Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Biological Evolution ⇒

Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
barbara
Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010

Normal Thread Display
Message 181 of 205 (570484)
07-27-2010 3:11 PM 		Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
02-05-2010 11:02 PM

Re: why use a wrong definition?
"The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use"
​
This is a very arrogant statement. Building a language barrier will not provide the financial support you need now and in the future.
​
It you cannot properly communicate your research for the general public to comprehend how are you going to promote an interest in your accomplishments.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 02-05-2010 11:02 PM Coyote has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 3:18 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 183 by Stile, posted 07-27-2010 3:55 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 184 by dwise1, posted 07-27-2010 3:55 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2010 4:22 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 6:14 PM barbara has replied
  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010

Normal Thread Display
Message 186 of 205 (570508)
07-27-2010 4:31 PM 		Reply to: Message 141 by Tanypteryx
02-17-2010 4:38 PM

Re: What about another definition?
"bacteria never turned into Humans"
​
Are you absolutely sure about that statement since most our DNA is bacteria in origin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-17-2010 4:38 PM Tanypteryx has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 07-27-2010 4:36 PM barbara has replied
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2010 4:39 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 4:46 PM barbara has replied
 Message 197 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-31-2010 11:26 AM barbara has not replied
  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010

Normal Thread Display
Message 191 of 205 (570523)
07-27-2010 5:22 PM 		Reply to: Message 189 by crashfrog
07-27-2010 4:46 PM

Re: What about another definition?
The genome project were not talking about cells, they were talking about our DNA and they said 10% was Human and 90% microbial DNA.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 4:46 PM crashfrog has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 5:25 PM barbara has not replied
  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010

Normal Thread Display
Message 193 of 205 (570531)
07-27-2010 5:34 PM 		Reply to: Message 187 by subbie
07-27-2010 4:36 PM

Re: What about another definition?
Yes there is a lot of history between bacteria to us which would make the percentage much lower over time. The fact that it is so high gives you the impression that they have been actively involved in our DNA since its origin to present. If the other were true you see little evidence of its true origin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 07-27-2010 4:36 PM subbie has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by subbie, posted 07-27-2010 5:36 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 5:47 PM barbara has not replied
  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010

Normal Thread Display
Message 201 of 205 (571552)
08-01-2010 4:04 AM 		Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
07-31-2010 6:14 PM

Re: why use a wrong definition?
I am not a biologist just wanting to search for the truth. I am not religious so I am not trying to prove creation. Forgive me for not using your specific terminology. All of the information that I have used in a thread comes from articles on the web and it is noted from several different websites on the percentages of microbial DNA verses Human DNA. I do not understand the point if it is all falsified. I think it is time unfortunately that the web needs to provide restrictions especially science on who is allowed to educate the masses and have some way to validate its truth.
​
Since approx. 40% in the western world believe in evolution (web info), I would think your website would like to see this number go up. Some of the members on this site are rude and seem to enjoy feeling superiority over the less informed individuals that visit this site.
​
The education in Biology that I learned was over 35 years ago and I am realizing now that what I was taught in school is now wrong. If you prefer that I seek my answers somewhere else then I will.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 6:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2010 5:00 AM barbara has not replied
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 08-01-2010 8:13 AM barbara has not replied
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2010 9:14 AM barbara has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024