Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just to make sure, can you give me a definition of what a monkey is, one that would identify even a new species of monkey that no one had ever seen before?1Trinity3 said:You were created in the image of God. You are not a monkey. Although some of us would like to act like it you are not.
Mommamia - my spelling stinks.Gracchus said:Just as a matter of information:
accent =/= ascent
decent =/= descent
A definition of a monkey would be readily available if a cogent definition of species were.Aron-Ra said:Just to make sure, can you give me a definition of what a monkey is, one that would identify even a new species of monkey that no one had ever seen before?
Would you also say that we are not apes? If so, I would also ask for a description of what an ape is.
in what way were the evidences I gave not evidence for common ancestry? again you are asking for abiogenesis, this is irrelevant to eovlution. Lets just say God created the first bacterium, I don't really care.1Trinity3 said:You seem to be ignoring my request to provide for ascent.
How did the first organisms:
1. Come from non-life
2. Exist in a non-existant biosphere
3. Increase their DNA information forming something like a... leg, to begin with. (A known mechanism is what I'm asking for here)
TOE ASSUMES ancestry. I'm asking someone to demonstrate it.
Trinity
Jet Black said:aah, now we get on to the other ID card, the information card. first of all please define information to us, and tell us why it cannot increase.
OK, lets just say He did.Jet Black]in what way were the evidences I gave not evidence for common ancestry? again you are asking for abiogenesis, this is irrelevant to eovlution. Lets just say God created the first bacterium, I don't really care.
Micheal Behe - Darwin's Black Box. Good read.(3) you want to do a search for the work done by per ahlberg and jennifer clack on the evolution of tetrapods. it's rather interesting, and they found some really nice examples that filled Romer's Gap.
Are humans not part of our world? Can we not understand humans and the way they think by examining their ideas, false or not? I really am convinced none of you are getting the point. There is always something new to learn, and if we stop making accusations and false assumptions, we can learn much much more than we ever thought possible.The Bellman said:Yup. And it's very narrow minded to assume that the idea of a flat earth, or a geo-centric universe cannot add anything to our understanding of this world, either, right?
Please. False ideas don't add anything to our understanding of the world.
snowflakes and salt crystals. thermal proteins. galaxies, gravity.1Trinity3 said:2nd Law of thermodynamics. Unless you can provide an example of order coming from disorder... the Law applies in this case.
None of the mechanisms used in mainstream evolutionary theory break any laws of thermodynamics. Name one that does and we can talk.1Trinity3 said:Wow, it is right there on your post!
2nd Law of thermodynamics. Unless you can provide an example of order coming from disorder... the Law applies in this case.
(Also... please don't give this song and dance about entropy... heat... blaw blaw blaw). The Law prohibits order forming from chaos.
Trinity
are you going to actually answer my question? you have still not even defined what you mean my information, this is my third request for a definition1Trinity3 said:Demonstrate how a bacteria becomes a worm utilizing information theory.
what has this got to do with anything?Micheal Behe - Darwin's Black Box. Good read.
Descent with modification using physical and chemical processes that have been observed to occur quite well.1Trinity3 said:OK, lets just say He did.
Demonstrate how a bacteria becomes a worm utilizing information theory.
That depends on what you call life. Its a really gray area. Would you say that viruses are alive?1Trinity3 said:You seem to be ignoring my request to provide for ascent.
How did the first organisms:
1. Come from non-life
Life creates its own biosphere. If you meant atmosphere, life created that too. Then later versions of it became dependant on it.2. Exist in a non-existant biosphere
There is no such thing as "increasing information" and no way to quantify information to see if it has increased or decreased. Any information that is different is new, but it doesn't necessarily mean "more".3. Increase their DNA information forming something like a... leg, to begin with. (A known mechanism is what I'm asking for here)
I'll be happy to, just as soon as you explain to me what a monkey, ape, primate, eutherian mammal, synapsid tetrapod, vertebrate craniate chordate, or bilateral metazoan eukaryotic organism is.TOE ASSUMES ancestry. I'm asking someone to demonstrate it.
Trinity
1Trinity3 said:
Wow, it is right there on your post!
2nd Law of thermodynamics. Unless you can provide an example of order coming from disorder... the Law applies in this case.
(Also... please don't give this song and dance about entropy... heat... blaw blaw blaw). The Law prohibits order forming from chaos.
Trinity
I don't see how that's related, but OK. How about this one? Where animals are concerned, a species is any interbreeding population that is consistently capable of producing viable offspring. There are other equally cogent definitions, but I didn't want to copy something from a dictionary.1Trinity3 said:A definition of a monkey would be readily available if a cogent definition of species were.
Yes. Now do you have any other wholly irrelevant questions? Or are you ready to tell me what a monkey is?As far as a desription goes??? Do you have cable?
And let us all remember that could and do are not always the same thing. I wonder, does that make it check mate for C. I hope not, I think we can learn a lot from E but it seems that that will never happen, a conversation where both sides address the issue as equals. Oh well, I gave it a shot and not I am so far behind the conversation I think I shall leave you to your arrogance once more. BTW, 1Trinity3 you seem to be keeping you calm, thanks, that helps in understanding what is being said. These blokes like logic, they need non-emotional logic thrown at them seems like you are doing that pretty well.1Trinity3 said:It is easy enough to follow and does demonstrate on how it COULD happen. As most theories... looks good on paper until results are expected. But who is constructing stawmen now? Or is this your version of science?
Trinity
stop being such a narrow minded round earther :/ why don't you consider last tuesdayism?razzelflabben said:To you E here, I never said that E was not possible, you said that C was not possible. Who is narrow minded, the C or the E. In fact, trinity is also saying that E is possible. Hummmm, Yea, I think the C camp are the ones not listening! NOT
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?