egyptian artifact?

Science certainly is flexible, it has to be because there is frankly no other alternative if their theories fall apart.

bawomolo:

So there is no transfer of genes between genomes or divergence among the genomes. They haven't mutated over time? Hmm many of your peers disagree in their publications.

Dude you seriously need to drop the desperate need to sound intelligent by using terms you frankly dont understand. If i asked you to explain in less than 2 sentences exactly what a genome is or what genome divergence is all about WITHOUT LOOKING AT A TEXTBOOK OR WIKIPEDIA i can bet my last 10 cents that you cant. You goons simple scour the internet looking for words that sound fantastic but offer very little by way of sense.

Let me just offer you two examples of gene transfer that we do daily here in the lab:

1. I mentioned transformation of E.coli earlier on - you simply add circular plasmids carrying your external gene of interest (which is not expressed in E.coli). You can then select transformed bacteria based on their ability to grow in selective media since they carry a gene that expresses a drug resistance marker.
Eventually the E.coli will remove your artificially transfered plasmid (it does not integrate this into its own circular genome), this can be determined by their inability to grow on the selective media.

2. Transfection - this is perhaps the easiest way of over-expressing a gene of interest into cells. You can have stable transfections (very difficult to do and takes weeks or months to stably transfect a single colony of cells - the gene of interest does integrate into the genome though). For transient transfections, your gene will not stay within the cell longer than 96 hrs at most. Very effective but is metabolically expensive for the cell, more than 75% will die.

Sorry, you can only fool those who dont know into believing that gene transfer is as common as sneezing.

Gene transfer occurs but at rates that are much too low to completely change an animal's entire phenotype. Have you seen bacteria evolve into a multi-cellular organism yet? That is what evolution is all about . . . pls show us!!!

Stop clinging desperately to mutation, it is NOT the answer to evolution's inability to prove itself.

bawomolo:

how specious, so their sizes are exactly the same? the internal organs haven't changed. are you trying to say the modern day dragon fly can survive 400 million years ago?

What a completely dumb response . . . does that shrimp look to you any different from the shrimps you buy at your local store? So only its internal organs evolved and the outer shell remained the same for 400 million yrs?

What has size got to do with it? Evolution says organisms evolved from smaller organisms to larger so WHY do we still have horses smaller than 2 ft? Why do we still have unicellular organisms that are over 400 million yrs old? Why did they fail to evolve?

If the modern dragon fly could not survive 400 million yrs ago BUT remains the same as it was then what changed? Did the environment change just to suit the dragon fly?

Sometimes these airheads need to just shut up.

bawomolo:

lots of them,I bet they exist in your Uni's biology department.

Why dont you show us just one of these "lots of them"? Dishonest liars disgust me.

bawomolo:

hmm intelligent design indeed.

I just agreed with you that intelligent design does not exist . . . why dont you show me just how you appeared on earth?

manmustwac:

So what happens when die if you findout that Allah is the true God? Or Budha? Or Horus? There are 10'000 Gods why don't u worship every single one of them just incase u die and findout u were worshipping the wrong one?

u sound very uninformed. And u throw this around in the name of intelligence.

Just as you have chosen to be anti-christ and pro-satanist someone else has chosen to be for Christ.
live with ur choice and let him do the same.

How do you even know whats going to happen when u die anyway? When u eventually expire you don't have a mind to think or eyes to see nose to smell etc so u don't know.

I m surprised u are bothered about after life. And sounds like u have been to the outer world too.
stop arrogating googled and misinforming notions to urself. Since science has corroborated outer body experiences of non-christians, whats the basis of the illussion that all senses are dead at death?

Since u don't know where u were 10 years before u were born how can u say u know whats going to happen to you when u die?

this is a joke right?

KAG:

What's this? Another Creationist lying for Jesus? Colour me surprised. In any case, like I said in the last thread on the theory of evolution (you remember the one that you, Davidylan, abandoned after the whole ERV debacle. See thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=241487.msg3545649#msg3545649), I will generally refrain from responding to you until:

KAG: Actually, here's your chance to answer a straightforward question that you seemed to have missed the last time:

'what would be your explanation for the "99%" of shared DNA?' Also, so what's your explanation for shared ervs? Simply saying humans share 99%, etc isn't an explanation in itself.


That's true enough. In fact, anyone willing to do a little digging can find the thousands of words pther posters and myself have written to show why and how the theory of evolution remains unfalsified and is the best scientific explanation for the origin of species. Of course what tends to happen is that the Creationists either ignore and lie for Jesus like David~ is currently doing, or they, in spite of dogma, accept the evidence presented.

Lol. Dishonest Christian is dishonest. My posting history says otherwise 

bawomolo:

hmm but Egypt artifacts that have are just as old have easily survived, good luck with the quest  .  science is flexible, scientist are willing to admit Newton wasn't totally correct or Bohr's model isn't true.

So there is no transfer of genes between genomes or divergence among the genomes.  They haven't mutated over time? Hmm many of your peers disagree in their publications.



how specious, so their sizes are exactly the same? the internal organs haven't changed. are you trying to say the modern day dragon fly can survive 400 million years ago?

lots of them,I bet they exist in your Uni's biology department.

hmm intelligent design indeed.

congrats. . . . .as typical of any evolution protagonist u have successfully bundled up the debate, in the light of obvious reality.
The bone of contention remains the objectivity of evolution when compared intelligently with creation. . . ,  . . and i believe u havent made any attempt to do this at all.

Lets start from the very basics.

Regardless of whose version of evolution u listen to or ascribe to, evolution is widely acclaimed to be a theory.
my dictionary defines a theory as an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Well known synonyms of a theory include hypothesis, speculation, assumption, a guess, an idea, an ideology to mention a few.
All of these, I believe should help the lay man with little or no knowledge of biology, evolution or creationism to have a gasp of the major bone of contention of this debate.

from the aforementioned, I can deduce that unless and until a theory is proven, tested and reproduced for clarity and correlation it can only continue to be ascribed to as a theory or a false hypothesis and not a fact not to even talk of the truth. i believe we will substantiate that as time goes on.

Evolution claims a whole lot of nonsense, but my analysis will be limited to the major concepts, misinformation and notions of evolution that contradict creationism.
Creationism answers the question about the origin and beginning of life. Evolution does not. Thus my first poser to u is that regardless of how old u claim the earth was, what is the origin of life?
Dont come up with craps like the initial occurrence or appearance of organisms brought about evolution. What was the state of things before these organisms came into existence? or are u ascribing omnipresence to organisms?
Dont also come up with craps being sold around that the biochemistry that make up life resulted from simpler (chemical) reactions that started the evolution process. My poser to u will be that since all chemical reactions are produced from changes occurring from one or more substances, what were the substances that made the simpler chemical reactions? and u also need to educate me on the very first simple chemical reaction that started evolution and kick started life.
Dont also come with the crap about prokaryotes inhabiting the earth for billions of years. What existed before them? and what led to their existence since evolutionists claim that all organisms on earth share the same ancestral gene pool?  Except u want to claim that this is the origin of life??

Any fool can use google and wikipedia to post concorted misinformation and fallacies about the truth of life, contradicting the accounts of the bible as evidenced in the theory of evolution. But no fool can make an intelligent analyses of these "googled" and "wikipediad" falsehood or produce analytical evidence that can stand the test of collective and constructive reasoning.

Thats what this thread is meant to achieve. . . . . Its time for the evolution protagonists to make informed pronouncements on these issues.
If u want the creationist account as to the origin of life . . .  . .just google Genesis 1 and 2.

The ball is now in ur court.

and you wonder why people don't to debate with you guys. insult galore

bawomolo:

and you wonder why people don't to debate with you guys. insult galore

There are no "insults" . . . what you see is a result of the attitude problem atheists have (including you). there is the unfounded belief that EVERY atheist is inherently more intelligent than the creationist. It shows in your responses . . . it shows in your choice of words . . . none of you has made any attempt to "debate", you simply came here with the "creationists are deluded ignoramuses" idea.

I'm going to respond to this post because there seems to be some attempt at engaging with the question I asked in the previous thread.

davidylan:

the usual parade of delusionists.

Dont be too full of urself, i didnt abandon the thread. I simply got bored of repeating the same things over and over and over again to people who merely READ the internet and think they know. I work with genes and proteins 7 days a week . . . when you actually start saying something other than what you cull from wikipedia or atheist websites then i'd be more than willing to give up part of my work time to debate you.

No, you're lying yet again. You did abandon the thread, and not because of boredom, but because it soon became apparent that you were grossly ignorant of what ERVs meant despite trying to pretend you did. If you do indeed work with genes and proteins, I suspect you wouldn't have posted gems like this one: "ERVs do NOT generate independent viruses in human cells like exogenous RVs do, why? Afterall arent they all about gag, pol and env?"

Then again, where would we be if yet another dishonest Creationist didn't use the "appeal to authority" fallacy?

By the way, if those that accept the theory of evolution were truely as clueless as you persist on insisting, you shouldn't have any trouble refuting anything we present. You can start from ERV's as presented in the last couple of posts in that thread from which you're hiding.

- Humans and chimps share 99% of their DNA and yet possess STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT PHENOTYPES - WHY?
- Identical twins share 100% of their DNA and YET sometimes exhibit strikingly different phenotypes and behaviour - WHY?

I don't know, that's why I asked you. So, why do you think humans and chimps share "99% of DNA" and ervs?

Start from there. You atheists have a way of subtly refusing to answer the questions that expose your theories for the falsehoods they are . . . rather you would prefer creationists (whom you despise) to answer them for you?

Don't be daft. It is those that accept the theory of evolution that do answer questions posed. If you can stop deluding yourself for a while just take a cursory skim through threads that have dealt with evolution on this forum. Actually, that's not quite right, as some Creationists do answer questions in return so that both parties understand better the different positions and can weigh them. No, strangely, it is mostly you that has a "way to subtly refus[e] to answer the questions that expose" you for what you are: disingenuous.

How does the theory of evolution explain the fact that the dragon fly has remained unchanged for 400 million yrs?

Organisms that best fit the niche in which they exist require little to no change except the conditions in their environment changes significantly to cause a population shift in attributes that will help the species survive said changes. That is, if the environment in which a species - in this case, perhaps dragonflies - is stable and the species has evolved the neceessary traits to survive in that environment, unless the conditions in the species' niche changes, then further evolution needn't occur. Meaning that the species won't have the external impetus to evolve new, but unnecessary external traits.

However, to bring in another dimension, that is not to say all species go that route, as factors like sexual selection can also create effects for adaptation in some species.

How does the theory of evolution explain the missing intermediate life forms?

There are many examples of fossilised remains of intermediate life forms, or transitional animals. However, the relative rarity in fossilisation means that obviously not every type of changes between species will be represented in the fossil record. Having said that, there are enough fossils to get a good idea of several changes that have happened between species, genuses, etc.

As far as examples go, one of the ones I'm fond of giving is that there are several dinosaur-bird transitionals, with archeopteryx being perhaps the best known.

How does the theory of evolution explain the complete failure of single-celled organisms to evolve after thousands of yrs? Why have bacteria remained the same for so long?

That's a similar question to the dragonfly one. Further to the answer given to that question, I should point out that bacteria don't need to change their form too much as they are one of the most - if not the most - succesful living things on the planet. Most bacteria have found themselves successful at surviving with the need for only very minor changes. The theory of evolution points to survival of a species as a sign of fitness.

What you and your ilk have done is NOT provide evidence but simply condescendingly knock the theories of others.

Dishonest Christian is dishonest. I say you're dishonest because I'm pretty sure nobody that "works with proteins and genes seven days a week" (lol, seven days a week?) has that bad a memory.

davidylan:

Enough of merely regurgitating the nonsense you read online from so-called "experts". If bacterial genomes were changing we would be in serious trouble by now.

Okay, I just saw this. I say dude is a poe and is trolling. Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic.

With ample evidence discovered by science, the thesis of an "infinite universe" was tossed onto the scrap-heap of the history of scientific ideas. Yet, more important questions were forthcoming: what existed before the Big Bang? What force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?

There is a single answer to be given to the question of what existed before the Big Bang: God, the All-powerful and the Almighty, Who created the earth and the heavens in great order. Many scientists, be they believers or not, are obliged to admit this truth. Although they may decline to admit this fact on scientific platforms, their confessions in between the lines give them away. Renowned atheist philosopher Anthony Flew says:

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. (Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salla IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241).

Some scientists like the British materialist physicist H. P. Lipson confess that they have to accept the Big Bang theory whether they want it or not:

If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?… I think, however, that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. (H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138).

In conclusion, science points to a single reality whether materialist scientists like it or not. Matter and time have been created by a Creator, Who is All-Powerful and Who created the heavens, the earth and all that is in between: Almighty God.

It is God Who created the seven heavens and of the earth the same number, the Command descending down through all of them, so that you might know that God has power over all things and that God encompasses all things in His knowledge. (Surat at-Talaq: 12)