[QUOTE="JYoungin20years"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Is Evolution really that hard to understand? I'll admit i've read many books on the subject as to gain a decent understanding but at no point did i find the concept hard to comprehend. i can recommend several good books to start you off as you seem to have, I was going to say 0 understanding but if you happen to be a Creationist you are probably in an understanding negative by now (By that i mean everything you do know about Evolution is probably wrong). I find it so painful to see Creationists try to argue why Evolution is wrong without having the good sense to learn even the basics of it. I have atleast taken the time to learn what the Bible has to say and what Creationists believe and i'd appreciate it if others showed me the same respect.

tenaka2

Nope. I've read a lot of stuff since 1999, but in all my years of people trying to correct me over evolution, I've learned that people just make up stuff on the spot in order to disparage creationists. In this thread, for example, you have people presenting the miniscule evidence for evolution in order to say that I'm ignorant of it. Creationists know a lot more about evolution than most evolutionists, and there are sites dedicated to exposing the dogma of evolution. Evolution is a religion, and evolution's most ardent proponents even admit that evolution has problems that can never be resolved.

Evolution has been proven, there are many ways for you to confirm this. Here, try to understand this:

My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered aframe shiftmutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste. The new enzymes are very inefficient (having only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzymes), but do afford the bacteria a whole new ecological niche. They don't work at all on the bacterium's original food - carbohydrates. And this type of mutation has even happened more than once!

So, what is aframe shift mutation?

It happens when a chunk of genetic code (remember those AGTCTAGATCGTATAGC...DNAsequences from Jurassic Park?)isshifted by one or more nucleotides. In DNA, each triplet of nucleotides codes for one amino acid, and each such triplet is called acodon. So, the amino acid Arginine (symbol Arg) is coded by the DNAnucleotide sequence CGT, and also by codons CGA, CGC,CGG, AGA, AGG. Likewise, the amino acid Glutamic Acid (symbol Glu) is coded by the DNAnucleotide sequence GAA, and also by the sequence GAG. There are four types of nucleic acids, which naturally bond in one of two pairs: Thymine/Adenine, and Cytosine/Guanine (T/Aand G/C). Athymine (T)on one strand of DNAwill bind to an adenine (A)on the paired strand, and so on. There would be 64 different possible amino acids with a three-nucleotide codon (43=64), but several of these are redundant, as shown in the lists above for amino acids Arginine and Glutamic Acid. In biological organisms, there are just 20 different amino acids. Various DNAtriplets code for these amino acids, and strings of amino acids formproteins- molecules (such as enzymes) that really do something specific, such as metabolize sugars.

Now explain how a frame shift mutation can gain information, as that's required to work for evolution.

Is Evolution really that hard to understand? I'll admit i've read many books on the subject as to gain a decent understanding but at no point did i find the concept hard to comprehend. i can recommend several good books to start you off as you seem to have, I was going to say 0 understanding but if you happen to be a Creationist you are probably in an understanding negative by now (By that i mean everything you do know about Evolution is probably wrong). I find it so painful to see Creationists try to argue why Evolution is wrong without having the good sense to learn even the basics of it. I have atleast taken the time to learn what the Bible has to say and what Creationists believe and i'd appreciate it if others showed me the same respect.

mattisgod01

Nope. I've read a lot of stuff since 1999, but in all my years of people trying to correct me over evolution, I've learned that people just make up stuff on the spot in order to disparage creationists. In this thread, for example, you have people presenting the miniscule evidence for evolution in order to say that I'm ignorant of it. Creationists know a lot more about evolution than most evolutionists, and there are sites dedicated to exposing the dogma of evolution. Evolution is a religion, and evolution's most ardent proponents even admit that evolution has problems that can never be resolved.

[QUOTE="JYoungin20years"]

If evolution has a tjn of evidence, Randolph, then present some. I am not religious.

Frame_Dragger

Sorry, this is my only account.

If evolution has a tjn of evidence, Randolph, then present some. I am not religious.

[QUOTE="JYoungin20years"]

In this post, people, this guy just proves his ignorance on the Bible, and the level of it is just jaw dropping. The authors of the Bible are not unknown, and it was carried down for far longer than many many generations.Nibroc420

Actually they are.
Many modern day authors write under another alias, what's to have stopped someone from writing under the names of several others?
There's no actual proof that the people who the bible claims wrote it, actually lived.

I have no good reason to doubt the validity of who penned the Bible, and until you give me a reason to, I am sticking with God's word.

JYoungin20years

Accepting something that is unproven, without any question of it's validity is a good way to keep your head burried in the sand.

There's no proof there is a god, you're just taking the word of a thousand year old book. You might as well use a statue of Zeus to prove the existance of Zeus.

LOL. You got me there. I'll quickly convert to atheism after this stunning rebuttal! Why is that that intnernet people pretend they have a clue as to what the Bible is all about? The bible was penned by many people, and it's only ignorant right wing fanatics who doubt the Bible's authorship. You are comparing modern day authors to the Bible's authors, and that's where you err. You see, I clearly stated that I want a reason to doubt the validity of who penned each book in the Bible, and not some lame ass remark.

The reason that the ToE isn't true is that there's no true evidence for it..

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]I can't believe people still don't believe in evolutionFrame_Dragger

Never underestimate trolls who don't have an argument.

[QUOTE="playmynutz"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Can you please provide 3 solid reasons that one should believe in God?Nibroc420

No, i'm asking for 3 legitimate reasons a person would believe.
Usually we get reasons like "God spoke to me" or some such, however many people who hear voices that no-one else does are schizo.
So i'm simply asking for 3 actual reasons.

There's no actual proof that Jesus came back, and to use a book by unknown authors and carried down many many generations as proof would be as laughable as suggesting that Humpty Dumpty indeed fell off his wall.

In this post, people, this guy just proves his ignorance on the Bible, and the level of it is just jaw dropping. The authors of the Bible are not unknown, and it was carried down for far longer than many many generations. I have no good reason to doubt the validity of who penned the Bible, and until you give me a reason to, I am sticking with God's word.

[QUOTE="JYoungin20years"]

I'm a Christian in the (non) religious sense.

imaps3fanboy

It does if you are a Christian because of God's evidence through science.

I'm a Christian in the (non) religious sense.