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.
How long did it take for the first self-replicating cell to be 'formed', based on what is known about cell division?
How so?
EXACTLY how so?
As you have admitted to your ignorance of biology, why on earth should anyone care that you claim evolution is impossible because you personally do not understand it (and goes against your religious programming)? You claim a high IQ - can you really think this line of "argumentation" is anything other than fallacious nonsense?
How so?
EXACTLY how so?
As you have admitted to your ignorance of biology, why on earth should anyone care that you claim evolution is impossible because you personally do not understand it (and goes against your religious programming)? You claim a high IQ - can you really think this line of "argumentation" is anything other than fallacious nonsense?
Your posts show that you are anti-science, in the current pro-Trump/climate change is a hoax/creationism is true fashion.
You are anti-science in part because you have admitted your ignorance of the subject matter yet feel justified in rendering judgements on it. Dunning-Kruger effect writ large.
You seem to be expressing very muddled thinking.
You seem to be assuming that the earliest cells were exactly like those we know of today. Why would you do that?
-_- no, autotrophs and chemoheterotrophs (which consume environmental chemicals, not other organisms, for fuel) predate predatory bacteria and the like. They didn't "evolve just in time for dinner", these are the simplest paths for long term survival at the start. It isn't just that organisms that consume other organisms wouldn't be able to survive if they predated organisms that they could consume, it is that there is no possible evolutionary pathway that would result in that outcome. It takes more adaptations to pursue prey than it does to take in chemicals from the environment.It follows then that the first critters that ate the bacteria were not 'animals'. My statement therefore stands. The bacteria evolved for these critters just in time for dinner.
To the point, how can you build a theory around the first life form if you don't know anything about it?
Does learning how to drive a car require knowing how the first car was built?
No, but you first must have a car (self replicating cell) to drive (evolve).
-_- no, autotrophs and chemoheterotrophs (which consume environmental chemicals, not other organisms, for fuel) predate predatory bacteria and the like. They didn't "evolve just in time for dinner", these are the simplest paths for long term survival at the start. It isn't just that organisms that consume other organisms wouldn't be able to survive if they predated organisms that they could consume, it is that there is no possible evolutionary pathway that would result in that outcome. It takes more adaptations to pursue prey than it does to take in chemicals from the environment.
You are treating an inevitability as a "fortuitous coincidence". Not saying it was necessarily inevitable that something predatory would develop over time, only that life which is not predatory would have to precede it.
Sure. And life exists. Ergo, we can form a theory about its biodiversity and observable changes in populations.
Not at all. Never have said or believed that.Are you suggesting that only Biblical literalists (read: creationists) have "faith in God"?
It also has a purpose right? If it doesn't we would all be in trouble right now.That's a function.
So why can't this god also "design" the processes that makes life form and then evolve?
And also, sounds like you are saying that everything is designed, is that correct?
I just explained to you how the pattern of nested hierarchies factually exists.
It's the opposite of assumption.
Sticking your head in the sand, will not make testability of theory go away.
The factual existance of nested hierarchies in and of themself, is actually a prediction of evolution, ironically.
no.
They weren't.
How do you breath, btw, with your head lodged so firmly up.... errr.... burried so deep underground?
And observable evidence shows that what God says happened really did. All observation proves the Bible is true. DNA proves the bible true. Evolution looks at the evidence and based on an unobservable assumption that all things evolved from a common ancestor.Not at all what I said.
No.
Rather: science based on empirical objective evidence, trumps faith based beliefs of people who claim to know what an undemonstrable god supposedly said.
When reality disagrees with your faith based beliefs, it's not reality that is wrong.
To say otherwise is about the most intellectually dishonest position one can put himself in.
I'm thinking that is rhetorical question.Those designed by humans, yes.
Are you claiming that Jehovah is human?
Your posts show that you are anti-science, in the current pro-Trump/climate change is a hoax/creationism is true fashion.
You are anti-science in part because you have admitted your ignorance of the subject matter yet feel justified in rendering judgements on it. Dunning-Kruger effect writ large.
It also has a purpose right? If it doesn't we would all be in trouble right now.
He could have. But he didn't.
Please give an example of something that you believe definately is not designed in nature or something you think God definitely did not design.
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?