My Stupid Challenge

[-57]

I do think I do deny this. This is new to me and I will admit it. What species has "evolved" to become a new species? I will be home later and will look into this. Is there positive proof that they were once a different species or is this speculation based on an original species that no one has ever actually touched and seen?

Is anyone going to answer my questions about the herring? And how do you know so much about gulls?

I don't think man was ever a different species....But once the 2 of every kind left the ark they speciated into the know animals of today.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook's law of elasticity.

http://evidence-based-science.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-scientific-law-theory.html

So again...where does life begin? from life (God) or from non-life?

In your opinion, is Newton's Law of Gravity a better explanation than Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Are you seriously using WIKIPEDIA as your source of information?

Yes, it serves as a great primer for people who may not grasp the basics, rather than throwing peer reviewed scientific papers at them straight off the bat.

If you do not have a basic understanding of the difference between the two, I don't have time tonight to teach you.

I do, yes. I'm not sure you know the difference between a Law and a Theory as they relate to science though... a Law is one very specific small fact or formula that generally has to be 100% right without exception (though not always the case...). a Theory encompasses Laws, Evidence and Facts, and is consistently verified repeatedly against further evidence & facts and also provide useful & testable predictions that are also self-verifying. A Theory can be adjusted to new facts or evidence to make it more accurate and/or useful in it's predictive capability (see Newton's Law of Gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity for example)

Are you really okay saying that you don't believe in the Law of Biogenesis...that if you float around in space, you might actually find a place where non-life is actively turning into life? That somehow, this is more plausible than believing in a God who created life from non-life. Have you ever looked at the biology of a bacteria? How did non-life suddenly become this complex creature capable of reproduction?

Pasteur did not demonstrate, nor could he have, that it’s impossible for life to emerge from non-life in any circumstances. He simply established that it does not happen in everyday life, and that the life all around us is far more connected than people once thought. If genetics had been further along at the time he could have known this for certain, because all known life is genetically related and therefore descended from a single organism, a common ancestor. - http://asktheatheist.com/?tag=law-of-biogenesis

We have already found organic compounds in space - given how big the universe is, it'd be premature to say that abiogenesis can't happen - or hasn't happened elsewhere already... Life didn't "suddenly become this complex creature capable of reproduction", it took billions of years to get to that point.

 

[Paul Finch]

What a FANTASTIC logical and scientific argument!

Unlike people who try to reason with you (you were not reasoned into creationism so you can't be reasoned out of creationism) I simply give as good as I get which ninety nine times out of a hundred is unadulterated nonsense.
Information that disagrees with their beliefs is wasted on creationists.

What realistic information would change your mind about being a creationist?
let me guess..... none so why should anyone bother?

 

[Larniavc]

Which one is stupider?

1. Denying Adam (4004-3074 BC)

2. Denying Darwin (AD 1809-1882)

Please comment.

Denying Darwin. We know for sure he was real.

We need faith in God to believe Adam was real.

Next Challenge!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

...now add to that mutation over and over again until a new body part, organ, system etc is realized.

First, this exhibits yet another misunderstanding on how evolution works.
Secondly, stop moving those goalposts.

You said that we can't demonstrate that mutations add up.
Clearly, that's false.

Stop running away from your own claims.

 

[miknik5]

Since Darwin was an actual living person, of whom we have actual records of having existed, choice number 2.

Challenge over.

Who would you say was the very first person who existed? Is there one such person?

 

[miknik5]

What do you need to deny?

Adam either exist or he didn't. What you believe is a subset of your faith.

Darwin was a man. He had some theories. Some good. Some bad. How do you deny him? He existed and was real. You would do better to just study his writings and research and judge each work based on it's merit than believe or deny in this man. He wasn't infallible.

See. I took the question simply at surface value. I wasn't looking g at the quality of the man but simply the truth that there is man

 

[miknik5]

It is stupider to deny Darwin, since we have actual records of him (including living relatives), and the only thing that supports Adam's existence is an old book.

When Adam has the same amount of support that Darwin has, I'll be happy to accept him as well. (See? I'm willing to change my mind based on new evidence. Are you?)

Adam has quite a lot of support

 

[miknik5]

Lol....

You mean, aside of being able to check the DNA of your child and find therein the mutations of both you and your parents?

Will we be fixing these unexpressed genes?

If so, that is not evolution.

It is imitation

Further, "fixing" ones genetic makeup so that future generational children are "outwardly perfect" still doesn't resolve the inner imperfection of men

 

[miknik5]

Wow.

The length of time does not mean that the support is stronger.

There are many witnesses to THE TRUTH. GOD has made sure of it
In this way no man will b able to sound off "his many other theories and positions" on HIM

 

[miknik5]

Yes, it serves as a great primer for people who may not grasp the basics, rather than throwing peer reviewed scientific papers at them straight off the bat.

I do, yes. I'm not sure you know the difference between a Law and a Theory as they relate to science though... a Law is one very specific small fact or formula that generally has to be 100% right without exception (though not always the case...). a Theory encompasses Laws, Evidence and Facts, and is consistently verified repeatedly against further evidence & facts and also provide useful & testable predictions that are also self-verifying. A Theory can be adjusted to new facts or evidence to make it more accurate and/or useful in it's predictive capability (see Newton's Law of Gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity for example)

Pasteur did not demonstrate, nor could he have, that it’s impossible for life to emerge from non-life in any circumstances. He simply established that it does not happen in everyday life, and that the life all around us is far more connected than people once thought. If genetics had been further along at the time he could have known this for certain, because all known life is genetically related and therefore descended from a single organism, a common ancestor. - http://asktheatheist.com/?tag=law-of-biogenesis

We have already found organic compounds in space - given how big the universe is, it'd be premature to say that abiogenesis can't happen - or hasn't happened elsewhere already... Life didn't "suddenly become this complex creature capable of reproduction", it took billions of years to get to that point.

There won't be time for either

 

[miknik5]

In your opinion, is Newton's Law of Gravity a better explanation than Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?

This also will not hold

Since the denial of Darwin is directly related to the over all denial of scientific discoveries of the natural world which is married to the anti-intellectual effect that is part of that world view and which has contributed directly to the dumbing down of America, I have to say that denying Darwin is way, way stupider.

it depends on what America is being "dumbed down" to

 

[Kenny'sID]

A few alluded to that there were no records of Adam, but there are of Darwin.

Why is the written record in the Bible, not considered a record? Do people think they weren't capable of keeping records that far back or what?

If I chose to, I could easily assume the record of Darwin was not accurate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is the written record in the Bible, not considered a record? Do people think they weren't capable of keeping records that far back or what?

These people need a course in Amanuensis 101.

My wife is a secretary in a Fortune 100 company, and she cringes at some of the stuff they say.

 

[Jimmy D]

A few alluded to that there were no records of Adam, but there are of Darwin.

Why is the written record in the Bible, not considered a record? Do people think they weren't capable of keeping records that far back or what?

If I chose to, I could easily assume the record of Darwin was not accurate.

Do you think that the tales in Genesis were written down at the time they were conceived?

 

[miknik5]

Do you think that the tales in Genesis were written down at the time they were conceived?

No
But they were written by a man led by GOD to write down thee records that a man might desire to know the truth

and Moses knew GOD and had heard HIS VOICE and knew that there had to have been a starting point

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you think that the tales in Genesis were written down at the time they were conceived?

Do you think the tales of, or about Darwin were written down at the time they were conceived, and if so, was that something you saw for yourself, or did you just read it from a book.

 

[Kenny'sID]

These people need a course in Amanuensis 101.

My wife is a secretary in a Fortune 100 company, and she cringes at some of the stuff they say.

Exactly, so I have to wonder why one form of keeping record is not as good as the other?

 

[Speedwell]

If I chose to, I could easily assume the record of Darwin was not accurate.

Yes, you could. So what?

Do you think the tales of, or about Darwin were written down at the time they were conceived, and if so, was that something you saw for yourself, or did you just read it from a book.

In fact it wouldn't even matter if Darwin was an imaginary person, just a character in a story, because the ideas he expressed have been tested and confirmed by real evidence.