Still in the Dark Ages

[lippy 776]

1 minute ago, Slim King said:

More TDS in every thread .... ROTFLMAO.... The Mind Control is so obvious to anyone but the afflicted. The Derangement is oozing out in almost every post. The thread is about creation yet somehow it's always TRUMP ... I am so entertained by the Trump circle jerk on this forum. Now back to creation. 

If you don't believe in Intelligent Design then can you explain how this all came to be? I want to hear your explanation of creation. There is little doubt that with todays enlightenment Darwin himself would back down from Evolution. Just compare SETI and DNA.

Calm the fuck down dude.  It was a thread drift specifically about Trump supporters who claim to be Christian but put Trump above the teachings of Christ.

But I can't find any flaws in the logic of the 2nd part of your post...yes sir, Jesus rode his dinosaur to school every morning after his Dad (the Big Guy, as it were) created us all 2023 years ago.  Not even Darwin could dispute that.  

 

[jakee 1,259]

3 hours ago, lippy said:

And God said, "by thy pussy thou shalt grab them, for thou art a star"

He should grab them by his own pussy?

 

Could work, I suppose he probably does think he owns it.

Edited August 9, 2023 by jakee

[jakee 1,259]

1 hour ago, Slim King said:

Just compare SETI and DNA.

It’s so cute when you pretend to know what words mean.

[riggerrob 558]

10 hours ago, Slim King said:

... If you don't believe in Intelligent Design then can you explain how this all came to be? I want to hear your explanation of creation. There is little doubt that with todays enlightenment Darwin himself would back down from Evolution. ...

Sorry man, but I do not believe in intelligent Design. Just look at all the failed experiments in the fossil record. Granted, some of those "failures" were stepping stones on the way to creating modern flora and fauna.

Rather, I see Intelligent Design as a simplified re-telling of the process of evolution ... including all of its dead-ends.

By the same token, I see the Big Bang Theory as a simplified re-tellling of a multi-trillion year old story that is simply too big for the human mind to grasp. My theory holds that the universe expands and collapses in cycles that are trillions of years long and the Big Bang Theory merely explains the most recent expansion cycle/wave.

Along that same thought process, the Book of Genesis is not inaccurate. Rather the Book of Genesis is just a best-guess based upon the limited knowledge available to ancient Hebrews/Jews. Similarly, modern science is a best-guess based upon currently available knowledge. Scientists are constantly testing each others' theories to prove - or deny - their viability. Some of what we hold as scientific fact today will be laughed at 50 years in the future.

Hah!

Hah!

[billvon 2,434]

4 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Along that same thought process, the Book of Genesis is not inaccurate.

Given that it even contradicts itself, can't agree with you there.

I mean, you could say it has a lesson, great - like the story of Santa Claus or the Matrix.  But the Bible, like those two other narratives, should not be taken as anything but a story that someone told.

[wmw999 2,148]

3 hours ago, Slim King said:

I agree .... Just like SETI and the DNA comparison. Evolution of DNA strands for humans would take about 40 billion years. The earth is only 4 billion years old. DNA has proven that it had to be manipulated in order to make humans so quickly. Intelligently manipulated.

Only if you think we are the end point, and not some random piece of a long line.

Wendy P. 

[gowlerk 1,925]

40 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Only if you think we are the end point, and not some random piece of a long line.

Wendy P. 

That is the second most conceited belief of mankind. The first being that we are created in God’s image.

[JoeWeber 2,326]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

That is the second most conceited belief of mankind. The first being that we are created in God’s image.

OMG, are you saying that God might look like Dav3e Ruckert?

[JerryBaumchen 1,065]

12 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

OMG, are you saying that God might look like Dav3e Ruckert?

Hi Joe,

They broke the mold after they made Dave.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,326]

34 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

They broke the mold after they made Dave.

Jerry Baumchen

I used to bring 2 182's and 8 jumpers plus me to Dave's Memorial Day deal at Snohomish.  The funnest jumps were the 5 airplane 10 ways, 2 from each airplane with a second pass of 5 airplanes in formation in the shit. Sometimes we did it from 6-8K half blind.  Big fun before we had any sense.

[JoeWeber 2,326]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

They broke the mold after they made Dave.

Jerry Baumchen

So much stuff that we did in the old days and I miss it all. But leaving it all behind was what we needed to do to advance the sport and I do not regret that at all.

[jakee 1,259]

10 hours ago, Slim King said:

I agree .... Just like SETI and the DNA comparison. 

Ok…. Comparing human DNA with listening for radio signals from alien civilisations…. What?

Seriously, are you just pretending you know what those words mean?

[jakee 1,259]

26 minutes ago, Slim King said:

I'm amazed you can't see the comparison.There is a great new book, simple to read and quite short called "Proofs of God" ....The comparison of SETI to DNA is amazingly right on!!!!  Spending millions on SETI  ( I helped) looking for Intelligent Life revealed in a systematic code from outer space, yet thinking insanely complicated  DNA was an accidental game of chance.

Oh, ok - you just have no idea how evolution works. That’s cool.

[Phil1111 913]

7 minutes ago, jakee said:

Oh, ok - you just have no idea how evolution works. That’s cool.

"( I helped) looking for Intelligent Life " Quote Slim

Be it in the posts or in the republican party. The unsuccessful quest for intelligent life continues.

Someday perhaps.

[Phil1111 913]

16 minutes ago, Slim King said:

You are exposing your ignorance. The DNA in your body would take 40,000,000,000 years  to evolve. The mutations would take ten times longer than this earth has existed

It serves me right for checking the odd post of someone on ignore. Evolution of humans takes longer than the length of time the planet has existed.

[jakee 1,259]

47 minutes ago, Slim King said:

You are exposing your ignorance. The DNA in your body would take 40,000,000,000 years  to evolve. The mutations would take ten times longer than this earth has existed

Sez who? Let me guess - someone running the numbers on how likely it is the current iteration would just pop up randomly on its own?

 

Here’s a hint for you - natural selection isn’t random chance. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by jakee

[headoverheels 291]

19 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

They broke the mold after they made Dave.

Jerry Baumchen

Just before, I would say.

[mistercwood 287]

Is it still ad hominem if the target genuinely isn't bright enough to follow the discussion? Asking for no particular reason.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

2 hours ago, Slim King said:

The DNA in your body would take 40,000,000,000 years  to evolve

I know I am going to regret asking, but is there any way you could provide some evidence of this, that isn't a youtube video?

[billvon 2,434]

23 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I know I am going to regret asking, but is there any way you could provide some evidence of this, that isn't a youtube video?

Of course he can't.

BTW one cool thing I learned about DNA - that number is roughly correct if we didn't have any primitives.  Primitives are operational units of DNA where one change makes a radical difference.  For example, change one codon in the right area and a fly will grow a leg instead of an eye on its head.  That primitive is called the HOX complex, which is a subset of the homeobox series of sequences.  It allows rapid evolution by requiring only one change, instead of hundreds, for changes in overall body plan (human included.)

[normiss 622]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Of course he can't.

BTW one cool thing I learned about DNA - that number is roughly correct if we didn't have any primitives.  Primitives are operational units of DNA where one change makes a radical difference.  For example, change one codon in the right area and a fly will grow a leg instead of an eye on its head.  That primitive is called the HOX complex, which is a subset of the homeobox series of sequences.  It allows rapid evolution by requiring only one change, instead of hundreds, for changes in overall body plan (human included.)

It almost feels like we're witnessing the leg growth in this thread. Clearly some mutation of sorts at the very least.

 

[JoeWeber 2,326]

19 minutes ago, Slim King said:

If I post is a Bitchute video you say .. That's a bad source...  too Conservative.. If I post a Rumble video you say ... Bad Source, too conservative .. NOW you finally get around to the most Liberal Source on the net and you say ... Bad Source....But Bill is actually trying here with his google searches. The problem with Bills idea is that Mutations are predominantly BAD.. His example would produce an inferior Fly that would probably die much sooner than the others.  Most mutations do NOT improve a creature. Bills example below proves it.

 

Your google search paid off and it supports what I've said. Your example of the fly with a leg growing out of it's eye due to mutation is perfect. That fly is imperfect. Most mutation are extremely BAD for the creature it tortures. If you were born with your leg coming out of your eye you would have a hard time surviving as a fly (Or a human unless you join the circus) and you certainly wouldn't dominate the species. Mutations generally work against survival and reproduction/replication.

Without mutations there would be no genetic variation. I'll leave you to sing, dance or skeptical think about why that would be bad.

[billvon 2,434]

1 hour ago, Slim King said:

Your google search paid off and it supports what I've said. Your example of the fly with a leg growing out of it's eye due to mutation is perfect. That fly is imperfect. Most mutation are extremely BAD for the creature it tortures.

That is exactly right.  99.9% of mutations are bad.

But then there's the Idiurus Macrotis, that had a single mutation that caused it to grow two tibias instead of one.  That second tibia allows its flying membrane to extend farther _without_ attaching the membrane to its phalanges.  More lift for flying and more dexterity on the ground.  Slightly better at survival.

The next mutation might be a longer second tibia.  Simple mutation.  Slightly better at survival.

The next mutation might be a duplicate of musculature, so the new tibia has the same musculature as the old one.  Simple mutation.  Slightly better at survival.

The next mutation might be a third tibia.  Again, simple mutation.  Slightly better at survival.

And in another million years, someone like you will be saying "there's NO WAY that that flying squrrel just evolved a new wing by chance!  NO WAY!"

[jakee 1,259]

7 hours ago, Slim King said:

 L@@KS like every response is simply an Ad hominem  attack. ROTFLMAO. This is indeed typical of those uninformed when losing a discussion and having little skills in logic or debate.  

You see what you’ve done there, don’t you?

[jakee 1,259]

4 hours ago, Slim King said:

The problem with Bills idea is that Mutations are predominantly BAD..

Most mutations do NOT improve a creature.

Most mutation are extremely BAD for the creature it tortures.

Mutations generally work against survival and reproduction/replication.

That’s not a problem. Everyone is well aware of this. The bad mutations don’t matter in the long run, because the hideous mutants just die and their deformities are not preserved. The beneficial mutations (which do occur as you have just acknowledged) which give a creature a competitive advantage make it more likely to reach breeding age, more likely to win a mate and more likely to pass those mutations on. 
 

That’s why DNA as it is now hasn’t just randomly occurred, and why it’s simply an argument from ignorance to say evolution can’t be true because DNA couldn’t just randomly occur.