Logicboy03:

You subscribe to the theory and yet, you claim that it is flawed. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, YOU SAID THAT EVOLUTION IS FLAWED. Sorry, you dont understand either what a flaw is or what the theory of evolution is.




No, just more honest and intelligent than you





What? Are you seriously questioning the development of mammary glands? It is like questioning why we have toes instead of fingered feet.

We do know that positioning the "milk factory" in some other places (instead of a gland for it) would lead to easy contamination with other liquids in the body. Just as having fingered feet would make for better grasping and swinging compared to better walking with toes.....

You are talking about things which you clearly have no idea about. What the hell is "separate evolution" for se.xes"? There are organisms that reproduce ase.xually- Why is that more logical or "evolutionary" than sex.ual reproduction? The simple answer would be that different reproductive systems are suited for different organisms and their different environments/habitats.


Sir, I fail to see how your questions somehow expose a flaw in the theory of evolution. Guy, sit down.





Shut up. What I clearly said was that the fact that evolution cant explain a certain issue doesnt mean that the theory is flawed. The theory is sound at what it is centered on.

You confuse the theory of evolution with using evolution as a subject to explain something.

BTW, you have given no flaws so far in the theory of evolution.



Yeah right. smh




SMH




SMH



You pointed out no contradictions...all you did was expose your ignorance.


For instance, some organisms evolve into smaller organisms while some evolve into larger ones. Anti-scientific dullards like you claim that it is a contradicti0on

Deep Sight:


I see your only response to the link I offered you was a very erudite "Yeah right, smh"

Bravo.

If you cannot read it, and address my 12 posers (try the first and 2nd, I repeat) - then I have no need to waste my time with you.

mazaje: What we know is science , what we don't know is god. . .

Mr Troll: Deepsight how do you make the leap from, Evolution cannot explain this to therefore a more intelligent blah blah caused it?

Is that not magical thinking? Like I said before, your argument is simply an argument from ignorance and as usual, a pathetic attempt at appeal to emotions.

Muskeeto has said this before, as long as we don't jnow somethings in this universe, the god fans will always have something to say. God is always the tent where all our ignorance is stored.

Seriously man, shut up. Yes, evolution cannot explain some things but it's not a license to sneak in your immutable, infinite space time, ultimate mind god.

Until you can show proof of your god, don't sneak it in to any gap in knowledge. Arrogant tw.at!

Deep Sight:



What on earth is wrong with you fellas?

Who said a word about God on this thread? ? ? ?

Questions are raised and you spin into an anti-God frenzy? ? ? ? LOL!

Can't deal with the posers, and only whining? Pathetic.

plaetton:

If the answer does not fit your preferred use of words, it is then invalid , right?.
Nonsense.

Are you actually pretending to want to learn something here, or to prove something?.
What exactly about evolution do you want to prove on Nl , and to whom?
I think you are in love with your own verbosity.

It's like you are holding a gun and shouting " teach me , make understand evolution or the I will shoot the whole theory dead".
And just like your previous dubious posers, you are acting for an uninformed jury.

Go to school friend and stop this nonsense.
Anyone who does not understand evolution should go and study it. Simple.

Evilbrain simply and clearly highlighted how comically ignorant you are about this very subject.

If you are sincere, your posers are valid.
Go and find the answers, and then come back and tell us , with scientific facts, which aspects you are in disagreement with.

plaetton:

you are acting for an uninformed jury.

Deep Sight:

Now I would conclude that you are just joking about.

My questions are clear for any one who is serious. Either address them in terms of the ToE, or carry on the empty party of clueless whining which has been the only thing offered by all you all-so-enlightened-atheists here.

Nothing more. What is glaring, particularly from your infantile summation, is that you do not even have the capacity to sit down, read and comprehend the issues raised. It's patently beyond you. One good option would be to just leave it alone. Think on that.

PS:

In fact, let me help you do your home work. Read up on answers available in science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sexual-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824

Now, go through these links and extract answers to my posers for me, if you will.

You can start with this, from the first link:



You might want to start by looking at that statement in bold in the above, and wondering where that need comes from, in light of just my first posers alone:



Hmmmm, Einstein?

plaetton: @Truthislight

His craft is the clever use of words to obfuscate facts. Get you carried away by theirverbal sophistry while ignoring relevant facts.

These dubious posers are for whom, if I may ask, and for what purpose?

wiegraf:

Godidit

Happy?

Because you use bigger English this stops being Godidit? What are you whining about? I have to deal with your puerile logic, therefore puerile replies. (Tbf, I stopped giving them any proper attention a while back. Special pleading for us the special species. Blanlablavljf. It is nonsense good sir)
What are you even on about with the teo? last I checked, it was very much a work in progress. But perhaps we should abandon that and just conclude; Godidit. Because we're special.

We aren't. This is simply religitard logic rebranded as something else. Tell me why your god designed sexes? As a programmer with abilities to play god, eg the ability to endow a level playing field and 'freewill', I fail to see why I'd put gender in the mix, especially involuntary sort. Methinks the solution to whatever peeve you have is in there. And also, if you will, tell why he bothered to define sexes yet designed such a dangerous, inefficient reproductive system? Or do you choose to acknowledge 'design' that confirms your bias? Really?

Logicboy03:


Lol....talking as if he is not asking these questions to put forward the claim that God did it.

smh

Deep Sight:


[b]None of you can even wrap your heads around the simple issue as to why any living organism should be self replicating in the first place. None of you: and no; this is not, and has never been addressed by any scientist.[/b]

Deep Sight:

And of course your reading is not keen enough to see where and where I have argued that indeed, it is possible that God did not design this world.

I am certain you have problems thinking, or following structured discussions.

plaetton: ^^^^

Let me give you an assignment.

Since we are daft and ignorant, Why don't you now take up the mantle to educate us.
We surrender.

So, can you please do us a big favor by answering all of your own posers?.

By flaunting them as posers, the onus is now on you to solve the evolutionary riddles for us, since we are incapable of answering them correctly, and have hence, surrendered.

Please go ahead and answer, or should I say, fill in the missing pieces for us.

We are here to learn, and we are eagerly waiting.

plaetton:

You don't know how silly that sounds.
So, no NL atheists , no scientist, no one knows for sure WHY cells self-replicate.
And therefore ....?

So no one knows or can answer why we have the universe instead of nothing.
And therefore...?

Gosh!

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner.

Logicboy03:



Deepsight....the challenge is now in your hands....answer your posers.

Deep Sight:

What cowardly criminality! ! ! !

Deep Sight:

This is cardinal because entire theories, which people like you endorse as inviolable truth, are founded on statements like this; which scientists then eternally use as the explanation for everything else:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

Sometimes I do wish to write epistles explaining such simple things and why they are problems: however I must say that I am often discouraged by the knowledge from experience that even 1 million pages of explanations will fall on determinedly and willfully deaf ears.

Just take a look at that statement in quote just above from the link I placed below it. That statement is the fundamental assumption on which ALL of this is built: explanations of how the reproduction occurs are then contrived (many different theories, including your nonsense on polarity -which by the way does not appear among any serious studies as an explanation or option) - and based on that fundamental assumption, which is taken for granted, stories are built.

This is why I began my posers with the very simple - even simplistic question - as to why living things are self replicating at all. Scientific explanations are all hinged on the assumption of this need: and they never - absolutely never - say anything on why this need is there: and what makes living things have this need in the first place.

Of course, there would be no process of evolution without self replication occurring, and it is therefore easy to see why evolutionists would completely avoid the question as to how evolution explains self replication - because, without an answer to that, they know that the credibility of the principles of the whole theory is called into question.

My dear, I cannot, and do not have an iota of respect for all the pathetic nonsense which has been said on this thread by you atheists, until and unless one of your number is bold enough to tackle the posers head-on.

It is laughable for you all to attempt to render the posers as irrelevant: when this remains a huge contention within the very learned of the scientific community!

plaetton:

This is very interesting indeed.
I can't stop laughing.
You want to run away from your own posers, because, like you have just hinted, it would take a million pages of explanation to drive home the point?.
And yet this is what you came here to ask NL atheist to do for you?
What a guy you are!
Unbelievable!.

Logicboy03:
You know that your posers are useless.
Guy, shift jo......at least this thread is now testament to your dubious sophistry.

Deep Sight:

This is cardinal because entire theories, which people like you endorse as inviolable truth, are founded on statements like this; which scientists then eternally use as the explanation for everything else:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

Sometimes I do wish to write epistles explaining such simple things and why they are problems: however I must say that I am often discouraged by the knowledge from experience that even 1 million pages of explanations will fall on determinedly and willfully deaf ears.

Just take a look at that statement in quote just above from the link I placed below it. That statement is the fundamental assumption on which ALL of this is built: explanations of how the reproduction occurs are then contrived (many different theories, including your nonsense on polarity -which by the way does not appear among any serious studies as an explanation or option) - and based on that fundamental assumption, which is taken for granted, stories are built.

This is why I began my posers with the very simple - even simplistic question - as to why living things are self replicating at all. Scientific explanations are all hinged on the assumption of this need: and they never - absolutely never - say anything on why this need is there: and what makes living things have this need in the first place.

Of course, there would be no process of evolution without self replication occurring, and it is therefore easy to see why evolutionists would completely avoid the question as to how evolution explains self replication - because, without an answer to that, they know that the credibility of the principles of the whole theory is called into question.

My dear, I cannot, and do not have an iota of respect for all the pathetic nonsense which has been said on this thread by you atheists, until and unless one of your number is bold enough to tackle the posers head-on.

It is laughable for you all to attempt to render the posers as irrelevant: when this remains a huge contention within the very learned of the scientific community!

Deep Sight:

Daft. Address the Posers, Dimwit.

And o: I have since forgone any hope of reading any sense from you: not since you argued that you would not correct your child for stealing because morality is subjective, et all: I hardly read anything you write. You are a quaint and random f.ool, of course.

Logicboy03: Deepsight getting schooled


Erm, here is a good advice for you, Deepsight

Uyi Iredia:

Off-point. He doesn't need knowledge of the ddtails you mention. Darwin had way less than that and yet his theory gained acceptance.

Joshthefirst: Foolish people claiming to think outside the box when infact they have already fashioned and are thinking from a box of foolish speculations of men for themselves.

Hypocrites claiming that one must know every part of their foolish theory before questioning it and noticing flaws.

Id.iocy.

Cheers01:

Joshthefirst: Foolish people claiming to think outside the box when infact they have already fashioned and are thinking from a box of foolish speculations of men for themselves.

Hypocrites claiming that one must know every part of their foolish theory before questioning it and noticing flaws.

Id.iocy.