On atheists and those with weak faith. [Gandhi]

Originally posted by Soothfast
zing

another rather ill conceived and erroneous assertion, would you like to retract this one also? Like your ignorant 'the bible nowhere supports reason', bilge.

Originally posted by lausey
If you put a bunch of humans on an island completely separate from other humans. Provide them all the resources and they were only to mate amongst themselves, eventually they will change (adapt to their environment). After enough generations they would only find people on the island attractive and will not mate with anyone else. After further generations, the ...[text shortened]... o groups being able to mate, causing a genetic drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

more complete tosh and dogma, fruit flies produced no new species, in fact, Dobzhansky himself declared,

“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity"

Perhaps you might like to try as Noobster did to cite the e coli experiments or the Malaria experiments, nothing new after zillions of mutations. This type of postulation and dogma does not belong in spirituality, take it to science spanky, they believe anything down there, here we prefer solid evidence and reason.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more complete tosh and dogma, fruit flies produced no new species, in fact, Dobzhansky himself declared,

“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, [b]are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity"

Perhaps you might like to try as N ...[text shortened]... to science spanky, they believe anything down there, here we prefer solid evidence and reason.[/b]

Dobzhansky carried out his experiments in the 1950's!!!!! Science moves on Rob.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so lets say within ten thousand years, so here you are stating that there were humans around for eighty thousand years , but that evidence of civilisation for a mere 9,000 how very odd, and on what basis are you dates ascertained? i sure hope its not carbon dating, for one is aware of how inaccurate that can be. indeed one can find many references st ...[text shortened]... mere 4000 year old, here is one, just by way of example.

http://www.blurtit.com/q600671.html

Good grief man, your knowledge of human history is shocking. I'll fill in the details for you.

We can be traced back 200,000 years to Africa. Around 70,000 years ago a small group of pioneers crossed the Arabian Peninsula into modern day Yemen. From there they took the coastal route round the peninsula and went off to populate the world.

10,000 years ago the Neolithic Revolution, or the first agricultural revolution happened. We started to grow grain and become farmers, that meant we didn't need to chase animals round the countryside anymore.

As for dating techniques, i'm sure a wide range has been used in gathering these dates. No doubt including radio carbon dating.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more complete tosh and dogma, fruit flies produced no new species, in fact, Dobzhansky himself declared,

“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, [b]are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity"

Perhaps you might like to try as N ...[text shortened]... to science spanky, they believe anything down there, here we prefer solid evidence and reason.[/b]

Perhaps you might like to try as Noobster did to cite the e coli experiments or the Malaria experiments, nothing new after zillions of mutations.

But i wasn't citing the Lenski experiments as proof of speciation was i? You know this.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Good grief man, your knowledge of human history is shocking. I'll fill in the details for you.

We can be traced back 200,000 years to Africa. Around 70,000 years ago a small group of pioneers crossed the Arabian Peninsula into modern day Yemen. From there they took the coastal route round the peninsula and went off to populate the world.

10,000 yea a wide range has been used in gathering these dates. No doubt including radio carbon dating.

good grief more evolutionary dogma! so lets get this straight, for seventy thousand years, no settlements, nothing, a few bones and some teeth, then as recently as 5000 years ago (10,000 by your estimation), settlements appear, in harmony with the creation account. So let us ask ourselves, why the incongruity, why the discrepancies with the evolutionary hypothesis, why the complete lack of substantiating data, seventy thousand years and nothing, then out of nowhere, civilisations and cities. Is this another huge leap of faith that one must take in order to shoehorn the evidence around the hypothesis? Another Cambrian explosion? more punctuated equilibrium? its the materialists creation account, more fantastic than the Biblical one for sure.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Perhaps you might like to try as Noobster did to cite the e coli experiments or the Malaria experiments, nothing new after zillions of mutations.

But i wasn't citing the Lenski experiments as proof of speciation was i? You know this.[/b]

sure adaptation, i remember now, but even you have to admit that after trillions of mutations e coli remains just that, e coli. Sooo why is Lausey trying to palm off aberration (change) at a molecular level as something other than adaptation, why is he/she trying to palm it off as speciation?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Dobzhansky carried out his experiments in the 1950's!!!!! Science moves on Rob.

the experiments were carried out for more than fifty years beginning in the early 1900s, same old, same old story, weaker woosy flies.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sure adaptation, i remember now, but even you have to admit that after trillions of mutations e coli remains just that, e coli. Sooo why is Lausey trying to palm off aberration (change) at a molecular level as something other than adaptation, why is he/she trying to palm it off as speciation?

The experiment went past 20,000 generations a few years ago. Don't know where you got 'trillions of mutations' from?! Did you make that up?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The experiment went past 20,000 generations a few years ago. Don't know where you got 'trillions of mutations' from?! Did you make that up?

I think i read it somewhere, after all, were talking bacteria. The figure as of 2010 is now 50,000 generations.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
good grief more evolutionary dogma! so lets get this straight, for seventy thousand years, no settlements, nothing, a few bones and some teeth, then as recently as 5000 years ago (10,000 by your estimation), settlements appear, in harmony with the creation account. So let us ask ourselves, why the incongruity, why the discrepancies with the evoluti ...[text shortened]... ilibrium? its the materialists creation account, more fantastic than the Biblical one for sure.

This has been explained to you before countless times by me and others. I'm not spending my time going round the subject again. Because as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow in a few months time you'll be repeating the same old tired arguments like this conversation never happened.

Again for the zillionth time, the evolutionary account is not the sole domain of materialists, atheists or naturalists. Why do you keep repeating this falsity? What is it with you creationists, why can't you understand that?! Why is it so difficult?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This has been explained to you before countless times by me and others. I'm not spending my time going round the subject [b]again. Because as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow in a few months time you'll be repeating the same old tired arguments like this conversation never happened.[/b]

sure thing, but let it be noted that water can make a hole in a large rock if it drips with constancy, young gwasshopper! I never accepted the other attempts to reconcile the incongruities.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This has been explained to you before countless times by me and others. I'm not spending my time going round the subject [b]again. Because as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow in a few months time you'll be repeating the same old tired arguments like this conversation never happened.

Again for the zillionth time, the evolutionary account is not t ...[text shortened]... ty? What is it with you creationists, why can't you understand that?! Why is it so difficult?[/b]

Again for the zillionth time, the evolutionary account is not the sole domain of materialists, atheists or naturalists. Why do you keep repeating this falsity? What is it with you creationists, why can't you understand that?! Why is it so difficult?

I have not said it is the sole domain, but it presupposes a purely materialistic view of the emergence and diversification of life, therefore there is justification in highlighting this aspect. Do you agree that this is the case?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again for the zillionth time, the evolutionary account is not the sole domain of materialists, atheists or naturalists. Why do you keep repeating this falsity? What is it with you creationists, why can't you understand that?! Why is it so difficult?

I have not said it is the sole domain, but it presupposes a purely materialistic view of the emerge ...[text shortened]... refore there is justification in highlighting this aspect. Do you agree that this is the case?

Prof Behe would disagree. Why can't the unseen hand of God be at work?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Prof Behe would disagree. Why can't the unseen hand of God be at work?

Simply because it is diametrically opposed to the sacred text. Behe, for all I love his ideas, is unsteady in his ways.