a question for evolutionists, page 6

reply to post by kick Flip

---

the site asks for evolutionists. So you are pretty much gonna attract people who like evolution.

If I posed a question too bible thumpers then I expect them to be able answer and know more about it then I do.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom

---

I am sorry, I really try to encourage mature debate.

But I am going to allow myself this one digression.

But that really was one of funniest things I have read in a while.

Technically that is not a star, that is a meteor. LOLOLOLOL

[edit on 7-11-2009 by nixie_nox]

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

I appreciate it, thanks. I'm all for mature debate but I find that sometimes topics like this tend to degenerate into insults, name calling, etc. I think it helps to inject a little humor from time to time just to lighten things up. Get people to laugh a little and some of the anger goes away and we can all think more clearly.

As a serious reply to the OP's questions, I have no good answers. I'm more of a math guy, biology was never my strong suit. To me, evolution is a sound theory based on the math. Based on our current rates of species extinction, if one species could not evolve into another, there would be no life left on this planet by now. Of course, that still doesn't explain things like the duck-billed platypus.

reply to post by chiron613
[more

Trying to use the Bible to explain facts doesn't work. For instance, the Bible clearly states that each animal and plant reproduces "after its own kind", which many people interpret as meaning that no new species can arise. This is simply false. New species have developed within the span of human history. Even if you throw out the entire fossil record, you still wind up with new species. A trivial example, but not the only one. The Bible often makes statements that simple observation shows to be wrong

Who taught you how to put that little twist in there. This paragraph
deserves an award for twisted.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by chiron613
[more

Trying to use the Bible to explain facts doesn't work. For instance, the Bible clearly states that each animal and plant reproduces "after its own kind", which many people interpret as meaning that no new species can arise. This is simply false. New species have developed within the span of human history. Even if you throw out the entire fossil record, you still wind up with new species. A trivial example, but not the only one. The Bible often makes statements that simple observation shows to be wrong

Who taught you how to put that little twist in there. This paragraph
deserves an award for twisted.

How about refuting the given statement rather than crap spouting?

reply to post by sirnex

---

Like you should even go there.

Your parents told you that you were an accident? Damn... Sorry to here that? Pretty piss poor parenting if you ask me!

You really are something else you know that?
I don't mean anything cool either
I mean something else.
I just want to know what hope you could have in life with what you think of it?
if you look carefully enough, I am refuting the twisted given statement.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs

---

LOL, dude, are you *unable* to refute anything or you all 'bout the crap spouting.

I already apologized for the comment, not doing it a second time so build a bridge and get over it will ya.

Second, what do *YOU* think I think of life? You think that I think life is pointless just because I don't need a God to enjoy it? Pathetic argument.

if you look carefully enough, I am refuting the twisted given statement.

Ah, so we reply by editing posts too? I didn't see any refutation in your original reply... I suppose I will have to go look and check if you made an edit! Ugh... why do religious people need to make thing's harder for everyone?

[EDIT NUMBER TWO]

Ah, checked and didn't see any attempt by you to refute what he had said. You can't refute something just by calling it twisted. Show your work man, nut up will ya?

[edit on 7-11-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 7-11-2009 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex

---

already apologized for the comment, not doing it a second time so build a bridge and get over it will ya.

The apology was not accepted was it.
I thought I made it clear it 's pointless to refute this subject with you.
You never spoke to even half the points I brouhgt up.
Because you know you can't.
One more time describe this hope you say you have ?
Oh ya you owe me two apologies btw.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by sirnex

---

Ah, so we reply by editing posts too? I didn't see any refutation in your original reply... I suppose I will have to go look and check if you made an edit! Ugh... why do religious people need to make thing's harder for everyone?

Your insults are highly indicative of frustration, and coming from you
THEY are pathetic.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by randyvs]

Drunkenshrew says: “No. Modern biochemistry and genetics have shown, that all the life we know today, comes from one line. The universality of the genetic code, the same aminoacids (with rare exceptions) build the proteins, and the same basic structures and mechanisms can be found in all cells.”

*****No proof that it came from one line. Doesn’t prove that more complex creatures did not develope on their own. Only proof that there is a Universal life Code.
If there is evidence of 3 or 4 of these "lines", then there could be 10,000.
Likewise they needn't have developed on Earth. There is life everywhere in the universe. Our science is in its infancy.

rna from space
"We believe early life may have adopted nucleobases from meteoritic fragments for use in genetic coding which enabled them to pass on their successful features to subsequent generations," said the study's lead author, Zita Martins, a researcher in the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London.”

***The term Mutation is tossed around as if you really believe it and know what you are talking about. Any scientist who uses this term to explain what he thinks answers questions of evolution is ignorant and dishonest.. Mutations are difficult to reproduce. It necessitates some very carefully guided breeding.

reply to post by randyvs

---

The apology was not accepted was it.

Like I said, build a bridge.

I thought I made it clear it 's pointless to refute this subject with you.

Only if you continue to refute through crap spouting.

You never spoke to even half the points I brouhgt up.
Because you know you can't.

Perhaps you missed the post. LINK

Here it is again.

I want to know if you see how completely impossible both sides of this arguement are?

I don't view evolution as impossible because it is an observed occurrence in nature. It's like demanding gravity doesn't really exist because no theory of gravity agrees on how gravity works.

I'm saying if you think about it.

I've had ample time to give it serious consideration. I've researched it to a point where I can confidently state that it's a man made concept of where the universe came from.

How unimaginable it is if God does exist.

I find it very hard to imagine that the monotheistic God must inherently be the right God or only God. There have been thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various religious systems through out human history and there still continues to be new one's concocted in our modern day and age, all claiming to be the one true religion. The monotheistic religion is like the middle child in these various beliefs. It's not the first or oldest, but it's not the newest or youngest either. Obviously it isn't the most correct as it's nothing more than man made speculation on where the universe came from.

To top that off, demanding evolution must inherently be false because life itself is viewed as too complex to have arisen naturally seems very contradictory to me in light of an infinite God. I view an infinite God as inherently *more complex* than life that is incapable of the same complex powers of creation that an infinite God is capable of. If life is too complex to arise naturally, and God is infinitely more complex than lowly life, then God should require an even greater creator than himself. Plus, there is no logical reason to believe in only one God. Why not believe in fifty-nine creators acting in unison?

Out of those shoes into the others and look how it is just as unimaginable that he doen't exist.

I understand that the concept of God and an afterlife makes thing's a tad bit easier for some folks, I really get that; But just because we wish something were true, no matter how hard, doesn't make it so. There is no more evidence for your God than there is for three thousand other Gods nor evidence that I am God testing your faith in me right now.

Now at this point you could flip a coin. But why would you do that
when so much could be at stake.

I don't have anything at stake. I don't have a soul, I'm not going to live after I die and I see no evidence for the monotheistic version of heaven and hell. Why would I believe "just in case"? If there were a God, I really doubt he would accept me because I believe in him only so I didn't go to hell for not believing in him. Heck, even if there were a God, I seriously doubt that he actually would require that a small world of people out of billions or trillions of other worlds in all of creation must worship him. If God seriously needs my worship for him to love me, then he can kiss my a**, I'll side with Satan because I don't do thing's that way. I don't love anyone because they force me too. And yes, it is forceful because if I don't I would be punished to hell. If you want to worship someone who has consistently proven himself capable of killing your own kind because they didn't kiss a** 24/7, that's your choice.

**Now either you missed that post or purposefully hadn't bother to reply to it. This is the only post I can think of because this is the only one you hadn't replied back to.

One more time describe this hope you say you have ?

There are a lot of thing's to have hope for or be happy about in life. For example, I have a beautiful wife and soon going to have a third kid next month. Why shouldn't I have hope and joy for that? I live to learn and I learn to live, without knowledge life would be pretty boring for me. I hope that my children will someday become successful in life or at the very least happy with their lives. I teach them about God and how some people need to believe in a God or many Gods to get by in life, to feel happiness and hope and to cope with the many ills society throws their way. I also teach them that they are intelligent enough to not require any such crutch to get by in life, that they are above that and better than that and capable of so much more and so many great and wonderful thing's. I have hope because I have love and am loved. If that isn't worth hope, then maybe your right... Maybe my life is sad. If that is how *you* want to view life, then all I can do is feel sorry for yourself, but what I have is well worth having hope. I don't need a God or an afterlife because I am able to come to terms with my own mortality and that is also one of the many thing's I teach my children. The last thing I want them to do is mourn for my loss, I would rather them remember me for the thing's I taught them. Is that a decent enough description?

reply to post by OhZone

---

We never stop being animated. We never stop living. To say that we are "inanimated" tissue would mean that we would start off as dead tissue, which isn't possible.

You can't have a debate with people who make these kind of statements.
I don't know what it is to be able to look into your childrens eyes and not see God.
I'm sorry but I have no idea what that is like.

I taught them. Is that a decent enough description?

negative
All you described was everyday life. Let me tell you what your biggest hope could possibly be.
To die a painless death in your sleep.That's it for you. The most you can hope at the end of your days and the sad part is that is the legacy you will leave your kids. Sadistic if I've ever heard it .
When there is far more to hope for.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what it is like to look into your childrens eyes and not see God. I really don't pity you at all. Your kids ?yep.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs

---

You can't have a debate with people who make these kind of statements.

Considering that you have your reply at someone else and I didn't even make that statement, then this is just meaningless nonsense to me. Also known as: Crap Spouting.

negative
All you described was everyday life. Let me tell you what your biggest hope could possibly be.
To die a painless death in your sleep.That's it for you. The most you can hope at the end of your days and the sad part is that is the legacy you will leave your kids. Sadistic if I've ever heard it .
When there is far more to hope for.

Ah, so one can only have hope if they believe in some magical deity and afterlife? Crap spouting again. Hell, I think it's great that I teach my kids to be sadistic for accepting their own mortality! If being more well rounded means sadistic, then I am doing a damn good job. Better to teach all aspects of life then to force feed one simplistic screwed up view of life.

I don't know what it is to be able to look into your childrens eyes and not see God.

I know God isn't there because Zues isn't there.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by sirnex]

Ah, so one can only have hope if they believe in some magical deity and afterlife? Crap spouting again. Hell, I think it's great that I teach my kids to be sadistic for accepting their own mortality! If being more well rounded means sadistic, then I am doing a damn good job. Better to teach all aspects of life then to force feed one simplistic screwed up view of life.

reply to post by sirnex

---

Then why do you persist?

then I am doing a damn good job. Better to teach all aspects of life then to force feed one simplistic screwed

Damn? You arn't even allowed to use the word. For your good
job to be damned their would have to be a God to do the Damning.
Bye. Game is over.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs

---

Persist in what? Persist in teaching my kids to not end up like crazy religious folks who only see hope in life only if there is an afterlife? Perhaps because I don't want them to end up crazy and screwed up? I personally think that is an admirable thing to want, a healthy minded child. I understand you disagree, but you've got to understand, not everyone wants screwed up children.

-OR-

If you mean persist in pursuit of learning about the many different religious beliefs, well like I said, I live to learn. I would equally argue against any other different God or religion if the Christians hadn't killed most of them off. There is no one that I know of today that believe in Zeus or Odin or Osiris, which is a shame because those were the really cool religions. It not even need matter if someone is religious, if I see something that I feel is wrong, I attempt to either correct it or learn that I am wrong. There is no shame in learning something new or in learning that I was wrong about something I thought I knew. I abhor blind faith as it is intellectual laziness. I question your faith because I question all faiths.

reply to post by randyvs

---

Damn? You arn't even allowed to use the word. For your good
job to be damned their would have to be a God to do the Damning.
Bye. Game is over.

Game is over? Again? How simple minded are you? I mean that with the utmost concern, honestly. I am not allowed to use the word damn, which has other meanings besides God wishing evil upon someone? Since when am I not allowed to use that word? I suppose I'm not allowed to use HELL or CRUCIFIX, oh damn I used those religious words! Ah damn I used damn again... AH DAMN!

Your funny, I think I'll keep you!

reply to post by Ohzone
Drunkenshrew says: “No. Modern biochemistry and genetics have shown, that all the life we know today, comes from one line. The universality of the genetic code, the same aminoacids (with rare exceptions) build the proteins, and the same basic structures and mechanisms can be found in all cells.” *****No proof that it came from one line. Doesn’t prove that more complex creatures did not develope on their own. Only proof that there is a Universal life Code. If there is evidence of 3 or 4 of these "lines", then there could be 10,000. Likewise they needn't have developed on Earth. There is life everywhere in the universe. Our science is in its infancy.

I agree, I should have provided a bit more information, but the statement that modern life on earth stems from more than one line, that there is more than one code of life, was made by sirnex and this statement is false. Could the development of life happened elsewhere? Could life come from seeds, which have fallen from space? Yes, to both these questions.

I will repost the important similarities all modern lifeforms share. All organisms we have encountered on earth, without exceptions share these traits.
If you want to nitpick, you can mention specialized cells in plants, and animals, which are basically dead and fulfill other functions. There are some minor differences in the genetic code we have encountered in various organisms. But if you look at them, you will see, that they are all derivates from the same basic code of life.
130.14.29.110...

Traits shared by all biological life on earth:

All life on earth are cellular beings.
In all cells genetic information is encoded in DNA.
In all cells DNA information is enconded in form of triplets.
These information is a code for the same 22 standard amino acids found in all cells.
Amino acids are basic elements which are assembled to form structural proteins and enzymes.
The building process is realized by ribosomes.
Enzymes, structural proteins and ribosomes are found in all cells.

I dare anyone to show me any cellular organism, which does not share these basic traits of life. Maybe we have encoutered extradimensional beings. These would not share these traits, but all life systematically described by scientists possesses these attributes.

I also left out viruses, because I don't consider them to be real life. But one can argue with that. Viruses share with cells the following two components: 1. structural proteins, 2. nucleic acids, nucleic acids store the information needed for replication, if this information is translated in the host cell, the decoding process found in all cells is also used by the virus (triplets, 22 proteinogene amino acids, use of ribosomes and enzymes).

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 9 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 17 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags

Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 19 days ago with 4 member flags

Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: