Since when did blasphemy become the standard in hip hop?
Options
Comments
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »
O.K. just another case where evolution fails....
Add it to the files with the pineal gland, and the appendix right????
"Only a small portion of a creature's DNA is protein-coding genes (around 3% in humans). In the 1970s, evolutionists began calling the rest of it "junk DNA", saying this collection of useless evolutionary debris showed there was no intelligent design involved. Decades later, researchers are finding that the "junk" does vital work. Some of this DNA plays a role in turning genes on and off at the right moments in a developing embryo."
Lowe, Craig B., Gill Bejerano, David Haussler. May 8, 2007. Thousands of human mobile element fragments undergo strong purifying selection near developmental genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 104, No. 19, pp. 8005-8010.Roots Oceanic wrote: »
And you do???
Please enlighten us Sir.......
-
Those scientist have to be creationist scientists.
Most Biological scientists disagrees with you, Bambu
Better yet, they don't address you creationists. -
Man those are historical facts duke......
When European scientists cant find an evolutionary function of something they call it a "vestigial remnant" or "junk"....
Just like.....
Pineal gland = Debunked
The human appendix = Debunked
Wisdom teeth = Debunked
human tailbones = Debunked....
Add Junk DNA in the mix.......
Regardless of how many times they are proven wrong.....
They keep up the ? with no evidence.......
And you bought it..... -
"Only a small portion of a creature's DNA is protein-coding genes (around 3% in humans). In the 1970s, evolutionists began calling the rest of it "junk DNA", saying this collection of useless evolutionary debris showed there was no intelligent design involved. Decades later, researchers are finding that the "junk" does vital work. Some of this DNA plays a role in turning genes on and off at the right moments in a developing embryo."
Finding out that "junk" DNA does vital work does not disprove evolution. I'd like to know how you've come to that conclusion and ascertained that intelligent design is then true.And you do???
Please enlighten us Sir.......
I don't know anything about any ? creating the universe because I don't believe your ? (s) exists. I don't understand what your point is with this question.When European scientists cant find an evolutionary function of something they call it a "vestigial remnant" or "junk"....
Just like.....
Wisdom teeth = Debunked
human tailbones = Debunked....
Add Junk DNA in the mix.......
More false information from @bambu. Your so called "debunking" was not actually debunking anything. It was false info from a biased Christian website. Are you going to continue to ignore that? The only thing you've "debunked" was the pineal gland and no one listed that as evidence for evolution or as vestigial. You still haven't found any information from reputable scientists regarding the matter.The human appendix = Debunked
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html#disproof -
Those scientist have to be creationist scientists.
Most Biological scientists disagrees with you, Bambu
Better yet, they don't address you creationists.
NAS is assumed to be non-biased....
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.
An Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 at the height of the Civil War, calls upon the NAS to provide independent advice to the government on matters related to science and technology. The National Research Council was created under the NAS charter in 1916 to extend the scope of the NAS in its advisory role. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were organized under the NAS charter in 1964 and 1970, respectively.
Since 1863, the nation's leaders have turned to the National Academy of Sciences for advice on the scientific and technological issues that frequently affect policy decisions. Most of the institution's science policy and technical work is conducted by the National Research Council (NRC), which was created expressly for this purpose and which provides a public service by working outside the framework of government to ensure independent advice on matters of science, technology, and medicine. The NRC enlists the nation's top scientists, engineers, and other experts, who volunteer their time to study specific issues. The reports that result from their deliberations have led to some of the most significant and lasting improvements in the health, education, and welfare of all Americans. The Academy's service to government has become so essential that Congress and the White House have issued legislation and executive orders over the years that reaffirm its unique role.
-
Man those are historical facts duke......
When European scientists cant find an evolutionary function of something they call it a "vestigial remnant" or "junk"....
Just like.....
Pineal gland = Debunked
The human appendix = Debunked
Wisdom teeth = Debunked
human tailbones = Debunked....
Add Junk DNA in the mix.......
Regardless of how many times they are proven wrong.....
They keep up the ? with no evidence.......
And you bought it.....
Evolution passes all tests for 150 plus year.
Like why this arguing still going??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
-
@Bambu
How is medicine effective without evolution???
How did we get here without common descent?
Why we share 98.4% DNA with Chimpanzees?
Why do humans have most of features with other primates?
Like c'mon. You can be a theist and still know Evolution is a fact. -
@Ohhhla.....
1.Bacteria mutates and forms resistance to certain forms of medication, it does not evolve and form new or different species.....
http://youtu.be/1AMrWRizlD8
2.The All created all living creatures after their own kind....
3.We share genetic structures with apes. However, the 2% is more than enough to exclude common decent...
"The DNA molecule found in the nucleus of all cells can hold more information in a cubic centimeter than a trillion music Cd's. A spoonful of Shapiro's "computer soup" contains 15,000 trillion computers. And its energy-efficiency is more than a million times that of a PC.
How big is 2%?
2% of 75 trillion cells
2% of 46,500,000,000 miles of DNA
2% of a trillion music Cd's( each CD holds 700 megs of data).If "one" music cd can hold 700 megs, 2% of that would be 14 megs(the 2% of one cd). So 14 megs times 1 trillion = 14 trillion megs! This is how much information 1 DNA molecule holds at the 2% level. And since there are 75 trillion cells, average, in the human body to get the total DNA information, it would be 14 trillion(information on one DNA molecule) times 75 trillion molecules(average DNA molecules in a human body). So 14 trillion times 75 trillion = 1050 trillion megs of DNA information through out your whole body. 2% of that is 21 trillion megs. Get the picture?
The 2% that science speaks of is so big that science has very well hidden it. What I have told you is why the watermelon, the cloud and the jelly fish really are not related and neither are we when it comes to chimpanzees. But this story goes even further.
Since science makes The "2%" claim. Then why is it we cannot use organs or tissue from the chimpanzees for different things that medical science use tissue for.
Like the heart valve. Doctors don't use a chimp's tissue to make a heart valve. They use either a pig or a cow for it's tissue to make the valve. Why? Because it's tissue is very close to a human and will not be rejected like the Chimpanzees will be. Maybe they should look into whether we came from a pig or cow? But then again, we don't even resemble either one of those animals. And that would make it even harder for science to explain evolution.
Did you know that the DNA of a child will only have 94% of it's parents DNA? There's a 6% difference! But yet an ? transplant can be done between them. But not with the chimpanzee, that supposedly, is a closer match to humans than even the human offspring(according to science). This makes me wonder if this 98.3 percent DNA thing has been doctored up a little to help science explain and push the idea of evolution. How would they Get away with it? Think about it for a second. DNA is a specialized field of work. Most DNA workers are in the medical field. The rest are scientist. And there is not many in this field doing this kind of work. So how hard would it be to doctor up DNA reports and keep someone from checking them? Very easy! How many people you know actually can test DNA, have free run of the machine used to do this so that tests between humans and chimps can be thoroughly tested? So in this field of science you or me or most everyone else has no way to check what is found.
Then we have where a few years ago they (the scientists) tried to prove the relationship between humans and baboons by transplanting a baboon heart in a human. They did this more than once. Everyone they tried it on died in less than a year. Some within days or hours. People dying at the expense of science trying to prove something? Funny how science never uses this mistake as an example. It's not used because it totally goes against evolution. But just think if it had worked, you'd never hear the end of it."
4.Eyes are typically used to see, a nose to breathe, ect. most animals share these traits...
5. A theist that believes in the theory of evolution is a fool.....
@Roots Oceanic...Roots Oceanic wrote: »
Of course he hasn't. These creationists don't know what's going on in the world. Their only answer is that a ? created it but they don't know how when or why. Their sole purpose is to attempt to debunk evolution and that's it. They don't have any new ideas, theories or explanations for anything that exists or happens.
I don't know anything about any ? creating the universe because I don't believe your ? (s) exists. I don't understand what your point is with this question.
My point is that you act like your theory answers any of the questions that you asked me.......
Your theory does not explain ? , except for scientific racism......
-
Yo, those are creation scientists.
I'm done. -
@Ohhhla.....
1.Bacteria mutates and forms resistance to certain forms of medication, it does not evolve and form new or different species.....http://youtu.be/1AMrWRizlD8
2.The All created all living creatures after their own kind....
3.We share genetic structures with apes. However, the 2% is more than enough to exclude common decent...
"The DNA molecule found in the nucleus of all cells can hold more information in a cubic centimeter than a trillion music Cd's. A spoonful of Shapiro's "computer soup" contains 15,000 trillion computers. And its energy-efficiency is more than a million times that of a PC.
How big is 2%?
2% of 75 trillion cells
2% of 46,500,000,000 miles of DNA
2% of a trillion music Cd's( each CD holds 700 megs of data).If "one" music cd can hold 700 megs, 2% of that would be 14 megs(the 2% of one cd). So 14 megs times 1 trillion = 14 trillion megs! This is how much information 1 DNA molecule holds at the 2% level. And since there are 75 trillion cells, average, in the human body to get the total DNA information, it would be 14 trillion(information on one DNA molecule) times 75 trillion molecules(average DNA molecules in a human body). So 14 trillion times 75 trillion = 1050 trillion megs of DNA information through out your whole body. 2% of that is 21 trillion megs. Get the picture?
The 2% that science speaks of is so big that science has very well hidden it. What I have told you is why the watermelon, the cloud and the jelly fish really are not related and neither are we when it comes to chimpanzees. But this story goes even further.
Since science makes The "2%" claim. Then why is it we cannot use organs or tissue from the chimpanzees for different things that medical science use tissue for.
Like the heart valve. Doctors don't use a chimp's tissue to make a heart valve. They use either a pig or a cow for it's tissue to make the valve. Why? Because it's tissue is very close to a human and will not be rejected like the Chimpanzees will be. Maybe they should look into whether we came from a pig or cow? But then again, we don't even resemble either one of those animals. And that would make it even harder for science to explain evolution.
Did you know that the DNA of a child will only have 94% of it's parents DNA? There's a 6% difference! But yet an ? transplant can be done between them. But not with the chimpanzee, that supposedly, is a closer match to humans than even the human offspring(according to science). This makes me wonder if this 98.3 percent DNA thing has been doctored up a little to help science explain and push the idea of evolution. How would they Get away with it? Think about it for a second. DNA is a specialized field of work. Most DNA workers are in the medical field. The rest are scientist. And there is not many in this field doing this kind of work. So how hard would it be to doctor up DNA reports and keep someone from checking them? Very easy! How many people you know actually can test DNA, have free run of the machine used to do this so that tests between humans and chimps can be thoroughly tested? So in this field of science you or me or most everyone else has no way to check what is found.
Then we have where a few years ago they (the scientists) tried to prove the relationship between humans and baboons by transplanting a baboon heart in a human. They did this more than once. Everyone they tried it on died in less than a year. Some within days or hours. People dying at the expense of science trying to prove something? Funny how science never uses this mistake as an example. It's not used because it totally goes against evolution. But just think if it had worked, you'd never hear the end of it."
4.Eyes are typically used to see, a nose to breathe, ect. most animals share these traits...
5. A theist that believes in the theory of evolution is a fool.....
@Roots Oceanic...Roots Oceanic wrote: »
Of course he hasn't. These creationists don't know what's going on in the world. Their only answer is that a ? created it but they don't know how when or why. Their sole purpose is to attempt to debunk evolution and that's it. They don't have any new ideas, theories or explanations for anything that exists or happens.
I don't know anything about any ? creating the universe because I don't believe your ? (s) exists. I don't understand what your point is with this question.
My point is that you act like your theory answers any of the questions that you asked me.......
Your theory does not explain ? , except for racism......
MOD'S CLOSE THIS THREAD Brother @Bambu just put the nail in the coffin with this Darwinsim ? and i put them in that coffin when they couldnt tell me what came first the heating system or the cooling system in the human body in evolution, ? minds is bleached the factory system of these schools have done a great job -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnVN9bmsxyM&feature=bf_prev&list=UUbayqGzflTXyBTMvnSe6a4A
LMAO, creation doesn't even have a model.
Creationists are just mad because the evolutionist poke holes in their nonsensical ideas. -
Ya'll must be bored in here entertaining this nonsense.
As a dude already pointed out, the "lambs" continue to ask and site evidence, yet they are so set they don't need evidence that a conscious being not only created everything, but continues to watch over every thing we do and every thought we think...
Yet freely allows the atrocities of the world...
But but but..."he loves us"????
I mean the field of science, and the followers of it are still TRYING to figure not only our being, but OUR WORLD out. Yet you come in here and KNOW "? " did all of this? You KNOW something....that you can't prove??!?!??!
But you have the nerve to call someone else arrogant?
How can a ? that can think some ? like "oh thank ? i didn't forget that milk, so that i can cook this macaroni and cheese for thanksgiving" while children are out there starving, people dying from illness, women getting ? ...but believe "? " had time to come help you with your petty life problems in your petty life?
Its HILARIOUSLY sad. -
Its crazy as ? how a theist can call a non-believer arrogant.
-
ShiveDreadz wrote: »I mean the field of science, and the followers of it are still TRYING to figure not only our being, but OUR WORLD out. Yet you come in here and KNOW "? " did all of this? You KNOW something....that you can't prove??!?!??!
But you have the nerve to call someone else arrogant?
? Please....
You don't know my degree or what type of ? I'm on.......
So the field of science is only composed of atheists and non-believers????
You sound stupid as ? B.......
And none of you Darwinists can prove your theory......
But yet evolution is a fact????
So yes....
Y'all ? is mad arrogant and stupid to boot.......
Here is your theory in practice ? , enjoy................
-
Question.. If i was to "post your theory in practice" and drop a pic of white jesus would i look cool or would i look like an idiot.
Now imagine what you look like right now
I could post a whole lot of ? but it would be a waste of time to entertain an insect who feels he already has it all figured out.
-
You couldn't even absorb my theory in practice fella....
? round here claiming true to Darwinism.......
I simply illustrate how the theory fails.......
Drop white Jesus all you want, I have no associations with the religion......
http://youtu.be/Cjq_eUg8Sq0
Actually, you would be better off putting your faith in him......
Than blindly following evolutionary science.......................... -
But i don't agree that one creature can evolve into another, i don't blindly follow ANYTHING.
Evolution is adjustment, it is minor and happens over time; not overnight.
The way that submarine creatures over time stopped having eyeballs, or the way rhinos in certain parts of Africa have stopped growing tusks, that is evolution. And it is apparent and real.
-
Those are genetic mutations.....
Easily observable. However no proof for the theory of evolution or the origins of species.... -
Genetic mutation is the driving force behind evolution....
Though i don't subscribe directly to Darwin's ideas, it was a primitive but great start to understanding evolution and the reasons for it.
Ill take Darwin's stab at making sense of our relation to other animals over the idea of some conscious entity creating everything with the snap of his finger though.
I am not one that believes every creature directly evolved into another, so save those comedy charts for someone else brother.
We're done here. -
Genetic mutation occurs regardless of the theory of evolution.....
Evolution = change over time..... undeniable...
The theory or evolution or Darwinism = false and unproven......
You are done here, but I'm just getting started.....
You might want to check this video out, it illustrates the damaging effects of Darwinism on African and indigenous people across the globe...
HOTEP...
http://youtu.be/ASrFufnMNDg
-
My point is that you act like your theory answers any of the questions that you asked me.......
Your theory does not explain ? , except for scientific racism......
Evolution answers plenty of questions that your theory does not; for example, the fossil record. We can clearly see, with hard evidence, flora and fauna evolving and changing over time. There has to be an explanation and that explanation is evolution. Without it, there is really no logical way to explain what we see going on. Let's, for arguments sake, say that your theory is correct and there really is an intelligent designer. The fact that we see various lifeforms coming into existence, going extinct and replaced does not point to any intelligence behind the scenes.
The "scientific racism" was proven to be based off of false information; I have no clue as to why you insist on peddling that argument. Add on to that the fact that the scientific community is global, consists of all peoples; not just some small cult. To believe that every single scientist is playing a role in some grand scheme to deceive the world into believing in evolution (and to have them stray away from the true reality, which is.... theism, lol) is simply put, a conspiracy theory and a ridiculous one at that. -
Evolution = change over time..... undeniable...
The theory of evolution or Darwinism = false and unproven......
What's the difference??
Evolution: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
Darwinism: The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin
Natural Selection: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution -
Here is your theory in practice ? , enjoy................
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
-
Genetic mutation EVOLUTION occurs regardless of the theory of evolution.....
Evolution = change over time..... undeniable...
The theory or evolution or Darwinism = false and unproven......
You are done here, but I'm just getting started.....
You might want to check this video out, it illustrates the damaging effects of Darwinism on African and indigenous people across the globe...
HOTEP...http://youtu.be/ASrFufnMNDg
True. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Evolution = change over time..... undeniable...
The theory of evolution or Darwinism = false and unproven......
What's the difference??
Evolution: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
Darwinism: The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin
Natural Selection: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution
? please.....
You out here trying to fool ? that dont know any better....
All that fossil record ? has been properly dealt with in the Anti-Creationists thread......
For clarity and to eliminate the ? , we are dealing with the biological definition of evolution #3....
1. Any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. A product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3.Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.Roots Oceanic wrote: »My point is that you act like your theory answers any of the questions that you asked me.......
Your theory does not explain ? , except for scientific racism......
Evolution answers plenty of questions that your theory does not; for example, the fossil record. We can clearly see, with hard evidence, flora and fauna evolving and changing over time. There has to be an explanation and that explanation is evolution. Without it, there is really no logical way to explain what we see going on. Let's, for arguments sake, say that your theory is correct and there really is an intelligent designer. The fact that we see various lifeforms coming into existence, going extinct and replaced does not point to any intelligence behind the scenes.
The "scientific racism" was proven to be based off of false information; I have no clue as to why you insist on peddling that argument. Add on to that the fact that the scientific community is global, consists of all peoples; not just some small cult. To believe that every single scientist is playing a role in some grand scheme to deceive the world into believing in evolution (and to have them stray away from the true reality, which is.... theism, lol) is simply put, a conspiracy theory and a ridiculous one at that.
Public Service Announcement for dumb ? ......
Your theory answers no questions relating to the biological definition of evolution #3.......
However the development of this universe can be described as evolution # 2......
The fossil record argument has already been lost in the other thread by @Whar, a discussion you bailed out on.......
So if you can prove how "flora and fauna evolving and changing over time" in relationship to definition #3 and not the obvious connection to #1 & 2......
Feel free, but all of that fossil ? is not "proven" or "factual" and is old news in the realm of creation and evolution research.....
A more definitive way to understand these processes is through DNA evidence......
Fossils is played the ? out with new technology B.......
What your feeble-minded ass cannot fathom is that new technology will eventually unlock these questions that we all seek about mankind and if we approach it with a Neo-Darwinist mindset......
Various populations of the world will be at risk of the same dangers associated with Darwinism....
“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?pagewanted=allShiveDreadz wrote: »True
Word ? ....
This discussion has been closed.