Discussion on the how it all started

[Subduction Zone]

No, I have not kept myself ignorant of the sciences. You just can't help being condescending can you?
I have read plenty on all the topics being discussed. Just because I see them in a different light or from a different angle doesn't make me ignorant. Thanks for providing a good illustration of the kind of "I'm just smarter than you" attitude I was talking about.

of course you are. You don't even understand the basics and refuse to discuss them. I have not been condescending, I have been extremely polite considering the nonsense and dishonesty that I receive from the creationists here.

And it is not a claim that I am smarter than creationists when I state the obvious. You should not conflate ignorance with a lack of intelligence. If anything you are putting yourself down when you do that.

Here is a suggestion: Instead of always confirming my claims why not take the time to learn the basics of science? Someone that actually understood would have taken me up on my offer a long time ago. By running away you admit that I am correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mutations to the genetic code are usually not beneficial. But even beneficial mutations can not add enough to the genetic code to turn a reptile into a bird or a frog into a prince. That's the simple version. I have studied all this, but it's been a while.

You need to substantiate that claim. With a reliable source that supports you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that's an interpretation of what is observed. But, there is an enormous amount of error in the interpretation. How often do the "facts" change? What you accept as facts are in fact, theories. "Animals exist and adapt, therefore all life must have been derived from a single-celled organism?" Not a fact.

now you need to prove the error. Hand waving will not cut it.

and facts change very rarely, if at all in some cases. Or have you forgotten your failures already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did say. I do not believe that one kind of animal makes the genetic leap to another kind. I can observe adaptation, I can't observe a squirrel becoming a toad. It does not happen in the natural world, so why should I believe what I can't see?

oh my, more evidence of not having a clue.

 

[renniks]

Here is a suggestion: Instead of always confirming my claims why not take the time to learn the basics of science? Someone that actually understood would have taken me up on my offer a long time ago. By running away you admit that I am correct.

Good grief, I told you, I have already studied science plenty.

 

[renniks]

oh my, more evidence of not having a clue.

Can you say" condescending"? And you claim Christians are the ones being insulting?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good grief, I told you, I have already studied science plenty.

Claiming it is one thing, demonstrating it is another. You may have studied it but your posts tell us you did not understand it.

You still do not appear to even understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you say" condescending"? And you claim Christians are the ones being insulting?

Seriously, when you fail that badly that is not condescension.

 

[Speedwell]

No, that's an interpretation of what is observed. But, there is an enormous amount of error in the interpretation. How often do the "facts" change? What you accept as facts are in fact, theories. "Animals exist and adapt, therefore all life must have been derived from a single-celled organism?" Not a fact.

Correct. It's a theory. I'm glad you are finally aware of the distinction. But as a theory, it's based on quite a bit more than "animals exist and adapt."

 

[xianghua]

I personally think God is the best explanation for this organised universe not a random process. Now how is evolution or some other explanation more logical?

its not. for instance we do have evidence for design like these motors and gears:

we know that gears and motors are the product of design even if they are made from organic components or have the abillity to reproduce. thus design is the best explanation. on the other hand evolution is base ob the belief that such systems can evolve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

its not. for instance we do have evidence for design like these motors and gears:

we know that gears and motors are the product of design even if they are made from organic components or have the abillity to reproduce. thus design is the best explanation. on the other hand evolution is base ob the belief that such systems can evolve.

Nope. You need a falsifiable hypothesis to have evidence.

 

[Larniavc]

I did say. I do not believe that one kind of animal makes the genetic leap to another kind. I can observe adaptation, I can't observe a squirrel becoming a toad. It does not happen in the natural world, so why should I believe what I can't see?

What is the barrier to stop small changes over time building up over generations?

Secondus: a squirrel never has and never will turn into a toad. Why would you even say that. A squirrel turning into a toad is not an example of evolution.

This is where many people become frustrated. If I where to say “if Jesus never turned into a bird Christianity is false” you would think me a fool.

 

[xianghua]

I can observe adaptation, I can't observe a squirrel becoming a toad.

i will add this analogy: say that we had a self replicating car that has DNA so it can add small cganges over time. can such a car will evolve into an airplane?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the barrier to stop small changes over time building up over generations?

Secondus: a squirrel never has and never will turn into a toad. Why would you even say that. A squirrel turning into a toad is not an example of evolution.

This is where many people become frustrated. If I where to say “if Jesus never turned into a bird Christianity is false” you would think me a fool.

And the same applies to evidence. Evidence in the sciences is akin to Bible verses in a Christian debate. If someone debating with a Christian said "That's not in the Bible! " even after being shown the verses they would probably call that person a liar and a fool. Yet creationists do the exact same thing when talking about evidence.

 

[renniks]

Secondus: a squirrel never has and never will turn into a toad. Why would you even say that. A squirrel turning into a toad is not an example of evolution.

A squirrel becoming a toad isn't a good example?

Let's start smaller then.
How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?
To have speciation changes, you have to have organs changing, you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment, this is very hard to fathom. It just doesn't happen.

 

[pitabread]

Again im telling u any explanation is not a correct explanation. Just because u make assumptions dont make them true until proven so. What u are saying is oh we see adaptation happenings lets put it under evolution and lets put change of specie into another specie also into evolution. And since adaptation is proven and can be tested now and since we put change of specie into another also under the evolution umbrella it must also be correct. Thats the most silly explanation i hear from atheists all the time. Just because u categorize them together does not make everything right. Some part may be right and some part might not have enough evidence to prove it right. If i deny one simple statement does not mean i reject the whole science.

None of this has anything to do with the post you replied to.

 

[Strathos]

Why do you keep calling that poster a Christian when his profile clearly states that he's Muslim?

 

[HitchSlap]

A squirrel becoming a toad isn't a good example?

Let's start smaller then.
How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?
To have speciation changes, you have to have organs changing, you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment, this is very hard to fathom. It just doesn't happen.

It’s obvious to me that you’ve never had a real scientific class, and all your arguments are regurgitated creation PRATTs, and you’re impressed with arguments from incredulity.

I hope at some point in your life, your need to know will supersede your need to believe. Until then, pearls before swine.

 

[Larniavc]

And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?

Well it does.

Read this.

The RNA World and the Origins of Life - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

List anything think it incorrectly states and we can go through it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you keep calling that poster a Christian when his profile clearly states that he's Muslim?

If you mean me I unfortunately assumed that he was a Christian. I should have caught that. And to be honest his errors are worse than those of most Christian creationists.