alexis:
AgentOfAllah



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.

LOL... Pointing out the flaw in your self-referential question has nothing to do with semantics. It's a cognitive failure on your part. Your question simply makes no sense. Stop being arrogant and accept correction when you're wrong.

alexis:

Of everything listed there - are they different animals? Is a Liger not a CAT

alexis:
Sorry Boss - the same cocky attitude you employ when you want to avoid addressing the main questions I posted

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:

Good, now tell me why a cheetah can't crossbreed with a lion or a tiger, or why domestic cats can't crossbreed with big cats. Following your argument, they are all cats after all, not different "KIND"

alexis:
AgentOfAllah
You see the same cocky attitude I am talking about? I gave you an example. Darwin was a Christian; Darwin never said it verbatim in his book but historical records show that he was at one point a Christian. So, you can keep repeating the same rub.bi.sh; it doesn't make any difference

So basically, you don't have any reference for the words you attributed to Darwin. You sir, harped on and on with certainty about how Darwin said life came from non-life, You sir, fabricated lies against Darwin, hoping to win cheap argument points, then balked under a simple request for reference. You have no coherence, credibility and integrity.

AgentOfAllah:

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.


The emboldened has nothing to do with theory of evolution.


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


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!

Yes, it's work in progress.

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

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


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

AgentOfAllah:

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.


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

alexis:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/polar_essay1.jsp[/url]

Read what the National Science Foundation quoted Darwin as saying in a letter written in 1871 to botanist Joseph Hooker, Darwin envisioned:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”

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

"Indeed, a careful examination and critical reading of his [Darwin's] public and private writings shows that what appear to be contradictory opinions on the problem of the emergence of life are the result of texts read out of context, sometimes maliciously, as shown by some publications of creationist groups and advocates of the so-called intelligent design."

Misogynist2014:
If you read the genesis account well, you will see for certain that there was water and land and that means the earth existed before the 6 days of creation.

If evolution were actually true, it won't still remain a theory.

As per the case of Adam and his eve, its a detailed historical record, which can answer any question except the evolution hoax.

Let me ask you a question: does nothing exist?

EMILO2STAY:
mr silly evolutionist do i need a Dna test to prove that a mango fruit came from a mango tree?

the fact that living things only produce according to their kinds with similar characteristics is more than enough proof even a two year old child knows it.

we share similar genes with cows , dogs, cats, banana and potatos but are yet to withness any produce something different from what they are.

Mr Mumu indoctrinated evolutionist If u think u are so learned in evolution why dont u provide me with a fossil of a potato evolving into fish.

Silly people like u think giving millions of year a dog running around building materials with a hammer tied to its tail will build a mansion.

alexis:

Dude, they can't naturally cross-breed just the same way a tiger can't naturally cross-breed with a lion. It has to be done in a lab. A Saint Bernard can't naturally cross-breed with a Cheewawa but they are DOGs - the level of your stupi.dity astonishes me

My question wasn't that of nature, but of possibility. It is possible to crossbreed a lion and a tiger, wether naturally or unnaturally, with an offspring, and you said this is possible because they are of the same kind (I.e., cats). I asked you why cheetahs can't crossbreed with lions and tigers in the same way lions and tigers crossbreed. After all, cheetahs are also cats.

The theory of evolution can give you a coherent reason why such curious crossbreeding phenomenon sometimes happens. The explanation is thus: These animals share the same ancestry. Some are much further divided on the evolutionary clad than others. So, even though lions, cheetahs, tigers and domestic cats are all cats, some are much closer to the common ancestor than others, so they produce offsprings (albeit sterile, but occasionally fertile too), while those that are distant are completely cross-cladistically sterile. This would explain why humans cannot crossbreed with other apes for example, but this does not make our claim to a common ancestry any less legitimate than the claim a cheetah has to being a cat, in spite of the fact that it cannot crossbreed with lions and tigers.

The very existence of hybrid species is evidence in itself of evolution. Otherwise, you'll have to give a better scientific explanation than "because they are cats" as to why tigers and lions, which are so obviously different from each other, can crossbreed; because not all cats crossbreed.

Mind you, all domestic dog species can crossbreed. The problem between a Chihuahua and a saint Bernard is not that of genetic impossibility, it is of a physical nature. Obviously, a female Chihuahua will not cope under the circumstances, but vice versa, it will most definitely work.

Good...what took you so long?

Darwin was a naturalist, so, naturally, he did believe that it was probable that life emerged from non-life, but he was always very clear that this was just a conjecture, not science. This sentiment was most eloquently conveyed in a letter he wrote to Julius Viktor Carus. You'll find reference to this letter in pages 34-35 of the NCBI link. In it, he said:

But for all his conjectures and hopes, one thing is irrefutably true about Darwin. He saw a clear distinction between the question of origin of species and that of the origin of life. To him, these were fundamentally different questions, and he believed his theory of evolution answered only the former, not the latter. You'll find this theme in many of his correspondences. An example of this was a letter he wrote to George Wallich in 1882 (NCBI, Pg 35)

Having been presented with the facts about Darwin's theory, I hope you will now be humble enough to admit you were wrong, and desist from torturing us with your fabrications.

AgentOfAllah:

Yes, Yahweh also created the earth before the sun according to genesis. How can the earth exist without a sun to orbit? By balancing its centripetal and centrifugal forces

Yes, likewise, if the theory of electromagnetism were true, it wouldn't still remain a theory. It remains a theory, hence everything from your internet, to your mobile phones, to your eyes and your microwave oven is a big lie!!! A theory might be true for most cases but not all cases that is why most useful theories remain as theories. Did I just see you compare evolution with magnetism? We can test and feel the effects of magnetism, but can we text evolution which occured when we weren't born? Doing that will take the combination of facts and fiction.

Hahaha you're cute!
I've heard that so many times, but as a man, its the least of my worries.
Define nothing? noun
1.
no thing; not anything; naught:
to say nothing.
2.
no part, share, or trace (usually followed byof):
The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
noun
3.
something that is nonexistent.
4.
nonexistence; nothingness:
The sound faded to nothing.
5.
something or someone of no importance or significance:
Money is nothing when you're without health.
8.
something that is without quantity or magnitude.

Yes, Yahweh also created the earth before the sun according to genesis. How can the earth exist without a sun to orbit? By balancing its centripetal and centrifugal forces

AgentOfAllah:
Aaah!! The tyranny of the ignorant mind is relentless. I'll leave the readers to determine who the disingenuous and incoherent babbler is.

Aaah!! The tyranny of the ignorant mind is relentless.

I'll leave the readers to determine who the disingenuous and incoherent babbler is.

alexis:
AgentOfAllah
Coming from someone who is still trying to prove humans came from an amoeba!

Actually, in a reasonable world, YOU are the one who is in the position to prove your point. Evolution is proven, whether you like it or not. So if we are realistic you would have to prove why it is not true, which of course you can't, because you don't even understand the basics of it and secodly even those who do understand it have not been able to falsify it the past 150 years..

alexis:
Liekiller
I am continually amazed at how eagerly some embrace the evolution theory which proposes that eons of time passes while creatures make the minute changes that eventually makes them into a new creature. With those billions of changes, surely there would be billions of examples in the fossil record of intermediate species or billions of examples we can easily reproduce. There is however, not one example of an intermediate specimen. We find some extinct species fossils, we continue to find formerly unknown species fossils, but still no intermediate fossils. Why do you think that is? Because Charlie's theory is simply imagination.

Liekiller:


More lies. There are loads of transitional fossils. Furthermore EVERY species could be considered "intermediate" since the change is GRADUAL and does not stop at some point or jump from one form to a radically different form. Every form is therefore in between the previous and the next form. Apart from that you don't seem to understand the process of fossilization, else you'd easily see why you can't expect to find "billions" of fossils for every branch of the tree.

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

alexis:


You keep talking without presenting a complete example. You keep saying I don't know what I am talking about. Can you please provide an example of a fossil record showing how one biological group "evolved" into another biological group with different properties showing complete transitional and gradual change at each stage for us to study.

Please make sure there are no near absence of intermediaries; also explain in stages the Cambrian explosion and how they actually came about step by step to put things into perspective. If you want more information about it, read up what Darwin said on the cambrian explosion

alexis:

The Chordata phylum doesn't prove anything Bros, jelly fishes are not vertebrates yet considered fishes.

AgentOfAllah:
Another reason to ignore you. You think a jellyfish is a fish, when actually, it is a zooplankton. This is the same person trying to debate evolution, and he doesn't even know the basics. I guess you've never heard of the word "misnomer" before. I would be shocked if you don't think seahorses are actual horses.

alexis:
My mistake. My intent was to state that jellyfishes are not vetebrates as humans yet the claim that we are all came from a single organism doesn't hold water. I admit that I made an error.

alexis:
A human can mate with a chimp but it will never produce an off-spring because we ARE NOT OF THE SAME KIND.

alexis:

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.

AgentOfAllah:

Good, now tell me why a cheetah can't crossbreed with a lion or a tiger, or why domestic cats can't crossbreed with big cats. Following your argument, they are all cats after all, not different "KIND"

alexis:

Dude, they can't naturally cross-breed just the same way a tiger can't naturally cross-breed with a lion. It has to be done in a lab. A Saint Bernard can't naturally cross-breed with a Cheewawa but they are DOGs - the level of your stupi.dity astonishes me

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

1. Life came from non-life: I will leave this bone for you to crack later

alexis:
“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond...

AgentOfAllah:
Supposing I say "if (and oh! What a big if) meatballs lived in the sky, we can conceive of meatballs raining". Does that mean I have said: "there are meatballs in the sky that rain"?

alexis:
This is what Darwinism is all about - all different KINDs of species originated from one single specie which originated from a non-life. Now, you are here twisting your words and saying otherwise.

AgentOfAllah:
But for all his conjectures and hopes, one thing is irrefutably true about Darwin. He saw a clear distinction between the question of origin of species and that of the origin of life. To him, these were fundamentally different questions, and he believed his theory of evolution answered only the former, not the latter.

alexis:
I never denied that, I said in addition to the evolution of life and species he supported, he also referred to the possibility of life from non-life.

alexis:
Stupi.dity at it's highest.

Your stupi.dity transcends any kind of help

alexis:
the level of your stupi.dity astonishes me

alexis:
You are so daft. Stupi.dity at it highest.

alexis:
Cha - stupi.dity at it's pinnacle

alexis:
Cha - stupi.dity on a whole new level.

alexis:
Idio.ts like you decide to put your reasoning in the trash-bag when it comes to matters of science.

so far, you have been successful at showing your public stupid.ity than your scientific claims.

Your stupi.di.ty is beginning to offend me

Stop insisting on being stup.id man.

Cha - mumuness no good oh.

Peterken05:
So some people still never understand evolution?

i salute you sir, Agentofallah.

You've done a great job here.

He called Jellyfish a fish

He claimed all animals don't have the same ancestry, and that the inability of different kinds to produce off-springs when they mate is proof of this claim: I said okay, explain the existence of hybrid species like Lion+Tiger=Liger. His response? I said hmmm...let's add a cheetah to the equation then, why is it that Lion+Cheetah=/=Litah or Cheetah+Tiger=/=Cheegar? I got no coherent explanation, just this: Pretending my question had anything to do with natural crossbreeding, or, perhaps, suffering from a case of selective cognitive disorder.

He relentlessly fabricated lies against Darwin, asserting that Darwin said life emerged from non-life: After persistently pressing him to provide verbatim evidence of Darwin making such a profound remark, he provided this: To scrutinise his perverse logic, I asked a simple question: I got no response, just tactless maneuvers.

He claimed evolution was all about the abiogenesis of matter into diverse lifeforms: . Diligently, I called him out on his misleading characterisation of the theory as follows: And then in his typical mendacious manner, his words transmogrified!!! More artless maneuverings!!! This is how a few words can cause the meaning of a statement to evolve. Obviously, Darwin never knew the origin of life, nor did he claim or pretend to know. In fact, he frequently clarified that his work had nothing to do with the origin of life, and even wrote against a scientist in his lifetime, who argued that he should have included the origin of life in his work.