Evolution is Impossible....

I think you don't fully comprehend what he's saying at times.

I think you don't fully comprehend what he's saying at times.

Sometimes I think the same yall...

From the looks of things, he's calmly and intelligently argued all your points.

so tell me... how is it that the biological reactions in the codon know when to and how to react to a certain acid way back in the beginning... how is it that the DNA was able to be interpreted and read when it was just formed? Thats like comming up with the CD before the CD player or wrighter...

Once again, I don't know. I'm not sure if biologists know this yet or not. We know the process by which codons are translated into amino acids, however I don't know the evolution of this process. We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution (note, that the evolution of the process of coding amino acids from DNA and biological evolution are not the same thing).

I suppose it would be nice to know the evolution of the process in order to develop a comprehensive theory of spontaneous generation, but as far as biological evolution goes it is irrelevant.

I did not say the random letter drawing would make a word...

Quite right. You said that it most likely would not make a word.

I was merely stating the fact that randomly drawing any two letters would have no meaning unless it was predetermined....

Predetermination does not require the intervention of God. For instance, the oscillation of a perfect pendulum can easily be modeled by the following equation:



From this you can derive equations for the pendulums position given you know the initial conditions of the pendulum. The motion of the pendulum is predetermined. It follows physical laws. The predetermination of the pendulum's position at any time has nothing to do with God.

what could have possibly read the DNA and understood what was going to happen if there was nothing but DNA and random collections of non-living matter floating around?

The same thing that dictates a pendulums motion. Physical and chemical laws. How can a pendulum possibly understand that it wants to settle into equilibrium if its just a random collection of inorganic matter? If you answer that question, you will find it is the same as the answer to your question Though a pendulum is mathematically far simpler to model than a biological system, they both follow the same principles of our natural world.

But what determined that the random collections of three letter words stood for somthing? thats my point... you cannot have meaning unless something gives it meaning....

If a tree gets struck by lightning and ignites, that does not mean that a tree means the production of fire. Even if every tree on a particular planet got struck by lightning and ignited, it does not mean that a tree "stands for" fire. It simply means that a tree will ignite when its hit by lightning -- a chemical process. Again, the chemical reactions in a biological system are more difficult to model, but they follow the same principles. Codons don't actually translate into amino acids any more than a tree translates into fire on that particular planet.

Yes, but in order for one group to dominate they had to have the bigger gun... in this case, the atomic bomb...

Science is not responsible for answering questions of ethics. It only answers questions that pertain to fact.

Well, the earth had to be here in order for life to exist... all he was pointing to was that if there is no creator then this is the way it had to have started...

I thought this was supposed to be a video on the theory of evolution? Colloquially, this has always implied biological evolution. Presenting facts on anything else is a misrepresentation of the term. The formation of the earth has nothing to do with biological evolution.

So why do they call it the BIG BANG? If there was no bang, then why do they call it that?

They could have called it orgasm X for all it matters, that doesn't mean the started started by an orgasm. It's simply a name.

Matter did not explode outwards and fill an empty universe. The universe was never empty.

Hey.. I googled it... all I could find were pages that supported creation using the beetle in their arguments... seriously, check it out for yourself....

What the hell did you search? I searched Bombadier Beetle and the first three links google popped back at me rebuked your (*laughs*) "doctor," as did the first four links when I typed in "bombadier beetle evolution."

Really? I would like to see the evidence for evolution... oh wait, there isn't any.... sorry....

[

Okay. You fucking say this over and over again like a retarded broken record. I say a retarded record because it's a record that keeps repeating something THAT ISN'T FUCKING TRUE. I've presented the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge it. Since you insist on doing this, I would like you to either rebuke these each point by point, not by simply saying "DURR DURR ITS NOT TRUE DURRR" but by backing it up with information, and evidence where necessary, or acknowledging that they are valid examples of evidence for evolution. Any point that you fail to rebuke, I will then take as you saying that it is not possible for you to rebuke them and we will therefore agree that they are valid examples.

Remember. Respond to each of these excerpts individually, or I will take that as you acknowledging them as a valid example:

. . speciation has been observed. Here are four well-known examples. These do not encompass all or most of the available examples: Drosophila paulistorum developing hybrid sterility in male offspring A species of firewood that was formed by doubling the chromosome count from the original stock The faeroe island house mouse speciated in less than 250 years after being brought to the island by man Five species of cichlid fish formed after being isolated from the original stock.

. . .fossilized evidence towards evolution . . . Archaeopteryx fossils coelacanth fossils Fish Fossils Gish on Precambrian fossils Hominid Fossils Horse fossils Polystrate fossils punctuated equilibria trilobites whale fossils and oh yes...transitional fossils

phylogenetic tree . . .[supported by both anatomical and molecular evidence]

. . .bacteria's increasing resilience to antibiotics is an observation of evolution.

- Bacteria's resilience to antibiotics - Mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS - Mutations in humans confer resistance to heart disease - mutations in humans makes bones stronger - Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity - Ribozymes - Adaptation to high and low temperatures in E. Coli - mutation which allows growth in the dark for Chlamydomonas - mutation which allows yeast to grow in a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment - new enzymatic functions by recombination

- The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike - The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant - Aquatic snakes - any animal with an "infrared eye" - various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time

That is the evidence simply from the first four pages of this thread. Either give me a rebuttal on each point individually, or it will be taken as a concession that you admit it is valid evidence. Claiming that fossils are fake is not a valid rebuttal without some presentation of proof that fossils are fake. Claiming that transitional animals are not transitional by decree is not sufficient. You must provide evidence, or at least a valid explanation as to why they are not changing.

God does not blaim us for the flaws... we are responsible for it, not him...

Is the pot also responsible for any blemishes on its paint?

Look, if the flood is your worry, blaim the parents for just sitting there and just watching the water slowly rise around their child...

So what you're saying is if a thug enters my house while my parents are homd and shoots me, it is my parents fault that I'm dead?

the pharoh knowingly and willingly killed innocent children, blame him for his actions not God...

I'm not blaming God for the deaths of the children, I'm blaming God for being a passive bystander while having the power to end the torture.

Note, that I'm referring to God as I would refer to any literary character. I am in no way acknowledging his existence.

as you said before, "he holds them accountable", maening you are responsible for your own actions, not someone elts...

That statement was not meant as a matter of fact, it was meant to convey my incredulity at God's apparent lack of logic.

So your saying that Hitler was right? Twice? What are you trying to say?

If Hitler believed in evolution, then yes, he was right. I'm sure he was right far more than twice.

I said nothing about the space race...

Again, an example.

You are right, science does make death quicker, but most people want that technology to blow up the enemy country, then the enemy country wants to stop them from using the technology, so they go over and try to stop them... thats how a war starts sometimes...

Most people want that technology just in case. We have many thousand nukes in our arsenal. I doubt we actually plan on using all of them at any time.

How did Hitler get his ideologies?

The only way to effectively answer this in a post is:



Read, if you actually want to know where he got his ideologies.

For someone who does not believe in God, you certainly use his name alot...

And you're an idiot. Oh, wait, sorry. I thought we were playing the "state the obvious" game.

Anyway... the toy poodle would only have the genes of a toy poodle and its genetic variation... the genetic variation would only be that of a toy poodle, it would not have gained any new information... basically, the variation would not cause any differences in the dog that is not already there... the variation could cause the dog to have two different colors of fur(one color from each parent) or something of that nature, the dog would not gain something unless that trait it bred in...

Just because a black mouse mates with a black mouse doesn't mean that its offspring will also be black. It's offspring could be black, brown, or white. I'm moving to mice instead of dogs because mathematically this is far simpler to model, yet it effectively demonstrates the pertinent principles of genetics that I think you're failing to grasp.

Somatic mice cells are all dihaploid indicating that they have two alleles for each characteristic. In the case of mice coats, the black allele is completely dominant to the brown coat. This means a mouse will have a black coat whether it has two alleles for a black coat or one allele for a black coat and one for a brown coat. Two parent hybrids will be black, but if they have four offspring, one should be brown. But there's a twist. There's an additional gene which codes whether or not the mice get any pigment or not. The recessive allele does nothing, while the dominant allele gives them pigment. Again, the dominant allele is completely dominant to the recessive allele. Now what happens? If the parents were dihybrids and had sixteen children, they should have nine black children, three brown children, and four WHITE children, even if they've never had a white mouse anywhere along their ancestral tree, although this would be highly unlikely.

Similarly, just because two dogs look like toy poodles does not mean that their children will also be toy poodles, or be smaller than the parents. Size is not only dependent on genes, but on environment as well. Size is a quantitative trait, meaning it lies along a continuum rather than being
fixed by genes.

Of course, none of this is an example of an increase in information. Mutations, however, do account for increases in information. For instance, searching "gene duplication" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi gives over 5000 examples of an increase in genetic information. If that doesn't suffice, I'm sure that searching point mutations or recombination would give similar results.

No, breeding is not natural selection... The dog would already have that gene if the offspring were taller than it, the variation would be the different hights of the dogs...

I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I have no idea what it means. You seem to be giving contradictory accounts of the same situation. Brush up on your terminology. Remember, you already admitted to agreeing that a new species can start from evolution in this thread probably because you didn't know meaning of the word "speciation."

Yeah, they were humans...

That wasn't the point of my statement, I was correcting your terminology. It's really confusing when you misuse words in this type of discussion.

And of course our ancestors were humans. I never claimed they weren't. I simply claimed that at one point they were also microorganisms.

MJ seems to be taking this debate rather seriously. I must ask you the ultimate quest ...what came first, the chicken or the egg?

MJ seems to be taking this debate rather seriously. I must ask you the ultimate quest ...what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Most likely.

Obviously... for the first "chicken" must have come from an egg.

Obviously... for the first "chicken" must have come from an egg.

Unless God created the chicken as is, of course.

Well of course he did! Ever heard of this quaint little thing called "The Garden of Eden" in which every single animal in the world lived, fully formed as we know them today?

Once again, I don't know. I'm not sure if biologists know this yet or not. We know the process by which codons are translated into amino acids, however I don't know the evolution of this process. We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution (note, that the evolution of the process of coding amino acids from DNA and biological evolution are not the same thing). I suppose it would be nice to know the evolution of the process in order to develop a comprehensive theory of spontaneous generation, but as far as biological evolution goes it is irrelevant.

You say, "We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution ..." So you believe evolution happened... thats very similar to believing without seeing(the hard evidence that is)... Evolution is a theory. A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. So you are therefore relying on a lack of evidence to support your faith of evolution. The evidence of design in nature is vastly abundant than any evidence of transitional creatures in the evolutionary chain. That is why in most evolutionary charts, there is a missing link that demonstrates the hopeful monster that has not yet been found.

also the evidence that is required to prove biological evolution is very relevent to prove evolution as fact.... you must have this to prove that life can start on it's own....

Quite right. You said that it most likely would not make a word.

therefore it would have no meaning and would be useless....

Predetermination does not require the intervention of God. For instance, the oscillation of a perfect pendulum can easily be modeled by the following equation: From this you can derive equations for the pendulums position given you know the initial conditions of the pendulum. The motion of the pendulum is predetermined. It follows physical laws. The predetermination of the pendulum's position at any time has nothing to do with God. The same thing that dictates a pendulums motion. Physical and chemical laws. How can a pendulum possibly understand that it wants to settle into equilibrium if its just a random collection of inorganic matter? If you answer that question, you will find it is the same as the answer to your question Though a pendulum is mathematically far simpler to model than a biological system, they both follow the same principles of our natural world.

again, the pendulum is nonliving and goverend by the laws of physics... basically gravity will tell you that the pendulum will stop in a certain position... a living organism has a mind and will to do as it pleases, if it wants to go right, forward, left or backward it will. So, for nonliving matter, you can treat it as the pendulum... it will not do anything on its own without external forces or defy the laws of physics... it would require an extrnal force...

If a tree gets struck by lightning and ignites, that does not mean that a tree means the production of fire. Even if every tree on a particular planet got struck by lightning and ignited, it does not mean that a tree "stands for" fire. It simply means that a tree will ignite when its hit by lightning -- a chemical process. Again, the chemical reactions in a biological system are more difficult to model, but they follow the same principles. Codons don't actually translate into amino acids any more than a tree translates into fire on that particular planet.

No, the tree being struck by lightining is not a chemical prosess... it is more along the lines of thermodynamics.... the burning is a chemical process...

the tree being struck causes the energy of the lightining to transfer to the tree and begin the burning process.... what you fail to understand is that in order for something to stand for something it cannot be combined(like DNA)...

Science is not responsible for answering questions of ethics. It only answers questions that pertain to fact.

so then why is the theroy of evolution considered as an answer? As I said above, a theroy has yet to be proven.... so why is evolution placed among facts?

I thought this was supposed to be a video on the theory of evolution? Colloquially, this has always implied biological evolution. Presenting facts on anything else is a misrepresentation of the term. The formation of the earth has nothing to do with biological evolution.

again, you must have one to have the other... if the big bang did not happen then life could not have happened on its own... basicly, if one does not exist the other does not either....

They could have called it orgasm X for all it matters, that doesn't mean the started started by an orgasm. It's simply a name. Matter did not explode outwards and fill an empty universe. The universe was never empty.

so where did the matter come from? It could not have created itself? Also, if all the matter in the universe came together into one single spot as a dense ball of matter how did the matter get pulled into that one spot if the universe has no middle and no edge?

What the hell did you search? I searched Bombadier Beetle and the first three links google popped back at me rebuked your (*laughs*) "doctor," as did the first four links when I typed in "bombadier beetle evolution."

I searched bombadier beetle evolution and found the first three links...

>Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of DesignThe scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. ...
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

>CB310: Bombardier beetle evolutionThe bombardier beetle myth exploded. Creation/Evolution 2(1): 1-5. Angier, N., 1985. Drafting the bombardier beetle. Time (Feb. 25), 70. ...
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.talkorigins.org ]

>Beetles And EvolutionThe inference which people have drawn from this appears to be that the bombardier beetle’s defence mechanism is a problem for evolution, and thus serves as ...
jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/852.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

the last two are inconclusive about the beetle and the top one supports evolution, but thats just the top three....

Okay. You fucking say this over and over again like a retarded broken record. I say a retarded record because it's a record that keeps repeating something THAT ISN'T FUCKING TRUE. I've presented the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge it. Since you insist on doing this, I would like you to either rebuke these each point by point, not by simply saying "DURR DURR ITS NOT TRUE DURRR" but by backing it up with information, and evidence where necessary, or acknowledging that they are valid examples of evidence for evolution. Any point that you fail to rebuke, I will then take as you saying that it is not possible for you to rebuke them and we will therefore agree that they are valid examples.

The geologic column...

as you can tell from the first picture humans and dinosaurs seemed to be pretty close...


the second picture tells what human remains were found in the different rock layers...


Now tell me how this could be possible if humans and dinosaurs never existed together....

Remember. Respond to each of these excerpts individually, or I will take that as you acknowledging them as a valid example:

I am and will....

That is the evidence simply from the first four pages of this thread. Either give me a rebuttal on each point individually, or it will be taken as a concession that you admit it is valid evidence. Claiming that fossils are fake is not a valid rebuttal without some presentation of proof that fossils are fake. Claiming that transitional animals are not transitional by decree is not sufficient. You must provide evidence, or at least a valid explanation as to why they are not changing.

I never said fossils are fake... i just said that the fossils on record do not point to evolution, they are fossilized creatures that either still exist or that particular species is dead....

Is the pot also responsible for any blemishes on its paint?

The pot is nonliving, it cannot take responsibility...

So what you're saying is if a thug enters my house while my parents are homd and shoots me, it is my parents fault that I'm dead?

No, then its the thug's fault for your death.... if the parents knew it was going to happen or(it happened slow enough) they or even you could have stopped the thug....

I'm not blaming God for the deaths of the children, I'm blaming God for being a passive bystander while having the power to end the torture.

Note, that I'm referring to God as I would refer to any literary character. I am in no way acknowledging his existence.

That statement was not meant as a matter of fact, it was meant to convey my incredulity at God's apparent lack of logic.

So, you are saying that people should not be held accountable for their actions?

If Hitler believed in evolution, then yes, he was right. I'm sure he was right far more than twice.

So was he right when he killed the jews?

Most people want that technology just in case. We have many thousand nukes in our arsenal. I doubt we actually plan on using all of them at any time.

Yes, but without those nukes other countries would willingly attack us without fear of being blown off the map....

And you're an idiot. Oh, wait, sorry. I thought we were playing the "state the obvious" game.

Just because a black mouse mates with a black mouse doesn't mean that its offspring will also be black. It's offspring could be black, brown, or white. I'm moving to mice instead of dogs because mathematically this is far simpler to model, yet it effectively demonstrates the pertinent principles of genetics that I think you're failing to grasp.

Yes, aslong as those genes were passed down to those mice by their parents... but if the mice have no background of different colors then you could not hope the mice would have offspring with white fur... the gene has to be passed down inorder for the mice to have it...

Somatic mice cells are all dihaploid indicating that they have two alleles for each characteristic. In the case of mice coats, the black allele is completely dominant to the brown coat. This means a mouse will have a black coat whether it has two alleles for a black coat or one allele for a black coat and one for a brown coat. Two parent hybrids will be black, but if they have four offspring, one should be brown. But there's a twist. There's an additional gene which codes whether or not the mice get any pigment or not. The recessive allele does nothing, while the dominant allele gives them pigment. Again, the dominant allele is completely dominant to the recessive allele. Now what happens? If the parents were dihybrids and had sixteen children, they should have nine black children, three brown children, and four WHITE children, even if they've never had a white mouse anywhere along their ancestral tree, although this would be highly unlikely.

Yes, that would be extremly unlikely... where would the white color come from? Unless the child is albino the colors black or brown would still show up...

Similarly, just because two dogs look like toy poodles does not mean that their children will also be toy poodles, or be smaller than the parents. Size is not only dependent on genes, but on environment as well. Size is a quantitative trait, meaning it lies along a continuum rather than being fixed by genes.

So a chuaua would grow in size if it had a large environment? I don't think so... size is a trait just like hair color... if you have a history of tall people in your family you chance of being tall is great, but if there are short people in your family then you could be tall, short or in between....

Of course, none of this is an example of an increase in information. Mutations, however, do account for increases in information. For instance, searching "gene duplication" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi gives over 5000 examples of an increase in genetic information. If that doesn't suffice, I'm sure that searching point mutations or recombination would give similar results.

1: Ji J, Lu J, Ye W, Hu X, Wang D. Related Articles
[Study on the mitochondrial DNA variation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.]
Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi. 2007 Apr;24(2):167-72. Chinese.
PMID: 17407074 [PubMed - in process]

2: Gasser RB, Hu M, Chilton NB, Campbell BE, Jex AJ, Otranto D, Cafarchia C, Beveridge I, Zhu X. Related Articles
Single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) for the analysis of genetic variation.
Nat Protoc. 2006;1(6):3121-8.
PMID: 17406575 [PubMed - in process]

I found these two by searching point mutations, these are the first two in the search...
both of these talk about mutations that are harmful... they do not say anything about benifits except for their research...

I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I have no idea what it means. You seem to be giving contradictory accounts of the same situation. Brush up on your terminology. Remember, you already admitted to agreeing that a new species can start from evolution in this thread probably because you didn't know meaning of the word "speciation."

I did not agree to new species occouring by evolution....
I said that the dogs would have to have the the height gene inorder to be taller than their parents... i also said that the varying gene that each dog could have would be the height gene making the dogs different heights....

That wasn't the point of my statement, I was correcting your terminology. It's really confusing when you misuse words in this type of discussion. And of course our ancestors were humans. I never claimed they weren't. I simply claimed that at one point they were also microorganisms.

Right.....

any way... I want you to tell me one piece of FACT that supports evolution... and dont say fossils because there is more evidence for creation in those than for evolution as I stated 16 quotes up.... I want hard evidence for evolution....

You say, "We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution ..." So you believe evolution happened... thats very similar to believing without seeing(the hard evidence that is)... Evolution is a theory.

The evolution of ribosomes is not known piece by piece. Refer to the detective analogy. This is a similar case.

A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Not in the context of science. In the context of science the term 'theory' is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. There is no level of uncertainty implied in that term. Of course, any scientific theory will never be 100% certain, however we are far more certain that the theory of evolution is correct overall when compared to the current theory of gravity.

So you are therefore relying on a lack of evidence to support your faith of evolution.

No.

In fact, you knowingly acknowledged that there is an ample amount of evidence for evolution by not replying to the evidence that I re-re-cited for you.

The evidence of design in nature is vastly abundant than any evidence of transitional creatures in the evolutionary chain.

Such as what? What is your evidence for design that can not be explained by evolution? Remember, we are in the realm of biological evolution here. Prebiotic organic molecules are not in the realm of this discussion.

That is why in most evolutionary charts, there is a missing link that demonstrates the hopeful monster that has not yet been found.

Name one missing link. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory's validity.

also the evidence that is required to prove biological evolution is very relevent to prove evolution as fact....

Biological evolution is evolution, you moron. That's all we're talking about. We're talking about biological evolution. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, creation of the universe, or anything else for that matter, make another thread.

Furthermore, you have it backwards. Proof of biological evolution does not prove that the stars and planets somehow followed a similar process. They did, but proving biological evolution wouldn't prove that. Not to my knowledge, anyway.

you must have this to prove that life can start on it's own....

Biological evolution does not require life starting spontaneously. God could have just as well done it. It wouldn't matter. However, if God did it, it still could not match the Biblical account. He would have had to have started life as a microbe billions of years before humans came around.

therefore it would have no meaning and would be useless....

Okay. I think we can agree on the fact that there is an 85% chance that drawing two random letters would be meaningless in the English language.

again, the pendulum is nonliving and goverend by the laws of physics...

As is the ribosome.

basically gravity will tell you that the pendulum will stop in a certain position...

Negative. A pendulum never stops unless it means some sort of air resistance.

a living organism has a mind and will to do as it pleases, if it wants to go right, forward, left or backward it will.

An organism is still bound to the laws of Physics. Free will is likely an illusion. I could argue this from a Christian and scientific standpoint. Notice how those two terms are distinct and unrelated.

So, for nonliving matter, you can treat it as the pendulum...

So ribosomal interaction with DNA can be treated as the pendulum, since it is nonliving matter?

it will not do anything on its own without external forces or defy the laws of physics... it would require an extrnal force...

Living organisms can't actually defy the laws of physics. And living organisms also require external energy to do anything.

No, the tree being struck by lightining is not a chemical prosess... it is more along the lines of thermodynamics.... the burning is a chemical process...

Notice how I said the ignition of the tree. If you want to pick at semantics, that's fine, just make sure I'm semantically incorrect first.

what you fail to understand is that in order for something to stand for something it cannot be combined(like DNA)...

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About?

In order for something to stand for something it can not be combined? What the fuck does that mean.

You're saying the elementary combinations that compose elements don't stand for anything? You're saying two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to an oxygen atom doesn't stand for water? You're saying that the combination of Carbon:Hydrogen:Oxygen in a 1:2:1 ratio doesn't stand for sugar? You're saying that Nitrogen:Hydrogen in a 3:1 ratio doesn't stand for ammonia?

Before you pick apart my semantics, you should at least clearly convey what you're talking about.

so then why is the theroy of evolution considered as an answer? As I said above, a theroy has yet to be proven.... so why is evolution placed among facts?

Again, you know nothing about science. Get your terminology straight.

so where did the matter come from? It couldnot have created itself?

We don't know. And it's not relevant for showing that biological evolution did indeed happen.

Also, if all the matter in the universe came together into one single spot as a dense ball of matter how did the matter get pulled into that one spot if the universe has no middle and no edge?

The evidence indicates the universe started that way. Nothing actually pulled it there.

The pot is nonliving, it cannot take responsibility...

Right. And we're not Gods, so we can not be held accountable by the standards of Gods.

Notice how you failed to reply to the relevant stuff.

You're saying that Nitrogen:Hydrogen in a 3:1 ratio doesn't stand for ammonia?

1:3 ratio

NH(subscript)3

1:3 ratio

Good point.

The evolution of ribosomes is not known piece by piece. Refer to the detective analogy. This is a similar case.

so that means that you believe that evolution can happen even though you don't have the evidence... I see....

Not in the context of science. In the context of science the term 'theory' is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. There is no level of uncertainty implied in that term. Of course, any scientific theory will never be 100% certain, however we are far more certain that the theory of evolution is correct overall when compared to the current theory of gravity.

Science deals with the search for fact using tests and data do determine how things work... evolution does not fit into this, you cannot test evolution to see if it is true... evolution is technically a religion; a faith based system...

No. In fact, you knowingly acknowledged that there is an ample amount of evidence for evolution by not replying to the evidence that I re-re-cited for you.

that was not evidence... you said,"I don't know the evolution of this process. We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution..."

so how does that count for evidence? your beliefs are now considered as evidence?

Such as what? What is your evidence for design that can not be explained by evolution? Remember, we are in the realm of biological evolution here. Prebiotic organic molecules are not in the realm of this discussion.

My evidence for design.... well just look at the picture...



now how can evolution explain that?

Name one missing link. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory's validity.

I can't name one missing link... it does not exist....
the reason people use this in their argument is because the 'missing link' would help to prove that all animals came from a common ancestor....

Biological evolution is evolution, you moron. That's all we're talking about. We're talking about biological evolution. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, creation of the universe, or anything else for that matter, make another thread. Furthermore, you have it backwards. Proof of biological evolution does not prove that the stars and planets somehow followed a similar process. They did, but proving biological evolution wouldn't prove that. Not to my knowledge, anyway.

You said,"I suppose it would be nice to know the evolution of the process in order to develop a comprehensive theory of spontaneous generation, but as far as biological evolution goes it is irrelevant."

So how does spontanious generation not fit into evolution?

Biological evolution does not require life starting spontaneously. God could have just as well done it. It wouldn't matter. However, if God did it, it still could not match the Biblical account. He would have had to have started life as a microbe billions of years before humans came around.

Yes it does, biological evolution feeds of life starting spontaniously... if not then saying God did it would contradict the bible, because the bible says that all life was created in 6 days(he rested on the seventh)...

so again... how is it that evolution does not require spontanious life? woulden't that point to a creator?

Okay. I think we can agree on the fact that there is an 85% chance that drawing two random letters would be meaningless in the English language.

This was only put out there to prove to you that a random generation of something could not mean anything.... it would be as usless as a CD to a disk drive... the disk drive would not know how to read the CD...

As is the ribosome.

Actually the ribosome is also governed by the cell it is in...

Negative. A pendulum never stops unless it means some sort of air resistance.

I was talking about knowing the position of the pendulum... not about outside forces... but if you want to talk about outside forces... the air resistance would cause it to slow, then eventually stop; gravity will then determine the resting position of the pendulum...

hope that makes things more clear for you....

An organism is still bound to the laws of Physics. Free will is likely an illusion. I could argue this from a Christian and scientific standpoint. Notice how those two terms are distinct and unrelated.

All organisms are bound by the laws of physics, the only difference is that you or I don't need an outside force to move which seperates us from inanimate objects like the pendulum... basically, if you want to move you move...

So ribosomal interaction with DNA can be treated as the pendulum, since it is nonliving matter?

I mean that the ribosome could not form on its own from non living matter unless something outside knew what to do with the collection of matter and how to put it together.... so the ribosome could never form on its own and the DNA would never be read and translated....

Living organisms can't actually defy the laws of physics. And living organisms also require external energy to do anything.

I never said that living organisms could defy the laws of physics....
You create the force to do something, when you move there is no one around you making you move, you do it all by yourself....

Notice how I said the ignition of the tree. If you want to pick at semantics, that's fine, just make sure I'm semantically incorrect first.

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About? In order for something to stand for something it can not be combined? What the fuck does that mean. You're saying the elementary combinations that compose elements don't stand for anything? You're saying two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to an oxygen atom doesn't stand for water? You're saying that the combination of Carbon:Hydrogen:Oxygen in a 1:2:1 ratio doesn't stand for sugar? You're saying that Nitrogen:Hydrogen in a 3:1 ratio doesn't stand for ammonia? Before you pick apart my semantics, you should at least clearly convey what you're talking about.

When I said,"In order for something to stand for something it can not be combined"... i was talking about the representation of that something...
I'll use one of your examples... Carbon:Hydrogen:Oxygen in a 1:2:1 ratio doesn't stand for sugar, it is sugar... to represent sugar we normally use
sucrose....

Again, you know nothing about science. Get your terminology straight.

You should look up evolution... it is a widely known THEROY... you should also look up theroy while your at it....

We don't know. And it's not relevant for showing that biological evolution did indeed happen.

So how are you going to prove that evolution actually caused life to begin... or are you just placing your faith into the whole thing?

The evidence indicates the universe started that way. Nothing actually pulled it there.

So then where did the matter come from and how did it get so compact? there had to have been an outside energy source to build the pressure and heat up... right?

Right. And we're not Gods, so we can not be held accountable by the standards of Gods. Notice how you failed to reply to the relevant stuff.

No, unlike the pot we live and think independantly... everything you do comes straight from you and you only... you fit into the group of people who do not want to take responsibility for your own actions, you just want to do anything you want and not have to have any consequences... but when someone who is doing the same thing you are doing and it affects your life... you are the first to point out that person is doing wrong.... like if you went home one day and found all your stuff gone you would call the poliece and try to put them in jail...
they were living a live without consequences untill you called them out on it....

Dear Draco,

Please quit raping me.

Love,
The English language

P.S. Anyways, it looks like I've won since you've acknowledged that the 6 pieces of hard evidence I've presented indeed point to the validity of evolution by not responding to any single one of them, yet continuing with your inane tirade.

GG, nub.

Until you give me a rebuttle

Evolutionists: 1 Creationists: 0

ZING!

Furthermore, don't edit your posts after I've already replied to the whole thing. Make a new one so I can see the new crap you've posted.

Another thing:

I did not agree to new species occouring by evolution....

I never denied common descent...

ZING!

Evolutionists: 2 Creationists: 0

Sorry mate, you'll need to provide better evidence than this cretaceous rock:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hand.htm

Tsk tsk. Lenny rocks are infallable for all rocks were made by dwarves!

It would take alot longer than for the sun's light to do anything useful...

An interesting fact I just read which reminded me of this.

On average, the Earth gets 84 terrawatts of power from the sun. The average daily consumption worldwide is 12 terrawatts.