Aye, shark's teeth sound good right now. Bastard had to be pulled, couldn't be saved, it appeared to be an otherwise healthy tooth too damnit. Got the cotton in the mouth again after having buggerall for lunch [been on liquids since the incident]
Up to now I'd been rather fortunate, no fillings or anything dodgy other than some wisdom teeth out when as school. A few decades then *boom*.

So yes, bollocks to Incompetent Design.

Wow, you’ve done very well there. I had regular fluoride treatments from when I was very small to about 16, still ended up with my first filling, a root canal, if you please, at 20.

I've had fillings since I was 4. Most of my teeth are fake now, but I can't take them out to clean them.

I've literally spent more on dental care for me, the kids, and MRs. Lak than on anything else other than a house.

All i know:
1 - All of those that tried to prove the existence of a Good like creature failled;
2 - All of those that tried to prove the non-existence of a Good like creature failled.

Tuor wrote:
2 - All of those that tried to prove the non-existence of a Good like creature failled.

You cannot prove non-existence. The burden of evidence is on the person making a positive claim: the existence of a god or gods.

My tiny pet metallic green dragon says what?

RS

What?

Oops.

felltoearth wrote:

Tuor wrote:
2 - All of those that tried to prove the non-existence of a Good like creature failled.

You cannot prove non-existence. The burden of evidence is on the person making a positive claim: the existence of a god or gods.

Yet, that was exactly what Stephan Hawking tried to do. Hubble proved with astronomical evidences that the universe was expanding (doppler effect), it was assumed at the time that the universe was slowing down ist expantion. Stephan Hawking, which had just graduated started working in a project were they planned to triangulate the universe using math, however the results weren't the ones the team was expecting, the universe was increasing its expantion, proving that the universe had an origin, something we currently know as the Big Bang. Stephan Hawking and the others supported the scientifical view (common then) that universe had existed since ever, but they proved otherwise, the universe did had a beggining.

Later, the Catholic Church used the newfound scientifical evidences to state the the act of creatinism was the Big Bang.

I thought it showed that the BB was the start of the current phase of the universe, not of everything.

And what does any of that have to do with god?

Just watch the old movie, “The Ten Commandments”.

“So let it written, so let it be done.”

When ya own a big chunk of the bloody third world...

RS

Creationists are all about the cretinism.

OlivierK wrote:
I couldn't be arsed going through your trainwreck of arbitrarily chosen points, but I'll do the one I quoted earlier, about the explanation of geographic diversity.

Evolution: I'm perfectly happy with your evaluation that evolution satisfactorily explains geographic diversity. Therefore 5 points.

Evolution accepts principles such as migration and population isolation that no creationist would dispute.

Creationism: You posit the possibility that kangaroos being native to only Australia could be explained by migration (zero evidence/0 points) or that they may have once been found everywhere, but became extinct outside Australia (zero evidence/0 points).

We have kangaroo-like fossils in India, the presumed route of the marsupials on the way from the Middle East (resting place of the Ark) to Australia: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cit ... 327084.cms

The ancestors of the orangutans (based in SE Asia) have also been found in India.

I think you’ve been taken in by shitty reporting or you are simply willing to peddle bad info to suit your narrative. Let’s assume the former as the latter would characterize you as dishonest.

While all kangaroos are marsupials, not all marsupials are kangaroos. This was likely more rat-like, something akin to a possum.

Paper on its discovery, morphology and classification here.

http://palaeontologicalsociety.in/vol50_1/v11.pdf

Wortfish wrote:

OlivierK wrote:
I couldn't be arsed going through your trainwreck of arbitrarily chosen points, but I'll do the one I quoted earlier, about the explanation of geographic diversity.

Evolution: I'm perfectly happy with your evaluation that evolution satisfactorily explains geographic diversity. Therefore 5 points.

Evolution accepts principles such as migration and population isolation that no creationist would dispute.

Well, apart from you, right, because you marked evolution down on this regard in your original scoring, giving this "compelling evidence" "that no creationist would dispute" only 3 out of 5.

Wortfish wrote: distribution of species and the physical isolation of species provides compelling evidence for evolution. The marsupials of Australia, for example, show how an isolated region seems to produce unique animals that are not found elsewhere. (Score: 3)

This idiotic marking down is important, because even your sorry apologism couldn't stop you giving creationism more negative points than evolution.

From that point, you were left with two choices:
(a) honestly conceding that creationism is a bit shit, given that it couldn't even gain fewer negative points from a friendly, biased judge, or
(b) putting your finger on the scales and marking down evolution's positives, even when the scientific evidence is compelling, and even when you admit that even creationists would not dispute it.

You chose (b).

That says nothing at all about creationism or evolution, but plenty about why people here have so little time for your bullshit.

Be better.

I have time for BS. It's fun.

If that BS does have some truth, then it's interesting to me. I can't speak for everyone in the forum though, obviously.

The more I listen & read about the God story, it apparently goes something like this:

God created stuff, and then Satan wanted his own creation, so God banished him to Earth. Ever since then, Satan has been trying to mess with the original creation, and tempt people to work for him. In doing so, many people assume that God did stuff that Satan actually did, so we blame God for the 'bad' stuff. Which seems pretty lame I must admit - but somewhat interesting if true.

If God does exist, then he or she or it, could fix all of the issues, creating a perfect utopia for all. But maybe it's too late? Maybe it's a huge test of faith? Maybe it's God teaching Satan that his creation methods are 'bad', because the method is cruel and mocking Gods work. Over time, it will be the humans who create the perfect world.
Humans will stop doing bad stuff and in doing so, prove to Satan that even lying and temptation wont work.
Even with or without the belief in anything 'super natural'. We need people to tell the truth, and not take bribes. Expose corruption, etc.

Very interesting developments regarding predicting the outcome of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the new Omicron variant spreads around the world, creationists have been asked whether the molecular evolution of SarsCov2 is not remarkable evidence for Darwinian theory: https://creation.com/is-covid-19-evolving

These viruses are at war with the human immune system. Only the ‘strongest’ survive and any virus that is not as robust as another is going to have a hard time getting past the immune system to infect another person. Even if it does make it to another person, if the virus does not replicate as fast as others, it will be left behind in the viral reproduction race. Thus, there is abundant natural selection happening here. But despite strong selection, mutations tend to build up in predictable ways and at predictable rates. If mutations cannot be checked, the entire system will eventually degrade. There are many ways to measure this. For example, we saw a loss of codon bias and a decline in expected replication efficiency in the human H1N1 virus over time

The author appears to refer to "molecular drive", random and non-selective processes that just happen - these include mutational hotspots and biased gene conversion. There is also random drift and also genetic linkage (hitchhiking) that can result in slightly deleterious mutations reaching fixation. He then predicts that the virus will mutate itself to extinction:

In fact, over time viral infectivity should wane. As each viral strain in circulation picks up more and more mutations, it should become less and less robust. This is the essence of genetic entropy and we saw it happen within the human H1N1 virus. Yet, the process took decades in H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 has only been around for a short time. Will genetic entropy degrade the virus? Yes. Will it happen this year? No. And, while it is degrading, it might also pick up a mutation that makes it spread faster or one that makes it more deadly.

Now, let's see the latest information on the delta variant: https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-m ... searchers/

Now, researchers from Japan’s National Institute of Genetics have proposed that the Delta variant may have fallen victim to its own success – the rapidly-mutating strain may have mutated itself into extinction within Japan. According to the Japan Times, Ituro Inoue and colleagues believe the virus gained a mutation in its error-correcting protein, allowing for genetic errors to accumulate to such a degree that it could no longer replicate.

Wortfish wrote:Very interesting developments regarding predicting the outcome of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the new Omicron variant spreads around the world, creationists have been asked whether the molecular evolution of SarsCov2 is not remarkable evidence for Darwinian theory: https://creation.com/is-covid-19-evolving

These viruses are at war with the human immune system. Only the ‘strongest’ survive and any virus that is not as robust as another is going to have a hard time getting past the immune system to infect another person. Even if it does make it to another person, if the virus does not replicate as fast as others, it will be left behind in the viral reproduction race. Thus, there is abundant natural selection happening here. But despite strong selection, mutations tend to build up in predictable ways and at predictable rates. If mutations cannot be checked, the entire system will eventually degrade. There are many ways to measure this. For example, we saw a loss of codon bias and a decline in expected replication efficiency in the human H1N1 virus over time

The author appears to refer to "molecular drive", random and non-selective processes that just happen - these include mutational hotspots and biased gene conversion. There is also random drift and also genetic linkage (hitchhiking) that can result in slightly deleterious mutations reaching fixation. He then predicts that the virus will mutate itself to extinction:

In fact, over time viral infectivity should wane. As each viral strain in circulation picks up more and more mutations, it should become less and less robust. This is the essence of genetic entropy and we saw it happen within the human H1N1 virus. Yet, the process took decades in H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 has only been around for a short time. Will genetic entropy degrade the virus? Yes. Will it happen this year? No. And, while it is degrading, it might also pick up a mutation that makes it spread faster or one that makes it more deadly.

Now, let's see the latest information on the delta variant: https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-m ... searchers/

Now, researchers from Japan’s National Institute of Genetics have proposed that the Delta variant may have fallen victim to its own success – the rapidly-mutating strain may have mutated itself into extinction within Japan. According to the Japan Times, Ituro Inoue and colleagues believe the virus gained a mutation in its error-correcting protein, allowing for genetic errors to accumulate to such a degree that it could no longer replicate.

Evidence of random and non-selective processes that just happen, don't you think?

Did we get time travelled to the 17th century? FFS

As the new Omicron variant spreads around the world, creationists have been asked whether the molecular evolution of SarsCov2 is not remarkable evidence for Darwinian theory

Creationists have been asked by other Creationists, because Creationists are only credible to other Creationists, and were those asking Creationists not themselves Creationist, they'd consider asking a Creationist a question about evolution to be about as useful as asking a mouse to tap dance.