Question for evolutionists here ie touchingcloth, igofan etc

[ageofknowledge]

I had to look at that picture a few times before managing to convince myself that the guy holding the puppet isn't George Bush.

Oh come on. He looks more like Ronald Reagan than George Bush. Here, take a closer look:



But Ronald also bears a striking resemblence to Bullwinkle.

[touchingcloth]

He's not a patch on Robbie Mugabe

[ageofknowledge]

You are so bad touching cloth. Bad bad man. haha...

[touchingcloth]

He just loves his cake - I think the bloke behind him has his eye on a slice too.

Has to be one of the most ridiculous pictures I've ever seen.

[Byblos]

He just loves his cake - I think the bloke behind him has his eye on a slice too.

Wait, isn't that a young Obama?

[touchingcloth]

He just loves his cake - I think the bloke behind him has his eye on a slice too.

Wait, isn't that a young Obama?

!! It does look like that!

[IgoFan]

What are your most convincing, favorite, or top evidences or arguements for macro evolution?

Asking for the most convincing evidence for evolution is like asking which of the 100+ triangular sections of the Gateway Arch is the most important. A flaw in any one section and the entire structure collapses.

All of evolution's "triangular sections" are convincing, one of which is that evolution must, and does, consistently make predictions that new evidence supports. For example, just one bunny fossil in the Cambrian strata would invalidate evolution. In contrast, by definition, any new evidence becomes retroactively consistent with creationism. For example, creationism would welcome a human fossil find in the Cambrian strata with "I told you so!" Creationism is NOT falsifiable.

Consider the previously mentioned chromosome 2p & 2q fusion. With scientists already knowing from other evidence that humans split off from chimps after orangutans and then gorillas split off, evolution predicted that 2 of the chimp/gorilla/orangutan chromosomes must have fused.

And sure enough, new chromosome banding evidence showed consistency with the prediction. Lining up the chimp chromosomes, 2p & 2q, end-to-end with human chromosome 2 shows a beautiful banding match! Moreover, the human-chimp banding match was slightly better than the human-gorilla matching, which was slightly better than the human-orangutan matching. Without finding these banding match patterns, evolution would have had a HUGE problem.

On the other hand, creationism doesn't predict or care whether banding matches exist or not.

With fused chromosomes, evolution also predicted that remnant "scars" of telomeres and centromeres should exist at the obvious places. And sure enough, new DNA sequencing showed remnants exactly where you would expect. Without finding these remnants exactly where they should be, evolution would have had a HUGE problem.

On the other hand, creationism doesn't predict or care whether remnants exist or not.

Evolution makes predictions, every one of which new evidence must confirm. Batting a perfect thousand is the ONLY option for evolution, and the core ideas of evolution has been batting a thousand for 150 years, all while nature regularly brings in new pitchers. Take that, A-Rod!

On the other hand, creationism makes no predictions, and has never been to bat.

[touchingcloth]

All of evolution's "triangular sections" are convincing, one of which is that evolution must, and does, consistently make predictions that new evidence supports. For example, just one bunny fossil in the Cambrian strata would invalidate evolution. In contrast, by definition, any new evidence becomes retroactively consistent with creationism. For example, creationism would welcome a human fossil find in the Cambrian strata with "I told you so!" Creationism is NOT falsifiable.

I'd go further than that. Not just a bunny, not just the Cambrian, but any clearly mammalian feature in any stratum below the Triassic would be a huge blow to the theory.

[derwood]

Like McCullough's study which showed that individuals low in religiosity are more likely to have a disaffected, apathetic, cynical, and ambitionless personality even among intellectually gifted people. And since atheists are more likely to engage in infidelity which correlates with psychoticism, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness I can only speculate where atheists think evolution will be taking them.

Since you seem easily amused "science" you should get a kick out of where evolution is taking you.

McCullough, M., J. Tsang, & S. Brion (2003). Personality traits in adolescence as predictors of religiousness in early adulthood: Findings from the Terman Longitudinal Study. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 29, 980-91.

Yeah, it is a a poser:

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

[ageofknowledge]

A simple explanation. The West is long over due for sweeping revival. As a collection of post Christian nations that were damaged by the ammorality and immorality of secularists, you can see the results of this modern nominal Christianity/Catholicism in the lifestyles of their respective populations (ex: the divorce rate of the church is the same as the secular society outside it despite the fact that God hates divorce and doesn't approve of it as the scripture teaches).

The results listed in that article are a direct result of secularism upon these society. Once vibrant Christian nations impacted into a backslidden state conforming to the ammorality and immorality of godless secularism and the practices of secular non-Christians upon their societies. Then a godless secularist comes along and writes a journal article about what they see fully knowing they themself are the reason for it. The fox blaming the chickens.

But don't worry godless secularists, you're not fooling any authentic Christians with your false correlations, we know where your heart lies:

[derwood]

A simple explanation. The West is long over due for sweeping revival. As a collection of post Christian nations that were damaged by the ammorality and immorality of secularists, you can see the results of this modern nominal Christianity/Catholicism in the lifestyles of their respective populations (ex: the divorce rate of the church is the same as the secular society outside it despite the fact that God hates divorce and doesn't approve of it as the scripture teaches).

God must really hate Rush Limbaugh...

The results listed in that article are a direct result of secularism upon these society. Once vibrant Christian nations impacted into a backslidden state conforming to the ammorality and immorality of godless secularism and the practices of secular non-Christians upon their societies. Then a godless secularist comes along and writes a journal article about what they see fully knowing they themself are the reason for it. The fox blaming the chickens.

Like the one you referred to.

But don't worry godless secularists, you're not fooling any authentic Christians with your false correlations, we know where your heart lies:

And we know where yours' do:

Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!

[ageofknowledge]

God must really hate Rush Limbaugh...

As you already know, God hates evil and judges it. He loves people but if people reject God and continue in evil then He must judge them as well for it. That means you derwood. Going on about Rush Limbaugh won't help you on that day.

And we know where yours' do:

An artist's pictorial representation of heaven

Now we're straight.

[ModernAquinas]

Like McCullough's study which showed that individuals low in religiosity are more likely to have a disaffected, apathetic, cynical, and ambitionless personality even among intellectually gifted people. And since atheists are more likely to engage in infidelity which correlates with psychoticism, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness I can only speculate where atheists think evolution will be taking them.

Since you seem easily amused "science" you should get a kick out of where evolution is taking you.

McCullough, M., J. Tsang, & S. Brion (2003). Personality traits in adolescence as predictors of religiousness in early adulthood: Findings from the Terman Longitudinal Study. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 29, 980-91.

Yeah, it is a a poser:

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

WOW! I opened that, expecting to read something informative. I don't find these 'studies' all that conclusive because, frankly, the inconsistency in the methods are questionable. Why aren't the methods used for it, explained in the article? How do you pull this from one study?

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

Or, even the bold remark at the end:

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

Really now? All of this from one study? You can tell the inexperience, and conflation of terms in the writer's rhetoric; ambiguous words like religion, conservative, liberal? The author doesn't even bother to define what religion means; if it's a belief in God, as hinted, then the term religion has just opened the door for many variables.

Studies like this, or like the study done on nonreligion rising in America (another 'study' came out, saying it's not rising as fast as believed - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 024831.htm -- ironic) are more political sensationalism than science.