What caused the Universe?

[Subduction Zone]

WOW!!!! I'm convinced.

If only that were true. The simple fact is that those that understand how science is done and have a good understanding of science itself accept the fact that the life we observe today is the product of evolution. Your side lost over 100 years ago. People here are merely trying to help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand your coloring book concept of evolutionism. You haven't shown that it actually happens.
Similarities of the amino acid chains DO NOT indicate the motor proteins likely evolved from the same proteins as other motor proteins. It only shows they are similar. It is your assumption they evolved from a similar protein. An argument can easily be made that the similarities are there because of a common creator.

Sorry, but you can't make an evidence based argument. You don't seem to realize that evidence needs to be able to go either way. If you can't think of possible evidence that shows your argument to be wrong you do not have a logical scientific evidence based argument. If that is the case all that you have is an ad hoc explanation and they are worthless.

When you posit an argument you need to be able to answer the question "What evidence would show me to be wrong?" The evolution side can do that . They have also shown that it passes those tests. What tests can your idea pass?

 

[-57]

If only that were true. The simple fact is that those that understand how science is done and have a good understanding of science itself accept the fact that the life we observe today is the product of evolution. Your side lost over 100 years ago. People here are merely trying to help you.

Gag me with a spoon.

 

[Jimmy D]

Similarities of the amino acid chains DO NOT indicate the motor proteins likely evolved from the same proteins as other motor proteins. It only shows they are similar. It is your assumption they evolved from a similar protein. An argument can easily be made that the similarities are there because of a common creator.

Let's hear your argument for these similarites being evidence of a common creator then.

 

[-57]

Let's hear your argument for these similarites being evidence of a common creator then.

Lets start here....God would use similiar parts, components, organs, systems in His creation. They would be different because each of His creation would be serving a different purpose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gag me with a spoon.

It would really help your ability to debate if you learned what evidence is. It is not that difficult of a concept. My sign lays out what scientific evidence is for you. Just in case you were wondering, scientific evidence is what the evolution side has in spades and the creationist side totally lacks.

When one has no evidence they are limited in how they can respond to an argument. As we can see by this most recent post of yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets start here....God would use similiar parts, components, organs, systems in His creation. They would be different because each of His creation would be serving a different purpose.

Sorry, but that is not evidence. It is simply an ad hoc explanation.

 

[-57]

Sorry, but that is not evidence. It is simply an ad hoc explanation.

It's really hard to take you seriously when all you do is spew out nonsense. In your last post all you did was say nonsense without an explanation.
You're not a very good debater.

 

[Jimmy D]

God would use similiar parts, components, organs, systems in His creation.

LOL, and you've got the cheek to accuse people of presenting you with a colouring book version? It's a start though, have you got any evidence for your assertion (the fossil record, nested heirachies etc)?

 

[-57]

LOL, and you've got the cheek to accuse people of presenting you with a colouring book version? It's a start though, have you got any evidence for your assertion (the fossil record, nested heirachies etc)?

Jimmy, you see, I got the same evidence you have.

 

[Jimmy D]

Jimmy, you see, I got the same evidence you have.

No, I don't see. You're going to have to explain it. Let's start with the fossil record, how does it support your idea?

 

[-57]

No, I don't see. You're going to have to explain it. Let's start with the fossil record, how does it support your idea?

Many animals are similar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's really hard to take you seriously when all you do is spew out nonsense. In your last post all you did was say nonsense without an explanation.
You're not a very good debater.

If you can't understand something the proper action is to ask questions politely. I can assure you that there was no nonsense "spewed". What part of my post was too difficult for you to understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many animals are similar.

That is still not evidence for your beliefs. The theory of evolution has the same prediction. If an observation applies to both concepts being discussed it is not evidence for either.

More important:

What possible observed evidence would show your idea to be wrong?

 

[HitchSlap]

Lets start here....God would use similiar parts, components, organs, systems in His creation.

How do you know this?

They would be different because each of His creation would be serving a different purpose.

What purpose to mosquitoes serve?

 

[HitchSlap]

Many animals are similar.

It's almost as if god used evolution as a means for diversity and distribution.

 

[AV1611VET]

What purpose to mosquitoes serve?

Food.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's almost as if god used evolution as a means for diversity and distribution.

Ontological reduction is myopic to science.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ontological reduction is myopic to science.

I don't even know what this means.

 

[HitchSlap]

Food.

You eat mosquitoes?