Replies

Answer the question How old is the Earth?

The entire debate hinges on this question you can't answer the question because hen you do you arguments become mute. In fact once you answer the question I'll again g over all your silliness and refute the lot again like I have in the past simply answer the question How old is the Earth? What the matter does this question bother you does nswering it make you nervous? Once you have answewred this question I'll answer anything you want.

For the people in the peanut gallery his refusal to answer this question proves my point that he has no scientific knoiwledge to add to this debate.

This is for the peanut gallery not you Gore3000 I though tI would answer a few questions for them.

gore 3000 wrote"to show how an egg laying animal would become a live bearing one, " This is a simple decrease in egg shell thickness in an animal that already was giving live birth. I don't even understand why evolutionists use this example as it is so easy to dismiss and I have done it before. Step one the Retile/Mammal gives birth to young where the egg shell breaks before birth and the young are born live. This happens in many reptils on Earth even to this day. Step two the egg shell in each successive generation becomes thinner and thinner as it becomes thinner the original blood vessels in the uterus that fed the egg before it hardens remain attached (these generally detach before the egg is laid. Over time the shell is becomes so thin that it no longer even exists and the cellular bundle (blood vessels etc) attached to the fetus becomes the main source of nutrition for the fetus.

Now this lack of a egg creates a new problem for mammals that reptiles don't have. Without the time in the egg mammals are less physically delevoped at birth so need more care by its parent. In fact live birth is almost easier to explain than the original rise of the eggs itself. Now this was very simple refutation and does not include modern evolutinary idea such as genetic drift fromspecies to species but i don't expect everyone to understand this sort of genetic theory.

gore 3000 wrote "How either of you do not know that the genome is 3 billion DNA base pairs long and claim that you are evolutionists because it is science and not see that 30,000,000 is 1% of 3 billion is unimaginable. You both have shown yourselves to be totally ignorant. "

I thought I would address this to the peanut gallery so no one would think gore3000 had a point. He is wrong of course the 1% difference in Chimps has nothing what so ever to do with the number of Base pair difference between Man and Chimps this is why he is making up numbers. Lets look at some Basic science.

There are 6 billion people on Earth gore3000 wrote "30,000,000 is 1% of 3 billion is unimaginable."
as there are 6 billion people that means each of these people unless they are twins or clones has a unique DNA signature. That means each of the 6 billion have a different set of base pairs. Now does this come up to 30 million differences not quite but close, from one random human to another there is be a difference of several million base pairs without these difference there could be no human diversity. Gore3000 would like you to forget that DNA can differentiate in anyway. DNA isn't a solid block that is the same in all creatures that are the same every creature except for twins or clones have unique DNA.

Now why are we different to Chimps the 1 % is in the Chromosomes. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes and Humans have 23 this small difference is what makes us a separate species. Now while DNA makes up a chromosome the loss of a chromosomes does noit always indicate the death or lack of viability in a creature. In fact there are millions of humans living among us with chromosomal deficiencies or extra ones while they are often noticiably retarded these replication failures can be seen as evolution in action as they are disimilar enough from other Humans that technically they would form a separate species. Lets take for example Downs syndrome. In Down's Syndrome the child has an extra of the 21st chromosome under a microscope you may think that blood from a Down's patient was that of a chimp while it isn't the lesson I ant people to learn is that chromosomal abnormalities dont automatically cause death in the organism. Soem where down the line in Human evolution their was achromosomal accident where one of the chromosomal pairs united into one. When all pairs of Human and chimp chromosomes are lined up they match with humans having one some extar informationm in one chromosome that matches two separate ones in chimps.
Oh BTW if gore3000 is looking at this How old is The Earth?

The entire debate hinges on this question

No it does not. Regarding the man/monkey evolution I am using the 10 million years which EVOLUTIONISTS claim it took to separate man from chimps which are supposedly the closest to man by some 1%. This comes out to some 30,000,000 base pair mutations as I have already explained. This totally disproves the evolution of man. Evolutionists always talk as if it had infinite time, but by their own calculations, some 100 million years for mammals to have arisen, some 500 million for just about all multi-celled creatures to have arisen, there is no infinite time for the numerous mutations which were needed for the numerous changes required to create all the fantastically different species.

Now this lack of a egg creates a new problem for mammals that reptiles don't have. Without the time in the egg mammals are less physically delevoped at birth so need more care by its parent. In fact live birth is almost easier to explain than the original rise of the eggs itself. Now this was very simple refutation and does not include modern evolutinary idea such as genetic drift fromspecies to species but i don't expect everyone to understand this sort of genetic theory.

That is not the question. According to evolutionists mammals descended from reptiles which lay eggs. The question, which you have been avoiding for a few hundred posts already is how - while continuing to reproduce - the change was accomplished. Clearly this is impossible for the simple reason that there are numerous different genes, functions, and entire systems which had to be changed in order for this change to be accomplished and to propose not only that such numerous changes arose to work together to change the reproductive system of a species, but that in addition they occurred all at once is totally impossible. That is why you have been avoiding the question, why you are trying to change the question now, and why NOT A SINGLE EVOLUTIONIST CAN EXPLAIN IN A DETAILED MANNER HOW SUCH A CHANGE OCCURRED.. Let's see you find a reference that explains the scientific facts of how such a transformation occurred in an evolutionary way. You will never find it.