EMILO2STAY:
they are wise fools, people who have gone through a system of indoctrination called education. They quickly term religeous people ignorant when they are guilty of the same or even worse.

i cant blame y'all, this is a result of (failed) education system.

If you dont know anything about science and how it works, why cant you shut hell up?

I wont pretend to know more about how economist make their economic policies and the rest.
I would just want to have an idea and i wont go about bashing or criticising what i know nothing about.

Peterken05:



i cant blame y'all, this is a result of (failed) education system.

If you dont know anything about science and how it works, why cant you shut hell up?

I wont pretend to know more about how economist make their economic policies and the rest.
I would just want to have an idea and i wont go about bashing or criticising what i know nothing about.

dude science itself doesnt support the theory of evolution so what are u talking about. Your frustration with religeon has forced you to belive the gibbrish called evolution. So you should shut the f.k up if u cant prove that life started when lightning struck a pond.

EMILO2STAY:
they are wise fools, people who have gone through a system of indoctrination called education. They quickly term religeous people ignorant when they are guilty of the same or even worse.

o boy,what's your brand?...Waiter abeg bring dis man 1 bottle of Legend

EMILO2STAY:
dude science itself doesnt support the theory of evolution so what are u talking about. Your frustration with religeon has forced you to belive the gibbrish called evolution. So you should shut the f.k up if u cant prove that life started when lightning struck a pond.

are you serious?
Science doesnt support the theory of evolution?

You must be kidding

there are lots of religious scientist that endorse the theory of evolution, so what are you talking about?

They aint dogmatic like you fundamentalist


even your pope thinks you creationists are stupid

Peterken05:


there is nothing like evolutionist guy, it is not a belief system, noboby will crucify for not accepting the theory, its cool not to accept it if you dont understand it well or thoroughly, you cant understand evolution if you cant differentiate between science and the bible, they are two different things.

But your case is different, you re dogmatic, you dont want to learn, you're just displaying your ignorance throughout this thread.

Pls there is nothing like evolutionist, unless you want to say there are gravitationalist who believe in the theory of gravitationalism.

It is just not right.

oya sorry oga...I seriously want to learn...A PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS CALLED WHAT?

alexis007:
oya sorry oga...I seriously want to learn...A PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS CALLED WHAT?

you still dont get it, evolution is not a belief system, you cant say you believe in a scientific theory, its daft and dumb

Peterken05:



are you serious?
Science doesnt support the theory of evolution?

You must be kidding

there are lots of religious scientist that endorse the theory of evolution, so what are you talking about?

They aint dogmatic like you fundamentalist


even your pope thinks you creationists are stupid

The Theory of Evolution is not a
scientific law or a law of biology.
A scientific law must be 100%
correct.
The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory,
instead of a law. The process of
natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

dont mention the pope cuz he is not the founder of christianity or the author of the bible.

EMILO2STAY:
The Theory of Evolution is not a
scientific law or a law of biology.
A scientific law must be 100%
correct.
The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory,
instead of a law. The process of
natural selection is not an evolutionary process.
dont mention the pope cuz he is the founder of christianity or the author of the bible.

you dont even know anything about scientific theory or law.

How many times do i have to explain this?

Read my former posts if you want to learn.

AgentOfAllah:

I agree with your self-burn! impenetrable fortress is just another euphemism for thick skull


Regrettably, nothing I wrote was copy and paste. I actually spent time trying to address your misconceptions and answering your question. I apologise to myself for thinking you were worth my time.

If I didn't know better though, I'd say your backing out is a tad bit convenient. A lily-livered sketch of escapism, perhaps?
Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, stop lying!


If your style of comic relief is self-jubilant dimwittedness, then I give it to you, you're a natural, only it gets boring after a while.


Wasted time? Maybe... But I just might have a lot of time to waste. Don't worry about my data though, I have unlimited internet subscription.

must i quote you everytime?...IF yes!...then read the following....WHAT HAPPENS ON NL,STAYS ON NL.....WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE IN AND CHOOSE 2 ACCEPT IS YOUR BIZ......IF ONLY ACCEPTING DARWINISM WOULD GUARANTEE ME 3-SQUARE MEALS A DAY.....AND ABOUT A LILY-LIVERED SKETCH BEING MY IDEA OF ESCAPISM....JUST TAKE A LOOK @ THE ARGUMENTS BEING MADE....THEY HAVE BEEN REPEATED TIME AND TIME...ONLY THAT THEY RE-INCARNATE EACH TIME IN RE-PARAPHRASED FORM.....THUS,RATHER THAN ENGAGE IN A FUTILE DEBATE WHERE NO SIDE IS READY 2 CAPITULATE....I'D RATHER INVEST MORE TIME IN MY STRUGGLES TO MAKE ENDS MEET....I,ALEXANDER ARTHUR,DO OFFICIALLY BOW OUT OF THE DEBATE,and THOUGH I STILL FOLLOW THIS THREAD...EXPECT NO MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTION FROM ME

alexis:

Of course I am a theists, not only that; the reason the evolution model of simple life to complex life makes no sense is that there are no recorded examples of it happening. There are two issues here:

1. The claim that complex life came from single organism was never proven by anyone. Darwin observed birds and said the the changes in the beaks of the birds mean that humans evolved from amoeba. And that is simple not true. Theists don't doubt micro-evolution or evolution that can be observed i.e. adaptation and that has never been my argument. My argument is that evolution doesn't provide proof of simple life to complex life or from one KIND to another KIND. That has always been my stand and that is all I have asked you to provide proof on. Instead you have mentioned similarities to prove we all came from an amoeba.
2. Darwin claimed life came from non-life at some point in his life. I am including a link from the "US National Library of Medicine". Please read the whole account and references before you respond. I hate having to address the same issue over and over again: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

Let me quote you:

alexis:

He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)

So I'm asking again, could you give the exact quotation of Darwin in quotation marks. I'm asking for a single line and reference detail where Darwin said the above. I have read the link you shared, and nowhere in that link did Darwin say such a thing. Either provide the quote or admit your second of numerous mistakes, keeping your words in mind: "We all make mistakes and an honest person should admit it when he has made one".

These are not the claims of the evolution we are talking about. And to use this as an example is very dis-honest on your part. The sperm of a man and the egg of a woman are unique in that they are both from humans i.e. the same KIND. A human sperm and a human egg doesn't produce an alien. The sperm is not of a donkey and the egg is not that of a lion and that is what you are describing. You have attempted several times to give examples that are not related to the case. All I am asking is this - if indeed the Darwin theory of simple life from i.e. amoeba to a complex life form, say a fish. Can it be replicated? YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ADDRESS THIS CLAIM

Please explain why a Lion's sperm and a tiger's egg produces a liger.

You keep making yourself look stu.pid by stating such. It shows how much you know about the topic you are discussing. It is at this point where intellects put their brains down and run off in the opposite direction. All my family are humans; there are no fishes, goats or apes in our lineage and that is why I am a human. We are of the same KIND. . If you want me to say it in another language, I will try to . My proof is repeatable, it can be observed and experimented. All I ask is you to the same

My request was simple. Show me how you came from your great-grandparents. I don't care if they are humans or goats or fish, demonstrate your emergence in a repeatable scientific manner. SO FAR, YOU HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR EMERGENCE IN A REPEATABLE MANNER, so your claim that you're from your great-grandparents is a laughable, false claim. And you're gullible to believe you came from your great-grandparents.

Dude, why are you arguing blindly. Are you saying that two humans can or can't produce a third human? You seem to be saying that since there is no record of my grand-parents having sex to give birth to my parents and than to me; it it means it's not repeatable - is that your claim?

I don't care if two humans can produce a third human, I'm only asking for repeatable scientific proof that can be observed in a science lab that you are a descendant of your great-grandparents.
I hope you are beginning to see how ridiculous it gets when you start asking for the impossible. You claim DNA links you to your great-grandparents. Why is the DNA result linking you to your great-grandparents any more plausible than the one linking you to an old-world monkey? You don't have a coherent idea, you're just happy being a perfunctory observer

Repeatable means you can reproduce the claim. For example, my grand-parents where humans and when humans have sex they produce off-spring. I can repeat that process; I can observe it and say, when they have sex what happens after that i.e. fertilization of the sperm and egg etc. I can draw conclusive results stating that when two humans mate; they can produce another human being.

Yes, I know what repeatable is, and since your claim is that you came from your great-grandparent, please reproduce that claim.

Now, try and do the same with two different animals or in your case from simple forms of an amoeba and see how it produces a more complex animal. This has always been my claim and you seem to be dancing in a circle in addressing it

To be clear, you don't disagree with the supposition that complexity can emerge from simplicity, which is why I used the childbirth anecdote. So your assumption that a complex animal cannot emerge from a simple lifeform is not at all grounded in science. Your only contention is that one "kind" cannot emerge from another. You're absolutely wrong though. I mentioned liger before, but there are several hybrid species. Can you please explain why genetic hybrids exist?

alexis:

No, I simply asked you to provide references from authoritative sources. When you refer to a scientific statement, you refer to a journal to references posted by academia etc. I am saying wikipedia is not an authoritative source.

You keep forcing me to repeat myself. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It is not a source at all, it is a repository of sources. When I share a Wiki link with you, you can trace the statements in that link to their original peer-reviewed sources directly from Wikipedia. I have not shared those peer-reviewed links with you because this is not a formal discussion, however, IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC PART OF THAT LINK YOU WISH TO CONTEST, LET ME KNOW AND I PROMISE TO PULL OUT THE ORIGINAL SOURCE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. Capish

If I am quoting Darwin, I don't refer to wikipedia as my source or reference because it can be edited an uploaded by anyone

Hahaha...Coming from someone who puts fabricated words into Darwin's pen and/or quotes him out of context/misquotes him, from 3rd hand sources like a christian apologetic site with liminal ulterior motive. The one time I quoted Darwin, I quoted directly from his book! And for what it is worth, Wikipedia is still more neutral than your apologetic site, so please, spare me the sanctimonious pontification.

alexis:
AgentofAllah

Can you please address these questions:

If scientific theories are superior to scientific laws as you claim, can you please answer these questions:

1. Are there any exceptions to a scientific law?
2. Are there any exceptions to a scientific theory?

Yes to both.

AgentOfAllah:


Yes to both.

Can you tell me what exceptions there are to scientific law citing the scientific laws and the exceptions

alexis:


Can you tell me what exceptions there are to scientific law citing the scientific laws and the exceptions

Yes. Newton's laws fail in quantum systems. For example, newton's 2nd law states that F=ma, and it assumes constant mass. This equation is rubbished as the speed of an object approaches the speed of light because at such speeds, mass is no more constant, we start to talk of effective mass.
Also, the first law states that an object at rest will remain at rest. but if you were at rest on a merry-go-round, you'll feel a force trying to fling you off the merry-go-round. Hence, the limit of this law is that it only works provided the frame of reference is inertial. The earth is in constant movement, so Newton's law is just a very good approximation of reality, not an accurate one

Listen guys i dnt no Y u guys tink evolution dispute God. True der r some holes in some of the evolution theories lyk say 4 example life began with a strike of lightning on a pond. Scientists believe dat every tin we c in d universe come 2 being by an event called the big bang. That is the earth,sun,moon n all d other heavenly bodies or watever u wnt 2 call came into existence spontaneously through dis big bang n dat der was nothing but darkness b4 dis big bang. A scientist i can't recall is name said dat dis occurrence is how he would expect wat God said in gen1:3(let der b light) to happen. Genesis went on n discribed how God created everytin in each day totaling 7days or 6days anyhw u wnt 2 look @ it. But remember God said dat a day is lyk a 1000yrs in his sight. So i tink u can conclude dat evolution did take place as God created d creature of d sea first n frm den on He created every other animal u c now. After which we wer created. Like i said der r few holes in dis theories. Scientists r hardly athiest, Einstein was a jew n he believe in God. D reason most scientists today r athiest is becus dey choose 2 b. Mainly due to certain tins dat happened 2 dem. I recommended 2 christains n any1else 2 watch this movie "GOD'S NOT DEAD". To fully understand wat am saying. Lastly i dont claim 2 no it all, bt d little i have, i have shared. I Ieave u with dis quote frm a medical doctor; "Seeing d functionality and precision of the systems, organs,tissues n even d cells in d human body, n hw dey correlate to ensure n promote life n even produces life. Truely d Bible was ryt wen it said only a fool will say der is no God"

Peterken05:


you dont even know anything about scientific theory or law.

How many times do i have to explain this?

Read my former posts if you want to learn.

listen man!, u need to put up an observable evidence to prove that man came from fish otherwise u are just as gullible as an indoctrinated jihadist.

EMILO2STAY:
listen man!, u need to put up an observable evidence to prove that man came from fish otherwise u are just as gullible as an indoctrinated jihadist.

Put up an observable evidence that you came from your grandfather.

I think we should just let this matter to rest. As for Alexis, since someone who "believes" in evolution is called an evolutionist, what is someone who "believes" in gravitation called? What is someone who "believes" in relativity called?
Scientific theories are not belief systems that can be believed or disbelieved.

Trying to argue with these religious people on Nairaland is just a perfect definition of "wasting precious time". Itz just like trying to get a Jehovah's witness to see biblical things from your own perspective (no offense meant).
One thing that makes science superior to religion is that science is always willing to learn. Science is forever expanding the borders and boundaries of knowledge of this earth and this universe. Science isn't dogmatic. Science always changes its stand in the light of new evidences and discoveries. If the evidence doesn't support something, it is discarded. Evidences must be sought.

Itz very difficult to try to argue with a person whose mind is closed. It is like pouring water on stone on a very hot and sunny afternoon. And even in the close-mindedness of religion, they always try to make that God they said is Almighty into a role. They say he is Almighty and Omnipotent yet they try to force him into a role they think is what he should play. It's just pathetic.

I repeat, if God truly exists, then He is the author of science and not religion. And the bible is just a fraudulent story book.

AgentOfAllah:

Put up an observable evidence that you came from your grandfather.

my grandfather is human a black man so is my father and me we even share facial resemblance and character. so it is common sense that human can only produce human in most cases you dont even need a dna test to prove that, the evidence is observable and can be reapeted but not so for the case of the evolution theory that claims that man descended from fish.
can u provide an observable evidence that man descended from a fish that transitioned into a lemur that turned into a monkey that became a man. You evolutionist are no different from the indoctrinated jihadists.

[quote author=AgentOfAllah post=27723744]

Yes. Newton's laws fail in quantum systems. For example, newton's 2nd law states that F=ma, and it assumes constant mass. This equation is rubbished as the speed of an object approaches the speed of light because at such speeds, mass is no more constant, we start to talk of effective mass. Also, the first law states that an object at rest will remain at rest. but if you were at rest on a merry-go-round, you'll feel a force trying to fling you off the merry-go-round. Hence, the limit of this law is that it only works provided the frame of reference is inertial. The earth is in constant movement, so Newton's law is just a very good approximation of reality, not an accurate one

Of course, Newtons laws don't apply to every situation i.e sub atomic particles, quantum systems. Perhaps I should have worded the question properly or defined it better. My question is - to the situations the laws apply, are there any exceptions?

AgentOfAllah

You keep forcing me to repeat myself. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It is not a source at all, it is a repository of sources. When I share a Wiki link with you, you can trace the statements in that link to their original peer-reviewed sources directly from Wikipedia. I have not shared those peer-reviewed links with you because this is not a formal discussion, however, IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC PART OF THAT LINK YOU WISH TO CONTEST, LET ME KNOW AND I PROMISE TO PULL OUT THE ORIGINAL SOURCE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. Capish

Gosh! Can you use wikipedia as a reference or source in academia ie. say your physics assignment?

Hahaha...Coming from someone who puts fabricated words into Darwin's pen and/or quotes him out of context/misquotes him, from 3rd hand sources like a christian apologetic site with liminal ulterior motive. The one time I quoted Darwin, I quoted directly from his book! And for what it is worth, Wikipedia is still more neutral than your apologetic site, so please, spare me the sanctimonious pontification.

Did I not quote the sources regarding Darwin and provided references for you to check? Are all of Darwins comments, communications and life recorded in his book? You get brain at all?

EMILO2STAY:
my grandfather is human a black man so is my father and me we even share facial resemblance and character. so it is common sense that human can only produce human in most cases you dont even need a dna test to prove that, the evidence is observable and can be reapeted but not so for the case of the evolution theory that claims that man descended from fish.
can u provide an observable evidence that man descended from a fish that transitioned into a lemur that turned into a monkey that became a man. You evolutionist are no different from the indoctrinated jihadists.

I think you don't WANT to understand it, and even if you did, you lack the minimal knowledge of biology required to understand it.

Will you go tell an engineer how to construct an airplane when you don't know how an airplane looks, and when you know nothing about aerodynamics and engins? Seriously, will you? Or would you know you'd make a fool of yourself and conclude you'd better defer to the specialists?

But when it comes to the corner stone of modern biology you and too many others feel entitled to trumpet your imaginary superior knowledge? Your superior knowledge in the scientific fields of molecular biology, palaeontology, zoology, anatomy, geology etc.

YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION AND ITS MECHANISMS. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. But in your deluded arrogance you can't even see or admit that? You are arguing with several people with a profound knowledge of palaeontology, molecular biology, zoology, anatomy, geology etc. (I would guess at least 2 of which have a Ph.D. in biology). You know what I mean... like in the example above with the airplane...?

Liekiller:


I think you don't WANT to understand it, and even if you did, you lack the minimal knowledge of biology required to understand it.

Will you go tell an engineer how to construct an airplane when you don't know how an airplane looks, and when you know nothing about aerodynamics and engins? Seriously, will you? Or would you know you'd make a fool of yourself and conclude you'd better defer to the specialists?

But when it comes to the corner stone of modern biology you and too many others feel entitled to trumpet your imaginary superior knowledge? Your superior knowledge in the scientific fields of molecular biology, palaeontology, zoology, anatomy, geology etc.

YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION AND ITS MECHANISMS. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. But in your deluded arrogance you can't even see or admit that? You are arguing with several people with a profound knowledge of palaeontology, molecular biology, zoology, anatomy, geology etc. (I would guess at least 2 of which have a Ph.D. in biology). You know what I mean... like in the example above with the airplane...?

coming from someone who cannot differentiate pharyngeal arches and fish gills, try harder next time cuz you are not making any sense with this statement or giving answer to the question i asked.
there are many honest palaentologist and biologist who dont agree with the theory of evolution, you are of the dishonest type who dig up the skull of a monkey and called it the ancestor of man, is this what u call knowledge and understanding of biology?, it is the same ignoramus evolutionist like you who put ota benga in the zoo in a silly attempt to prove evolution.

on the contrary it is you evolutionist who have an imaginary superior knowledge,, ...Professing yourself to be wise you became fools in the silly attempt to quench the believe in God, evolutionist put up stupid unprovable theories and feed it to the confused gullible and call it education. Peddling a theory as fact is pure indoctrination. If the theory of evolution is a fact we wouldnt even need science to prove it.

alexis:
Gosh! Can you use wikipedia as a reference or source in academia ie. say your physics assignment?

You're obviously bereft of any point left to make. You're not my physics teacher!

Did I not quote the sources regarding Darwin and provided references for you to check? Are all of Darwins comments, communications and life recorded in his book? You get brain at all?

Stop lying Mr. Mendalescent. You did not quote any source. Here is your big opportunity to prove that I'm a liar, and you're being gobsmackingly casual about it. Let me quote you again:

He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)

Please quote the exact statement of Darwin verbatim, and include reference and page number. You're the one trying to subject my sources to scientific rigour by asking me not to use Wikipedia as a source. Now live up to your own standard, and prove you're not a hypocrite.

alexis:

Of course, Newtons laws don't apply to every situation i.e sub atomic particles, quantum systems. Perhaps I should have worded the question properly or defined it better. My question is - to the situations the laws apply, are there any exceptions?

Your question is self-referential and dumb. It doesn't deserve an answer. Is a white paper white? If I pour water inside a cup is the water inside the cup a cup contained water? If I wrote an English sentence with letters from the English alphabet, will my sentence read as Chinese?

A true reflection of your intelligence (or lack of).

EMILO2STAY:
my grandfather is human a black man so is my father and me we even share facial resemblance and character. so it is common sense that human can only produce human in most cases you dont even need a dna test to prove that, the evidence is observable and can be reapeted but not so for the case of the evolution theory that claims that man descended from fish.

You have not provided me with an observable and repeatable evidence. There are many black men, and no shortage I'm sure, of those who look like you. You're appealing to common sense, which is not an evidence at all. Common sense also tells me that humans share a lot of similarities with other primates, so we're descendent from the same ancestors. If you reject my commonsensical premise, I have no reason to accept yours, so you're definitely not from your grandparents.

can u provide an observable evidence that man descended from a fish that transitioned into a lemur that turned into a monkey that became a man. You evolutionist are no different from the indoctrinated jihadists.

Show me your observable and repeatable evidence that you descended from your grandparents, you dim-witted, brainwashed religionist.

Kylehood:
Listen guys i dnt no Y u guys tink evolution dispute God. True der r some holes in some of the evolution theories lyk say 4 example life began with a strike of lightning on a pond. Scientists believe dat every tin we c in d universe come 2 being by an event called the big bang. That is the earth,sun,moon n all d other heavenly bodies or watever u wnt 2 call came into existence spontaneously through dis big bang n dat der was nothing but darkness b4 dis big bang. A scientist i can't recall is name said dat dis occurrence is how he would expect wat God said in gen1:3(let der b light) to happen. Genesis went on n discribed how God created everytin in each day totaling 7days or 6days anyhw u wnt 2 look @ it. But remember God said dat a day is lyk a 1000yrs in his sight. So i tink u can conclude dat evolution did take place as God created d creature of d sea first n frm den on He created every other animal u c now. After which we wer created. Like i said der r few holes in dis theories. Scientists r hardly athiest, Einstein was a jew n he believe in God. D reason most scientists today r athiest is becus dey choose 2 b. Mainly due to certain tins dat happened 2 dem. I recommended 2 christains n any1else 2 watch this movie "GOD'S NOT DEAD". To fully understand wat am saying. Lastly i dont claim 2 no it all, bt d little i have, i have shared. I Ieave u with dis quote frm a medical doctor; "Seeing d functionality and precision of the systems, organs,tissues n even d cells in d human body, n hw dey correlate to ensure n promote life n even produces life. Truely d Bible was ryt wen it said only a fool will say der is no God"

einstein didnt believe in god, he said it several times, about his non-belief.

See it in this letter.

'it was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and i never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which is religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the worls so far as science can reveal it'

Albert Einstein
letter dated 24 March 1954
included in 'Albert Einstein: The Human Side'.

Lemme put it this way, moderate religious people that have admiration for science dont have problem with evolution and big bang, it is the fundamentalist that do.

Hardly will you see a scientist that isnt an atheist.

AgentOfAllah

So I'm asking again, could you give the exact quotation of Darwin in quotation marks. I'm asking for a single line and reference detail where Darwin said the above. I have read the link you shared, and nowhere in that link did Darwin say such a thing. Either provide the quote or admit your second of numerous mistakes, keeping your words in mind: "We all make mistakes and an honest person should admit it when he has made one".

You are not been honest mate. There are so many things Darwin never quoted word for word in his book that are true about him. Darwin never quoted he was a Christian in his book yet we know he was a Christian at one time from historical records. So, I can't argue from silence and only idiots do. For example, I don't need to say I am 30 years old; you only need to look at my birth certificate and it will confirm it. Try and use your brain man

Please explain why a Lion's sperm and a tiger's egg produces a liger.

So Darwin was talking about a Lion sperm and a Tiger's egg when he said complex life came from simple organism?

My request was simple. Show me how you came from your great-grandparents. I don't care if they are humans or goats or fish, demonstrate your emergence in a repeatable scientific manner. SO FAR, YOU HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR EMERGENCE IN A REPEATABLE MANNER, so your claim that you're from your great-grandparents is a laughable, false claim. And you're gullible to believe you came from your great-grandparents.

Dude, you are still avoiding the premise. Are you personally referring me as a person or are you referring to the process? You seem to discussing legal issues instead of scientific ones. I was born from the consummation of marriage between two heterosexual human beings of the opposite sex in a natural manner. That process applies to me personally as well as to you as well. The same process can be used to produce another human being - THE PROCESS IS REPEATABLE, OBSERVABLE AND PROVABLE. I am asking you to use the same process to support your Darwinian argument - It's not hard Bros so stop playing pretend.

I don't care if two humans can produce a third human, I'm only asking for repeatable scientific proof that can be observed in a science lab that you are a descendant of your great-grandparents. I hope you are beginning to see how ridiculous it gets when you start asking for the impossible. You claim DNA links you to your great-grandparents. Why is the DNA result linking you to your great-grandparents any more plausible than the one linking you to an old-world monkey? You don't have a coherent idea, you're just happy being a perfunctory observer. Yes, I know what repeatable is, and since your claim is that you came from your great-grandparent, please reproduce that claim.

There is nothing impossible about the question. You are the jumping around and playing stu.pid. Two monkeys can't produce a human-being; neither can two human beings produce a monkey. Now, that statement is either true or false. The test of truth is simple:

1. If the product of two monkeys is a monkey then the statement is true
2. If the product of two monkeys is not a monkey then the statement is false
3. The same applies to the humans

You are here playing semantics and have used all kinds of logic to evade the question. To think that I was speaking with someone who is objective.

To be clear, you don't disagree with the supposition that complexity can emerge from simplicity, which is why I used the childbirth anecdote.

Cha - dude, you have taken misrepresentation to a new level. You claimed the semen of a HUMAN man and the egg of a HUMAN woman was similar in comparison between an amoeba evolving into human being. That was what I disagreed with; I never disagreed with stages of evolution of a child.

So your assumption that a complex animal cannot emerge from a simple lifeform is not at all grounded in science.

This has never been my contention so I really don't know why you are mis-representing me. It's truly pathetic

Your only contention is that one "kind" cannot emerge from another. You're absolutely wrong though. I mentioned liger before, but there are several hybrid species. Can you please explain why genetic hybrids exist?

Of everything listed there - are they different animals? Is a Liger not a CAT; are they of different KINDS? The African Elephant and the Asian elephant - are the off-springs and products not an elephant? You are supporting my argument Bros and in the process making yourself look very very stupi.d. You are supporting an amoeba evolving into a human being - how is that comparable between two animals of the same KIND? Cha - stupi.dity at it's pinnacle

Kylehood:
Listen guys i dnt no Y u guys tink evolution dispute God.

Evolution does not dispute god because god is a vague idea. What it does, however, is that it disputes specific gods like Yahweh and Allah. Thanks to evolution, we now know that the phony account of Adam and eve is fairytale.

True der r some holes in some of the evolution theories lyk say 4 example life began with a strike of lightning on a pond.

The emboldened has nothing to do with theory of evolution.

Scientists believe dat every tin we c in d universe come 2 being by an event called the big bang. That is the earth,sun,moon n all d other heavenly bodies or watever u wnt 2 call came into existence spontaneously through dis big bang n dat der was nothing but darkness b4 dis big bang.

No scientist knows what existed before the bigbang theory. Anything you see out there is mere speculation.

A scientist i can't recall is name said dat dis occurrence is how he would expect wat God said in gen1:3(let der b light) to happen. Genesis went on n discribed how God created everytin in each day totaling 7days or 6days anyhw u wnt 2 look @ it. But remember God said dat a day is lyk a 1000yrs in his sight. So i tink u can conclude dat evolution did take place as God created d creature of d sea first n frm den on He created every other animal u c now. After which we wer created.

If god created everything in 6 days and a day is equivalent to 1,000 years, that's just 6,000 years. Man evolved several billions of years after the first primitive life form. That account is just hokum!

Like i said der r few holes in dis theories.

Yes, it's work in progress.

Scientists r hardly athiest, Einstein was a jew n he believe in God. D reason most scientists today r athiest is becus dey choose 2 b. Mainly due to certain tins dat happened 2 dem.

Not true, Einstein was Jew by ethnicity, but had spinozist (impersonal, passive universe) view of god.

I recommended 2 christains n any1else 2 watch this movie "GOD'S NOT DEAD". To fully understand wat am saying.

I heard about this movie. I will see it soon.

Lastly i dont claim 2 no it all, bt d little i have, i have shared. I Ieave u with dis quote frm a medical doctor; "Seeing d functionality and precision of the systems, organs,tissues n even d cells in d human body, n hw dey correlate to ensure n promote life n even produces life. Truely d Bible was ryt wen it said only a fool will say der is no God"

That's the doctor's personal opinion. Nothing to do with reality.

AgentOfAllah

You're obviously bereft of any point left to make. You're not my physics teacher!

May God have mercy on your physics teacher

Stop lying Mr. Mendalescent. You did not quote any source. Here is your big opportunity to prove that I'm a liar, and you're being gobsmackingly casual about it. Let me quote you again:

You are so daft. Stupi.dity at it highest. Did I or did I include this as reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

AgentOfAllah

Your question is self-referential and dumb. It doesn't deserve an answer. Is a white paper white? If I pour water inside a cup is the water inside the cup a cup contained water? If I wrote an English sentence with letters from the English alphabet, will my sentence read as Chinese?

How will it not be dumb to someone who is stu.p.id? You tend to argue more about semantics than to address questions brought before you.

alexis:

You are so daft. Stupi.dity at it highest. Did I or did I include this as reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

This is not a reference my friend. Provide the exact quote verbatim. I didn't find the statement you attributed to Darwin in the above link. I'll keep quoting you until you admit you were wrong or you provide the reference and the verbatim quote of Darwin:

Alexis:
He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)