Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

I already answered on the previous page.

If that is true, then my dog gives better answers than you.

And if you think trading college degrees is all you gotta do to test your knowledge of scripture against mine you have taken too many steroids.

Again your over bloated tough guy ego has blinded you to reality. I never said anything about "trading college degrees". I can clearly see from your contributions here that you are both intellectually and morally bankrupt. You are probably a homosexual (in the sense of courage, but I would not put the other aspect past you) as well. :rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

:flamer:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

See Gen. 8:9. The waters were upon the face of the WHOLE earth.

Michael

 

[noguru]

:flamer:

:first: Stripe the #1 homo agrees that 0mind100spritzers is gay as well.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

If that is true, then my dog gives better answers than you.

You would be surprised, if you could understand dog.

Again your over bloated tough guy ego has blinded you to reality. I never said anything about "trading college degrees". I can clearly see from your contributions here that you are both intellectually and morally bankrupt. You are probably a homosexual (in the sense of courage, but I would not put the other aspect past you) as well. :rotfl:

I will bet you aint got the courage to come on up here to find out.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Dear All,

See Gen. 8:9. The waters were upon the face of the WHOLE earth.

Michael

So?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 1mind1spirit,

It's just that some were saying it was only a localized flood on earth for Noah and his family.

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, as you have been told before, that is not the meaning of evolution. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." (Wikipedia)

You are guilty of dishonesty here, misrepresenting a theory in order to criticise! The idea of a single ancestor is a natural deduction from the success of evolution, but it is not a requirement of the theory. If it was discovered that there were two separate ancestral lines, evolution would not be dimmed at all. Evolution theory ≠ single common ancestor theory. Different names, different theories.

Evolution of cells

"The evolution of cells refers to the evolutionary origin and subsequent evolutionary development of cells. Cells first emerged at least 3.5 billion years ago. The origin of cells was the most important step in the evolution of life on Earth."--Wiki

Every living thing has evolved from the first cell.

"All cells come from preexisting cells. (They) contain the hereditary information necessary for regulating cell functions and for transmitting information (DNA) to the next generation of cells."--Wiki

"Cells are the basic building blocks of all living things. The human body is composed of trillions of cells. They provide structure for the body, take in nutrients from food, convert those nutrients into energy, and carry out specialized functions."--Wiki

Evolution begins with the first cell and is a process where by new cells add more information and greater complexity to living things through time.

All cells carry out a special function, they all have a purpose.

The problem with evolution theory is that it proposes that chance/unplanned/purposeless mutations end up having purpose, a self contradiction.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'll come out next time I am there and show you are a fraud. You may be able to fool other ignorant gullible people, but it does not work with me.

Make my day, any time.

--Dave

 

[6days]

It seems the problem for YECers it the huge respect science has as a result of its great success at explaining the natural world. They want that mantle of respect, but are happy to misrepresent science to do so.

Why can't they just say out loud that they think science is bunk and they trust their faith in a particular interpretation of a specific old book and be done with it? Science will never go where they want it to go or agree with what they claim it agrees with, so it just makes them look silly.

But, scientifically literate people are not the target of YEC ideas, are they? The Wedge plan was to manipulate moderate religious people in positions of power who don't understand science but can be persuaded that the charletans are as responsible and expert as real scientists.

Straw man, ad hominem arguments show ignorance or malicious intent

Good call Dave. I imagine you have noticed this as a trend. When their argument is shown to be wrong, they resort to fallacy type arguments.
Ad hominem:
"An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence."
Urban Dictionary

 

[DFT_Dave]

Claiming I have malicious intent has no bearing on the argument. It is an ad hominem attack!!

Dave, you succumb to what you object to in the same sentence!

Silly.

:chuckle:

I said, "straw man, ad hominem arguments show ignorance or malicious intent", didn't say anything about "you".

But if the shoe fits...:cheers:

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Lots of people are going to miss you Dave . . .

No one would miss you.

--Dave

 

[6days]

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Dave, as you have been told before, that is not the meaning of evolution. " (Wikipedia)

You are guilty of dishonesty here, misrepresenting a theory in order to criticise! The idea of a single ancestor is a natural deduction from the success of evolution, but it is not a requirement of the theory. If it was discovered that there were two separate ancestral lines, evolution would not be dimmed at all. Evolution theory ≠ single common ancestor theory. Different names, different theories.

Evolution of cells

"The evolution of cells refers to the evolutionary origin and subsequent evolutionary development of cells. Cells first emerged at least 3.5 billion years ago. The origin of cells was the most important step in the evolution of life on Earth."--Wiki

Every living thing has evolved from the first cell.

"All cells come from preexisting cells. (They) contain the hereditary information necessary for regulating cell functions and for transmitting information (DNA) to the next generation of cells."--Wiki

"Cells are the basic building blocks of all living things. The human body is composed of trillions of cells. They provide structure for the body, take in nutrients from food, convert those nutrients into energy, and carry out specialized functions."--Wiki

Evolution begins with the first cell and is a process where by new cells add more information and greater complexity to living things through time.

All cells carry out a special function, they all have a purpose.

The problem with evolution theory is that it proposes that chance/unplanned/purposeless mutations end up having purpose, a self contradiction.

Most atheistic evolutionists seem embarrassed to admit they believe life can come from non life. Although they protest, abiogenesis IS evolution. It isn't necessarily biological evolution ( its chemical evolution), but abiogenesis is where biological evolution ultimatly leads to.

 

[alwight]

Most atheistic evolutionists seem embarrassed to admit they believe life can come from non life. Although they protest, abiogenesis IS evolution. It isn't necessarily biological evolution ( its chemical evolution), but abiogenesis is where biological evolution ultimatly leads to.

Despite your apparent wisdom on what embarrasses "atheistic evolutionists" (whoever they are?) 6days, I really don't think that the word "ultimately" should be applied to any form of evolution, never mind the Darwinian kind. Darwinian evolution at least is just an on-going process without an ultimate goal.

If the first self replicating molecules brought about a process of selection of some kind then that would be imo where Darwinian evolution began, even though it arguably wasn't even actually life.

 

[6days]

If the first self replicating molecules brought about a process of selection of some kind then that would be imo where Darwinian evolution began, even though it arguably wasn't even actually life.

Molecules don't self replicate. You have beliefs and hopes not supported by science. My belief is that in the beginning God created.
The codes, and the biological motors which exist in all life suggest an Intelligent Designer.

Its nonsense / non science to believe that codes created themselves...and that biological motors self assembled.
Evidence supports the Biblical Creator. .

 

[noguru]

Make my day, any time.

--Dave

OK Mr. Callahan. Next time I'm there I'll let you know. Then we can see all your "wisdom" when confronted with a real challenge.

 

[noguru]

Most atheistic evolutionists seem embarrassed to admit they believe life can come from non life. Although they protest, abiogenesis IS evolution. It isn't necessarily biological evolution ( its chemical evolution), but abiogenesis is where biological evolution ultimatly leads to.

No, again you are misrepresenting the reality. Both the origin of species and the origin of life may have natural explanations for natural processes. But they are not the same thing.

We currently see life coming together from non life without supernatural intervention. It happens everyday when cells reproduce. They take non living substances and produce a living copy from those non living components.

Let's see, do you consider a virus to be alive? How about a prion?

 

[Tyrathca]

Let's see, do you consider a virus to be alive? How about a prion?

This should be entertaining, even better if the likes of 0mind chime in too opcorn:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

We currently see life coming together from non life without supernatural intervention.

Yeah, but not without biological intervention.

It happens everyday when cells reproduce. They take non living substances and produce a living copy from those non living components.

What about before there were any cells around to do this? How did the first cell assemble?

Let's see, do you consider a virus to be alive?

Not really. It doesn't have any metabolism to speak of -- it's more like a packet of biological information.

How about a prion?

No. I wouldn't even rate that as complex as a virus. It's a basically a chunk of misfolded protein that causes other proteins to misfold.

 

[alwight]

Molecules don't self replicate.

Sure they do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_structure

You have beliefs and hopes not supported by science. My belief is that in the beginning God created.

Good for you then 6days and your apparently infallible ancient scripture that you adhere to.
Unlike you I can and do incorporate possible fallibility into what I believe to be true.

The codes, and the biological motors which exist in all life suggest an Intelligent Designer.
Its nonsense / non science to believe that codes created themselves...and that biological motors self assembled.

Such things are needed by and suggested only to creationists for their agenda perhaps while "biological motors" have quite reasonable naturalistic explanations. All creationist claims of irreducible complexity are without justification and false, as demonstrated in a US court of law.

Evidence supports the Biblical Creator. .

Bald assertions butter no parsnips.