Thread: London terror attack, yo. :O

Originally Posted by Vesh

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Do not mix evolution with breeding.
Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

Well, humankind did successfully turn a wolf into a dog.

did you see it yourself?

Originally Posted by Pioner

Originally Posted by Vesh

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Do not mix evolution with breeding.
Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

Well, humankind did successfully turn a wolf into a dog.

did you see it yourself?

I'm not THAT old.

Damn, 17 pages already! Is that a record?

I think that this whole debate over the "Did I make myself or did someone make me?" question boils down to whose "experts" one is willing to believe.

One thing is for sure. People usually change their minds over years rather than days, if at all.

Well, if it's not a record, we should probably keep going until it is, now that we've come this far

We should ask Dogboy or Scotcher if we are close to the record yet. They have been here for long enough to know.

Truthfully, I had more fun when I was picking on the Pope.

I just thought I'd post in this thread, seeing in how its 17 pages and I haven't posted here yet.

Everyone will want to get their place in this thread now

Here's my contribution. I meant to post a lot sooner on the original topic, but became caught up in some things. I'm curious to find out what the record is, too.

So, you guys are really agreeing with me that the nuclear attack on Japan was a Terrorist attack by the United States? Please, I want to be wrong on this!!!

Originally Posted by DDT

We should ask Dogboy or Scotcher if we are close to the record yet. They have been here for long enough to know.

Truthfully, I had more fun when I was picking on the Pope.

That is because you were winning THAT argument

You wanna go again , boy, do ya, huh?

Originally Posted by Pioner

And infections... infections... please explain me why bacterias getting more and more resistent to antibiotics? I can see that you guys, DDT saibot know biology better then me (forget about my Master's degree in biology), but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

You have a very good point Pioner. But, IMHO, building up a resistance to something is not evolution, but rather degeneration. Quite the opposite of evolution. I'm not sure about the exact way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, but I can give another example.

A chemical compound called Warfarin was used to kill rats in England in the 1950's. But eventually, the rats devoloped a resistance to Warfarin.

Warfarin kills by inhibiting enzymes involved in the synthesis of Vitamin K. This, as you should know with your degree in biology, is essential to life.

The non-resistant rats exposed to warfarin, died. Duh!

But the resistant rats were found to have a mutated form of the enzyme that synthesizes Vitamin K. The active sites on the enzyme were not properly shaped to allow the binding of warfarin. Therefore, warfarin was not able to inhibit enzyme activity. On the outside, this may look like an "added" feature.

So, this is for SURE evolution. Or is it?

The mutated enzyme was found to be EXTREMELY inefficient in synthesizing Vitamin K. It required over 10 times the energy in the mutated enzyme to synthesize a single molecule of the vitamin.

So clearly you can see that the built up resistance was not evolution, but rather a degeneration of the working enzyme (quite the opposite). The enzyme became less functional, not more functional. This doesnt fit the description of evolution at all!

Another example.

In 1992, and experiment was done involving a species of aquatic worms and cadmium. Cadmium is a naturally occuring, toxic element.

The scientist was out to prove that animals can "evolve" and develop resistance to anything. He placed non-cadmium resistance worms in a cadmium free environment. Obviously, the worms survived. He then placed more non-cadmium resistant worms in an environment containing cadmium. After only 3 generations, all the worms in the tank were cadmium resistant. The scientist published a report declaring this as proof for evolution.

Upon, closer insepction, there was no evidence of mutation, or new structures that helped with the resistance to cadmium. But how can this be?

Easy. Some of the worms had to have already been resistant to cadmium, or all the worms would have died. If this was evolution, the worms would have had to instantly develop a resistance to cadmium, or they ALL would have immediately died! Even evolutionist say that evolution just does not happen that fast.

So the result we saw with all the worms becoming resistant was not evolution, because nothing was changed or added to the gene pool, but rather a disturbance in the frequency of appearance of the genes involved in the resistance to cadmium.

Wow, that drained my energy. Im gonna go drink a red bull.

Just thought I should post something here since everybody else has.

London terror attack, yo. :O

Terrorists are stupid.

Originally Posted by Pioner

Originally Posted by saibot

I must say, kalinka, that all the "evidence" for evolution is as unscientific as it gets! There is actually no more "real" evidence supporting evolution than there is creationism. In fact, one man is SO sure of this, he is offering 250,000 dollars to ANYONE who can provide undeniable evidence for evolution. He can counter almost anything you throw at him. If you are interested, check out www.drdino.com Now I'm not saying I favor creationism over evolution, quite frankly, I don't have an opinion about this. I don't care how we got here. But I just though I'd throw in my two cents.

Actually there a lot of fossil evidence of supporting Evolution theory. And what about artaficial selection? How does Creationism explain that?

I didnt see this question.

Hmm..artificial selection. That's the thing that Darwin used as a model as natural selection right?

How could he so surely say that what we see in artificial selection, is what happens in natural selection. In order to confirm this, he would have had to study in great detail natural selection, and how well artificial selection mocks it. But if this could be done, there would be no point in artificial selection mocking natural selection, because in studying natural selection, he would have accomplished his original goal!

And as for your fossils, which proof were you talking about?

Stating the obvious


What was the topic; the topic or the length of the topic, or a solution to the topic; or general dismay at the existence of the topic's topic. Is this



Don't answer that.

Yo Baby

Originally Posted by Rosa Anna

Stating the obvious


What was the topic; the topic or the length of the topic, or a solution to the topic; or general dismay at the existence of the topic's topic. Is this



Don't answer that.

Yo Baby

Actually it is not off topic. The reason you ask?
Because if you follow all arguements in life to there source you will arrive at the question that all thinking men and women sooner or later ask.

How did I get here? or Was I made or just an accident. There are only two ways to answer this question and that is what we are disscussing here.

The way each of us answers this question determines how we will answer all the rest of lifes questions.

Yah, well God said.... that I shouldn't worry so much about it.

Hey, Saibot. Have you noticed Rose Anna's "location"?

I have! And the crazy part is...ITS TRUE!

http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtop ... 2&start=15

loves me new flat

Thank You Sai


Here....have some poptarts off this velvet gold threaded pillow.