The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[he_who_is_nobody]

I propose this as a church:

At least it will be bigger on the inside.

 

[Lame Name Dame]

There's this guy who mantains that the Precambrian fossil rabbits would not disprove evolution, only the order of appearance of the current taxa.
He seems to believe that amphibians are thought to have evolved from fish just because fish appear earlier in the fossil record.
And he touts himself an evolutionist... "just like Ratzinger", he says.

 

[lordlandraid]

I propose this as a church:

Seconded

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

BobEnyart[/url]"]hwin, I appreciate the opportunity to share with you that creationists fully endorse natural selection. All of the leading creation ministries, and all the creationists that I am aware of, support natural selection because, as you went on to state, it is observed (which is the basis of the scientific method). Also, we've often pointed out that creationists before Darwin believed in natural selection. Thus the disagreement arises not over NS, but over Darwin's proposal for something that goes far beyond natural selection. Natural selection is a CONSERVATION mechanism. It kills off the less fit and thereby conserves what is more fit in a given environment. Breeders can't grow ever taller and taller plants. There are constraints within genomes. When natural selection kills of sighted fish trapped in a dark cave, it has not created new biological information (which is necessary for Darwin's worm-to-man type evolution), but has efficiently conserved the part of the genome needed for survival in the dark.

Because NS conserves what exists, if unique enzymes are needed to create the unique fatty acids in a dolphin's melon, that could help us test the plausibility of Darwinism. The "melon", that is, the bump on the dolphin's head, focuses sound waves sort of like the way telescopes focus light, except that the melon uses the physical properties of different kinds of specially arranged, unique amino acids to bend the sound waves to enhance the echolocation of dolphins and some whales. So, let's say that the enzymes required to make these unique fatty acids are themselves unique. Then, evolution would have had to originate those enzymes before it could use them to aid the dolphins' hearing. And here's the test. What if such enzymes are made of lengthy sequences that would not arise by pure chance in the lifetime of a trillion, trillion universes. Those enzymes would themselves then need Natural Selection to come into existence. But Natural Selection cannot "look ahead" to plan. That is, it can't think: if only I had these certain enzymes, then I could manufacture these fatty acids, and use them to focus sound waves. Therefore, NS has nothing to "select" until such enzymes are already in existence to make these acids. Evolutionists will use an off-the-shelf, but fundamentally unresponsive, argument that claims that those enzymes, or ones very similar to them, were probably in use somewhere else in the domains of life, and were co-opted. Even if that were true, those predecessor enzymes would have then had to arise somewhere. And then this same problem is just as real there, because that argument doesn't solve, but only punts, the problem. Further, in life, there are unique and astounding enzymes, many of which are catalysts which speed up necessary-for-life chemical reactions, and some of those reactions would take thousands of years without the enzymes, yet they are needed for life to exist.

Thus, and here's what many evolutionist never even face up to hwin, NS cannot "make" new features but it conserves existing features. And it especially could not make not features that would require multiple intermediary useless steps like producing wildly unlikely enzymes, to produce fatty acids the dolphin doesn't otherwise use, to begin to produce them in a bulge in the top of the head, and only then find them of value if different such acids get arranged in a specific physical arrangement so that they will focus sound waves onto a the dolphin's receiver.

So, creationists have identified and supported natural selection for longer than Darwinists have. And yes, as you agreed to this one small point (thank you hwin), IF the Earth were young, that would mean that Darwin's claim that the fossil record and natural selection explain for the diversity of life on Earth is false.

 

[Visaki]

...genome degradating beneficial mutations...

From a Finnish creationist apparently quoting (at least he claims so) someone called John Sanford. He also caims that duplications are automaticly degradations of the genome. After all, saying something twise doesn't give any more information (yes, he really uses that as an example).

 

[Inferno]

Firstly there are no "laws of evolution"

Uh whatnow?

 

[Aelyn]

I'd like to post something from EFT here but despite everything I think this guy from talk.origins still takes the cake for me :

I hadn't realised you were female when I made this statement. I was
expecting some form of logical consistency to our argument. I now,
however, understand the monthly cycle of understanding fluctuations
interlaced with emotional stuff and silly questions and am attempting
to adjust. Yes darling, of course the energy comes from the Sun. And
all those pretty lickle flowers come from the Sun. And all those
pretty lickle trees come from the Sun. And der aint no big nasty god
gonna tell you otherwise.

I was trying to explain photosynthesis to him.

 

[Inferno]

Wow, that might be one of the most sexist comments I've seen on that forum. How the hell do you manage?

 

[australopithecus]

I'd point out these would be the same guys calling us rude. But when I did that on EFT Stripe told me to grow up.

OH THE IRONING!

 

[Inferno]

OH THE IRONING!

 

[Darkprophet232]

Aelyn, um... wow, uh.... shoot. I have no words for that, but perhaps a picture will suffice.

 

[Aelyn]

Wow, that might be one of the most sexist comments I've seen on that forum. How the hell do you manage?

That was NOT, I should repeat, on EFT. It was on talk.origins. And I usually have a pretty thick skin but that one was trying. It helped that he was so obviously an idiot.

I wouldn't say much about the manners of EFT residents, but I've never seen them post anything like that, not as far as the misogyny goes at least.

 

[Inferno]

Wow, that might be one of the most sexist comments I've seen on that forum. How the hell do you manage?

That was NOT, I should repeat, on EFT. It was on talk.origins. And I usually have a pretty thick skin but that one was trying. It helped that he was so obviously an idiot.

I wouldn't say much about the manners of EFT residents, but I've never seen them post anything like that, not as far as the misogyny goes at least.

Well, my apologies to the EFT crew. I've never been on the TO talkgroup, but that makes me very sad indeed.

 

[herebedragons]

How about this one

I wonder what the world was like before Darwin...science would be easier to learn (would have no 'evolution' mixed in with it)... maybe thats why the world had the Newtons, and Galileos etc etc.

We should probably do away with Organic Chem too, that was pretty hard to learn, and Physics, oh and Biochem is kinda hard too. We can just cut all the hard stuff out of science and we can all be Newtons and Galileos!!

HBD

 

[Gnug215]

How about this one

I wonder what the world was like before Darwin...science would be easier to learn (would have no 'evolution' mixed in with it)... maybe thats why the world had the Newtons, and Galileos etc etc.

We should probably do away with Organic Chem too, that was pretty hard to learn, and Physics, oh and Biochem is kinda hard too. We can just cut all the hard stuff out of science and we can all be Newtons and Galileos!!

HBD

Lol, who said that??

 

[herebedragons]

Lol, who said that??

Oh that Sammy fellow on EFT. You could post just about everything the guy says in this thread. :roll: But I about spit out my coffee when I read this. And it nicely illustrates the problem ... this stuff is too hard, so let's not try to understand.

HBD

 

[Gnug215]

Lol, who said that??

Oh that Sammy fellow on EFT. You could post just about everything the guy says in this thread. :roll: But I about spit out my coffee when I read this. And it nicely illustrates the problem ... this stuff is too hard, so let's not try to understand.

HBD

Haha, I read it today. Yeah, he's something else.

I just love how he called me an idiot. I didn't know I was SO smooth so as to be a mirror!

(Or something... bad joke.)

 

[mumblingmickey]

No one knows. Kent Hovind came up with it, and he isn't telling.

I think it likely relates to the fact that a flood of the magnitude in the bible would have increased air pressure a few times over... just a few now... well actually by a lot, well actaully by an immense amount... Venus like pressure and temperature. Very hurty... ouch!

Hovind obviously thought that if he could just 'pop' air pressure up magically by double then this would relieve his about to be crushed humans by giving them superpowers or something.... He must have actaully worked out that if he said that repeatedly or tried to explain it... then someone (even creationists) would point out that the rising water wouldn't stop increasing the pressure just because it started at double the norm.

Anyway Hovind is a fucktard. I don't think there's a single human being in history that has done more to retard and already retarded population. If he died in his sleep peacefully I'd consider myself robbed of lols.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

The response from a member of EvolutionFairytale after I crushed his ego to shit. Well, almost.

The Lord rebuke you, you cheap little crtic. You started your introduction here with a lie...yet you still think you can be trusted by those who post here. As far as I am concerned you can take your awful attitude back to where you came from.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The response from a member of EvolutionFairytale after I crushed his ego to shit. Well, almost.

The Lord rebuke you, you cheap little crtic. You started your introduction here with a lie...yet you still think you can be trusted by those who post here. As far as I am concerned you can take your awful attitude back to where you came from.

:lol:

I have been reading that thread and I thought it was hilarious that Calypsis4 jump in criticizing you about your age, I guess they have nothing else to comment on. I also found it hilarious how you quoted gilbo12345 and underlined a section you wanted him to comment on, but instead he was upset that you underlined his quote and still has not commented on the underlined section. I pointed out that he had poor reading comprehension and that is a perfect example.