The Light Time Problem

No candle, learn how to read.And read the Bible. In Genesis 2 it shows that god is not very bright, learning on the job and not even smart enough to remember that in all the other species he created male and female but when it comes to humans he is just stumped.And it seems you are as ignorant about what is claimed as a beginning as yo0u are about evolution and the Bible and Christianity.You are to be pitied.AbE:candle, you really need to stop lying about what the other posters here actually say.You need to stop misrepresenting what other posters say, what other posters believe, what is actually written in the Bible and learn just a little of what so many here have tried to teach you.As is, you are typical of the very worst that Christianity can produce.You need to learn the very simplest basics such as how to comprehend what you read.

Edited by jar, : see AbE:

You're posting religious screeds about God, Jesus and the Bible and are expecting replies about evolution? You are very strange. There were two posts, Message 191 and Message 203. Had you actually read either one of them you would know they contain no attempt to present evidence of evolution. Mostly they didn't address evolution at all, just pointed out your errors. Let us review the highlights, first from Message 191:

1. You mostly ignore what people say, which you've just done again.
   ​
2. You do not deal in facts. Mostly you avoid facts as much as possible.
   ​
3. You said animals don't evolve, so I mentioned that you left out plants.
   ​
4. You've been ignoring that people have been telling you that speciation takes a long time on human timescales for any species but those with very short generation times.
   ​
5. You've been ignoring all requests to define "kind" but insist on using the word anyway.
   ​
6. You incorrectly claimed that a cat evolving into a dog would be an example of evolution. It isn't, plus it would take many human lifetimes for a new species to evolve from cats (and it wouldn't be a dog).
   ​
7. Your claims about polystrate fossils (not polystrata fossils) have been shown wrong and instead of responding you just keep repeating your erroneous claims.
   ​
8. You claimed Mount St. Helen's deposited many layers of strata. But it's a fairly typical volcano that did what many very active volcanos do, deposit a great deal of lava and ash, not "numerous levels of strata."
   ​
9. You claimed the strata of the geologic column are ordered by weight and grain size. This couldn't be further from the truth. Layers of shale, slate, limestone, sandstone and pelagic layers of varying density and grain size alternate throughout the geological column.
   ​
10. You claimed most fossils are found in heaps, so I pointed out that that's not true. Only some fossils are found in heaps. Most are not. And what makes you think that a global flood would deposit fossils in heaps? That's something rapidly flowing water might do, not a global flood above the highest mountains.
    ​
11. You said, "Trust me." I pointed out that in the months you've been here you've fostered a strong air of distrust because you either misrepresent what people say or ignore it entirely while continually repeating errors about which you're often corrected.

Moving on to Message 203:

1. You again claimed you don't ignore what people say, and I pointed out that that's exactly what you do. In fact, it's what you mostly do. The latest example involving me is Message 210, whose content you completely ignored in your reply.
   ​
2. You have yet to describe evolution accurately. You can't disprove what you don't understand.
   ​
3. Dwise1 does not have a different understanding of evolution from everyone else here. His conception of evolution is pretty much in line with everyone else's here.
   ​
4. You keep confusing evolution with the origin of life.
   ​
5. The evidence tells us not only that evolution has happened but also a great deal about how it has happened. Fossils tell us what happened, and genetics tells us how.
   ​
6. You confused not knowing everything with not knowing anything.
   ​
7. You asked how we could know what happened millions and billions of years ago. I replied that it depends upon what evidence survived from that long ago. Where there is evidence of past events, no matter from how long ago, we have a chance of being able to figure out what happened.

You keep throwing around terms like "assumptions" and "not real science" without providing a shred of evidence. If you're participating in this discussion scientifically you would have some evidence. Instead, the best you can muster is to cast unsupported derogatories about. And there's a perfect example of an unsupported claim. Are you under some God delusion where you believe that if you merely declare something that that makes it so? Do you not feel you are obligated like the rest of humanity to support what you say? You're again confusing evolution with the origin of life. Darwin's book was called The Origin of Species, not the origin of life.--Percy

What magic trick did you learn when you sold your soul to the Father of Lies and swore to serve Him through non-stop lies and deception?If you want to deny your servitude to Satan (which would be yet another of your many lies), then argue convincingly that the Christian God is to be served through lies and deception.Of course, you will do all you can to avoid answering those questions and requests. Because you know full well that you do serve Satan.

Dwise (post 198), don't play dumb. When you talk of
evolution you believe in the "leached from a rock
organism" to every animal/organism alive today.
Isolation has nothing to do with this.Every concepts that evolutionists have invented are
methodically being destroyed by the truth.Remember when wide-eyed evolutionists strutted
around acting stupid by pretending that vestigial
organs proved evolution?The coccyx, appendix, body hair, tonsils, wisdom teeth, ete..,
they screamed, serve no purpose. These organs are
now useless, and are evolving away.If these organs serve no purpose then why do
evolutionists say they evolved in the first place?The fact is that all these organs were designed
for specific purposes.I won't tell you what these purposes are unless
you ask. I want to see if you are really ignorant
of these design purposes.These same evolutionists ranted and raved about
VO in animals: such as flightless birds, and
whales pelvis bones.And again, I won't tell you their respective design
purposes unless you admit that you just can't
figure them out--that their usage is above your
intelligence level.Remember how Darwin and his blind followers
swore to high heaven that transitional fossils
would eventually be found, and that these fossils
would prove their weak hypothesis of evolution
true?Man! The joke is on them. Can you say Duh?Oh yeah. In the year 2001, the 101 biology textbooks
at Murray State (and numerous other places)were
still using Hackel's fraudulent embryos illustration.
Talk about dishonesty.Isn't it ludicrous to think that homologous structures
are more indictive of common descent than they are
of a common designer?Why would blind and random evolution lead to
Improvement? There is not a law that says this is
a requirement. There is not one law in nature that
states complex organs can be constructed little
by little; generation after generation.One can believe this if one wishes to do so. But,
I would rather stick with real science.

Ringo, you say that science doesn't deal in proofs.
It deals in evidence.Well, courts of law also deal in evidence, but they
are oftentimes wrong.Proof can prove or disprove something beyond a
shadow of a doubt.Evidence alone cannot do this. Evidence is open
to Interpretation. And one's interpretation is almost
always slanted by presuppositions.

Use [qs] tags to quote the part of the message you are replying to!. Called dBCodes, they're analogous to HTML tags, but delimited by square brackets ( [ ] ) instead of angle brackets ( < > ). If you need to see an example of how to use those tags, then click on the Peek button of a message (or select Peek Mode if you're in the middle of a reply. When you fail to tell us what you are "replying" to, then you make it that much more difficult for us to figure out what the hell you're talking about. This "reply" of yours is a typical example, since not only does nothing here has anything at all to do with my Message 198, but it actually defies that demand.What I demanded of you (quoted directly from my Message 198): Instead, you just stupidly double-down on being an asshole.I told you what you need to do (from my Message 135): All you do is use lies to attack "evolution" (which isn't even what evolution actually is). Typical creationist! 
I need to leave now to pick up a friend at the airport. I'll get back to the new list of lies you just posted.In the meantime, work on actually replying instead of just trying to deflect with your incessant lies.

Percy, I have already stated what a "Biblical kind" isDid you ever hear of Hilda, Alberta?There is an area there that is roughly 14 miles
long that is bulging with fossils of over 55
species, consisting of dinosaurs, clams, fish,
and many mammals.As far as the eye can see there are fossils.
More than 400 skeletons have been uncovered.Many of those who work on the excavation of
these fossils claim that it still has the "stench
of death." Imagine that.The big bad evvolution experts insist that the Red
River was inundated by a "monster storm" that
flooded inland for tens of miles.The flooding, they insist, drowned these thousands
of animals, and quickly covered them with mud;
thereby, preserving the fossils.There is an area that stretches from Texas to
Montana (1000 miles wide by 1800 miles long,
and encompassing 14 states) that contains
thousands of fossils.Tissue samples from the numerous sites show
that these animals died just a few thousand
years ago, and not tens of millions.The site in Hilda is said to have been caused by a
"monster storm," that was geographically isolated.The large site in America isn't treated with the
same degree of common sense, even though the
best explanation is a "global flood."If evolutionists admits to Noah's global flood, it would
be suicide for them.They would rather be willfully ignorant than admit
the plain truth that is right in front of them.

Tanyptery, you don't fool me. You are checking into
the the subject of celebrities selling their souls.Not even a third grader would require a more
advanced individual do this for them.Schools and universities are warping the minds of
many in America, and the world.Lying professors have convinced those who are
easily fooled that evolution accounts for all life
on earth, even it's origin.These lying teachers and professors have now
convinced the weak willed that a man can become
a woman and that a woman can become a man.On many campuses Tampax machines have been
installed in men's room. Some of these idiots are
now convinced that men can get pregnant.Ask one in the Biden's administration to define
A woman and they can't/won't do it.People say that Satan doesn't exist; yet, they
pay homage to him everyday.I don't care if you do your own research or not.
If you feel safe in your current view of the world,
then by all means don't do anything that might
enlighten you.

Proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is just a cute phrase that lawyers use. It has no basis in reality. Courts deal in reasonable doubt.And courts are wrong more often than science. Science is self-correcting. Nothing can prove an idea "beyond a shadow of a doubt". No.Science is a collective procedure. Scientists point out each other's presuppositions. A Christian scientist and a Muslim scientist can cancel out each other's presuppositions.You should get a clue how science works before you parrot the lies that creationists have told you.Now, please respond to Message 74.

I knew you were making this up, and you would not be able to show evidence of a single soul selling celebrity, let alone hundredsYou are delusional. I have no idea what you mean by "a more advanced individual do this for them." Do what for them? Delude them? More advanced, you mean like 4th graders?Even third graders realize that Santa Claus is imaginary, but you still believe in Satan and other scary, imaginary BS.As for the rest of your post, all I can say is you demonstrate that you really are afraid of anyone who is different from you and you will persecute them anyway you can.You don't fool us, every time a gay or transgendered person is attacked or murdered you cheer because you believe they deserved it.

That would be interesting to see. Where is this happening and what method is being used?

quote

---

Remember when wide-eyed evolutionists strutted around

​

they screamed

​

These same evolutionists ranted and raved

​

Remember how Darwin and his blind followers swore to high heaven
  —candyass

---

Since you didn't give us a single valid example, you seem to be the one who is raving mad. Yeah, let's talk about dishonesty.So, you're bitching about a book that had a drawing in it 2 decades ago?Do you have the title and author of this alleged book?Please describe what exactly is fraudulent about Haeckel's drawings and why anyone should care about it today? No, not when you consider that we have overwhelming evidence of common descent and not a single example of a designed organism. Since there is no such thing as "designed purposes" in living organisms, only human made artifacts, we will have to wait for you to enlighten us. I will not hold my breath. Why indeed?First off, evolution is not blind or random and second, no one says it leads to improvements. That is why no one claims there is such a law. That is why no one claims there is such a law. Great, are you going to do that anytime soon?

What the fuck are you talking about?The Red River of the North (to distinguish it from the southern river forming part of the border between Texas and Oklahoma) forms the border between North Dakota and Minnesota (for a few years, I would drive across it every day) from which it flows almost directly north (NNE, though very slightly eastwardly) through Winnipeg and on to Lake Winnipeg. Hilda, Alberta, lies 580 miles to the west of the Red River. 580 miles away! We do realize that you are a fucking idiot, but even you should realize that 580 miles is very much more than "tens of miles". What the fuck are you talking about?Reveal your sources for that disinformation! For one thing, we realize that your sources could very well have not said what you claim them to say, but rather your lies are due to your own inability to understand anything that you read. So SHOW US!SOURCES, PLEASE! Otherwise, we have no way of knowing what the fuck you are talking about!You should avoid writing in front of a mirror. That might help keep you from projecting your own faults so much. 
And, yet again, just answer the fucking questions instead of constantly demonstrating what a fucking lying idiot you are.

It is imagination. It's apocryphal. Show your source. Again, apocryphal. Show your source. This is so very true but not for the reasons you would cite. If a class geologist denied the facts and thought Noah was real it would only be because he had become incompetent and no longer able to think. Science has the history of a few good scientists going bad later in their careers. There are also, of course, those somewhat trained geologists who abandon science for woo like your BS religion.But the vast majority of acknowledged geologists on the planet know your Noah Flud is a fairytale and can't be bothered to even consider such foolishness.

What the fuck are you talking about? Especially considering that you claim to believe that Man was created out of dust as a golem.And just what the hell is a "rock organism" supposed to be? I never heard of such a thing nor can I imagine what it could be. Korg? Uh, you do realize that that's a comic book character. Science is the study of the real world, more specifically of the physical universe. Evolution was and continues to be developed through observations of the physical universe, specifically observations of how life actually works. Therefore, what evolution actually is and actually teaches are based on reality. The truth of how the universe works supports science and helps us to detect when we got something wrong so that we can correct it.Your false YEC theology denies reality and tries desperately to disprove reality. It is what is "methodically being destroyed by the truth."Pull your head out of your ass and learn something!Just more of your stupid fucking lies. LEARN SOMETHING!Nobody except for stupid lying creationists claim that vestigial organs serve no function. Instead, they no longer serve the purposes that they originally did. Are you really that incredibly stupid? Don't you ever stop and think something through before displaying your idiocy to everybody?Vestigial organs served an original function. Wouldn't that qualify as your "evolved in the first place"? Of course it would.Gee, why didn't you think of that? Guess you're too thoroughly indoctrinated (allusion to "professional thinking persons" Majikthise and Vroomfondel in the Deep Thought story). And we have been finding transitional fossils. Duh?Your problem is that you have crudely misdefined transitional fossils out of existence. You wouldn't recognize a transitional fossil if it came up and bit you. LEARN SOMETHING!This page at talk.origins Archive, Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature, might be a good starting point. Though it might help to look up this particular creationist lie in the Index to Creationist Claims:

quote

---

Claim CB360:

​

Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.

​

Source:

​

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master
Books, pp. 75-76.

​

Response:

1. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or
   visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974,
   769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants
   in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in
   horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in
   vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They
   obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in
   other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."
   ​
   Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect
   evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new
   niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence
   against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle
   that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70).
   They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is
   compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.
   ​
2. Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

​

Links:

​

Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

​

References:

​

1. G. & C. Merriam. 1974. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. New York:
   Simon & Schuster.
2. Morris, H., 1974. (see above).
3. Yamamoto, Y. and W. R. Jeffery., 2000. Central role for the lens in
   cave fish eye degeneration. Science 289: 631-633.

---

  What exactly did your textbook say? Did it mention and discuss Haeckel's ideas of recapitulation, showing them to be in error? That would be like an astronomy textbook presenting geo-centrism ... and then showing that heliocentrism is the better model.Also, did your book use images of Haeckel's actual drawings? Or did it use photographs of embryos?If your book used photographs, then that means that when you told us that it used Haeckel's illustrations, then you just deliberately lied to us! Talk about dishonestyPlease LEARN SOMETHING! Try starting with Wells and Haeckel's Embryos on talk.origins Archive.The rest later.

I love that word. I'm going to start using that word, a lot.a·poc·ry·phal/əˈpäkrəfəl/adjective(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.I have been racking my brain trying to come up with the best descriptive word for the wave of this Apocryphal Bullshit that is spreading from these right wing religious fanatics.