please let us be objective here. I have decided to ignore the seemingly obvious irrationality and insanity in the pioneer concept of evolution for the sake of objectivity. I have posted on this thread my creationism beliefs as seen in Genesis 1, which is what i expect u to either address or attack.
or better still u can as well adress the obvious differences between evolution and creationism.

Considering ur obvious reluctance to address the issues i have raised, it is wise on my part to reserve certain opinions, since u have the habit of digressing discussions to comfortable routine that leave no room for intellectual debate, analysis, argument and reasoning.
otherwise, address my concerns about the origin of life.

The bible verses were intended to warm u up and provoke an intellectual debate devoid of sentiments

2. Where are the intermediate life forms?

bawomolo:

simple question - what type of creationism do you believe in and how is creationism much more logical and rational than evolution. what are the evidence for Creationism besides the bible? Is the hindu version of creationism correct?

bawomolo:

again i request - what evidence do you have against evolution?

bawomolo:

i thought KAG answered this.

bawomolo:

there is nothing to debate, the bible is based on faith and neither logic nor rationality. The bible has no place has no place in a scientific debate. personally, i can easily argue Zeus created the earth. prove me wrong

davidylan:

TTE isnt based on either of the two above. Prove me wrong.

TTE isnt based on either of the two above. Prove me wrong.

And where is bawomolo who shows up to discuss things he doesnt know?

davidylan:

Answer my two earlier questions first. Its not the 3rd or 4th time you've used the same smokescreen to run away from serious debates on evolution that expose your own porous knowledge. I think TTE is a fraud, why then do you expect me to define it for you?

Would i be within limits to ask you to summarise the entire book of genesis too?

And where is bawomolo who shows up to discuss things he doesnt know?

bawomolo:

There are scientists researching evolution? yes or no? Fossils and the laboratory experiments you refuse to accept as evolution.I can't convince you if you believe shrimps from 400 million yrs ago are the same as the ones today.

davidylan:

1. Where did the first life forms from which evolution derives its ideas come from?

2. Where are the intermediate life forms?

davidylan:

Sorry to say but the above is daft reasoning. So because scientists are "researching evolution" means it must be true?
There are theologians also debating Genesis 1, do you also believe creationism is now true?

Fossils are the biggest problem TTE has today, because rather than show a gradual evolving of organisms, we have a sudden explosion of highly complex and diverse organisms. What was a baboon like before it evolved into what it is today? Why does a fern look exactly the same over 100 million yrs after?

Sorry, the shrimp of 400 million yrs ago is the same as that of today . . . even scientists are not bothering to contest that AT ALL so pls spare us the hare-brained nonsense you're spewing.

And what exactly is going on in those labs that prove evolution? perhaps you have your secret labs.

davidylan:

Sorry to say but the above is daft reasoning. So because scientists are "researching evolution" means it must be true?
There are theologians also debating Genesis 1, do you also believe creationism is now true?

Fossils are the biggest problem TTE has today, because rather than show a gradual evolving of organisms, we have a sudden explosion of highly complex and diverse organisms. What was a baboon like before it evolved into what it is today? Why does a fern look exactly the same over 100 million yrs after?

Sorry, the shrimp of 400 million yrs ago is the same as that of today . . . even scientists are not bothering to contest that AT ALL so pls spare us the hare-brained nonsense you're spewing.

And what exactly is going on in those labs that prove evolution? perhaps you have your secret labs.

huxley:

1) I don't know. And I don't think the scientific community have definitive answers yet, nor will it be possible to prove categorically where it came from

huxley:

2) I don't quite understand this. What is intermediate lifeform? Can you explain?

bawomolo:

Why do you use extreme words like "EXACTLY". go on with the insults all you want. It gets lame after a while. How is the shrimp of 400 million ago "EXACTLY" the same as the shrimp today.

bawomolo:

I believe evolution is a more reliable theory than creationism from what i have read.

bawomolo:

At least scientists have physical evidence to back their claim of evolution, what do creationists have. You refuse to admit genome evolution exists so what there to debate?

bawomolo:

How do you research "genesis" scientifically? Did God leave a blueprint somewhere?

bawomolo:

You didn't come here to debate, you came here to ridicule just like you do with muslims

And where has the "research" on evolution led you over a century now?

huxley:

This is just a plain travesty of reasoning.  Where does he get this figure from?  The Shrimp has NOT NOT NOT been around for 400 million years. You cannot base you argument on so fallacious a claim and think you can get away with it.  This is simply dishonest and wrong.

bawomolo:

an overwhelming scientific consensus?

If you are sure of disproving evolution, why haven't u published an article yet?

huxley:

You claim that Gen 1 is best understood in conjunction with Gen 2, but you fail to provide any explanation whatsoever as to how to derive the "true" meaning out of these.  I await such as you promise.

This is Genesis 2 4-6 below;

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Where does it say anything about the physical manifestation of LIGHT, replacing the SPIRIT manifestation of LIGHT?   Can you describe the mechanism by which spiritual light is replaced by physical light.

 Just as you ask for the full explanation for the scientist's origin for life, I nothing less that a full step-by-step account of how spiritual light is replaced by physical light.

NOPE, you are wrong.  A day is define as the period of time it takes for a planet to rotate about its axis.  Thus a day on the earth is 24 hours, but a day on pluto is not 24 hours but about 6.4 earth days.  In facts, some planets have days that are much much longer than their year (the period it takes a planet to revolve around the sun).

So when Genesis talks about days/nights, are these earth day, or are these days on the other planets?

By light we mean the physical entity constituted of photons or radiation that comes from the stars to illuminate things.  I don't mean it in a metaphorical sense.   If there were "days" before the sun was created, were these "days" meant to be a period of time illuminated by photons?  Where these photons from God or from some distance star?

Well, this question was quite simple, but you are getting more and more mired in your deception.  I thought you said god made the following lights - spiritual light and physical light from the sun.   Now you are adding a third light, the light from the moon into the picture.   Just think about it - the moon is a lump of rock.  The last time I checked it does not emit its own light and has never.

There was day and night on the first three days from the spirit. its physical manifestation was being awaited.  read Genesis 2: 4-6.

Yes you are right, the bible gives no account of the creation of the planets, consequently they (the planets) do not exist.

I simply asked why you accept The Gravitational Theory?  What evidence about this theory do you find the most pursuasive and how are you sure that the scientific community are not deceiving you about Gravity?

Now, can you deal with these, please?

1)   [b]What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused by the biological scientific community?  I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts.

2)  What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community?   If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it?

[/b]

Can evolution stand the test of intellectual objectivity when juxtaposed with creation?. . . . .the ball is in ur court.

davidylan:

why have you shied away from the simple 2 questions i asked? Why have you no physical or logical evidence to PROVE evolution?

You can scream all you like till next yr, the bare facts stare you in the face. Provide JUST ONE physical proof of evolution and i will NEVER come to the religion thread again.

u and ur fellow evolutionists have said nothing about the origin of life as postulated by evolutionist

noetic: forgive my "perceived misconceptions". I wrongly assumed u were intelligent enuf to discern my line of tots. no insults intended
 have u ever heard of a scientific fact?

Yes, and the theory of evolution deals with the evolution of life, not the origins of life. They are two different lines of of enquiry.

Possibly some type of class (or even classes) of protobiont preceded prokaryotes.
As for the second question you may need to be clearer to prevent misunderstanding. I'll answer it as best as I interpret it. If you mean to ask where the chemicals that could have played a part in the origin of life originate, then it's likely that some were formed with the formation of the earth, while others may have been caused or brought by extraterrestrial bodies (by extraterrestrial, I don't mean space monsters, I mean things like rocks that become meteorites, etc).

It doesn't. However, we can discuss abiogenesis while discussing evolution. The point is that it's more meaningful to realise that the two are separate fields, and thereby have different sets of data, etc.

me think u are short of ideas. . . . .  .no point pushing on.

bawomolo:

Primordial life most likely occurred through natural processes. what processes exactly i dont know

bawomolo:

Genome evolution in man-kind dealing with skin color and metabolism. What about humans gaining immunity to certain diseases endemic to their environments.

bawomolo:

A bacteria resisting antibiotics.

bawomolo:

I'm still waiting though, can a shrimp living today survive in the environment present 400 million years ago?

bawomolo:

isn't the dog an evolutionary diversion from the the wolf?

bawomolo:

Evolutionists don't postulate anything about the origin of life. All that amino acids stuff is in the field of abiogenesis. You'd know this if you spent less time reading the webster dictionary.

davidylan: err what "material" have you provided? Insults, grammatical verbiage and incoherent arguments? You seriously hold too high an opinion of urself.

1. On the issue of ERVs, most of you dont have ANY CLUE what they do, you are merely regurgitating the nonsense you read from anti-creationist websites. Answer me this simple question - we all know how exogenous RVs behave and that the vast majority of them are highly detrimental to the human cell (HIV, HSV, Marburg, Ebola to name a few) . . . why are ERVs completely different in mechanism of action? Why do we have ONLY ONE ERV active in humans which doesnt even replicate the alleged initial virus?

2. Dinosaur-Bird transitions is just pure nonsensical garbage again. . . typical of the clueless who hide their ignorance behind using bogus but high-fallutin words WITHOUT ANY ATTEMPT TO ELUCIDATE THEIR POSITION.

Shared Endogenous Retroviruses

davidylan:


Has bacteria evolved into a goat ever since? Why have bacteria remained phenotypically the same for millions of yrs?

1. Dont wait - help me figure out how these primordial forms appeared in the first place. You've been dodging everything i have asked of you tonight. Can you tell us what you looked like mid-way through evolution?

2. Can you pls tell us EXACTLY WHAT the environment looked like 400 million yrs ago pls? surely you know all these no?

Why has no other animal diverted from the wolf for the last thousands of yrs?

You'd know a lot more than this piffle if you even tried to read the dictionary. Abiogenesis is another lie on its own . . . but pls help us prove evolution first. Thank you. Can you help us with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the missing links above pls? you've been shouting that they exist since . . . seems you cant find them? I'm willing to wait.

KAG:

Your line of tots? I don't know your tots. I was, however, able to understand the thoughts you were trying to get across, whic is why I was able to respond adequately to them.

First, you assumed the theory of evolution had been around for 300 years. You were wrong on that. I gave the right time frame in my first response to you.

Second, you implied that a theory could be changed into something higher. You were wrong. etc.

Finally, to answer your question, theories - scientific theories - are what contain facts. Theories don't become facts, they have, instead, as part of their make-up facts and observations.
is that so??  Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh
there is no point debating evolution in relevance to creation, if i have to educate u on the subject u are supposed to be postulating.
Go n do ur home work.

It is so. I'm pretty sure you aren't capable of debating neither evolution nor creationism, so it's moot for you to suggest that you may be able to educate me on the subject. That is not an ad hominem, simply a statement on the capabilities you've displayed so far.
Your supposed knowledge of evolution truly amazes me.
hisses and walks away

Wonderful rebuttal.
depends on how u look at it. abiogenesis in reference to prokaryotes as the first inhabitants of the earth, is a claim buttressed by evolution.
So how do u intend to seperate this claim, which is the underlying basic of  evolution from the debate when evolution is compared to creationism.

No, abiogenesis isn't in reference to prokaryotes as the first inhabitants of the earth, [/b]etc. I don't no where you got that nonsense from, but it's wrong. In fact, what evolution - as in the theory of evolution - deals with is how species may have originated from life. Now, life is currently defined in a very strict way, and it's that criteria that is used to distinguish the study of speciation in biological entities. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily need biological entities. [b]However, if it can be determined how life started on earth, abiogenesis will come into contact with the theory of evolution, but it doesn't happen the other way round (i.e. the theory of evolution enroaching on abiogenesis)  

You're right, there's probably no point pushing on, mostly because you don't understand even the basics of the different theories that deal with separate aspects of human enquiries.

KAG:

On the issue of ERVs, I can't say with any certainty that others that accept the theory of evolution are clueless about "what they do". I can say with certainty, though, that YOU don't have any clue about them.

Okay, I hoped you'd have read Winace's write-up which was provided in the previous thread, but that was hoping for too much. So, I guess I summarise quickly some of the things he and I have previously stated.

First, to answer your question, endogenous retroviruses don't act like exoviruses because, surprise, endogenous retroviruses are the inherited remnants in the cells from previous failed viral attacks - it goes without saying that the failed viral attack has to be in germline cells. The exogenous ones aren't that. They are present attackers.

Accordingly, then, only an idiot would expect an endogenous retrovirus to "replicate the alleged initial virus".

Secondly, dude, just read up on the damn thing. I cringe every time you try to write a response on shared ERVs.

KAG:

Well, that's a fine refutation. Do you want to discuss dinosau-bird transitionals? Let's. We can start with archeopteryx. If it isn't a transitional, what then is it?

KAG:

Hey, if it's a tired old fraud, you shouldn't have any problems thoroughly refuting it. Have at it.

PS: my reference to 300 years is an exclamation of how long the lie has been going on, it has notin to do with accurate dates.

bawomolo:

I guess the evolutionary chain involves a bacteria turning into a goat.

bawomolo:

how do i know? the last time i checked i wasn't a million years old.  you seem to be obsessed with macro-evolution.

bawomolo:

definitely different from the environment we have today.  But hey the shrimp hasn't changed one bit and is EXACTLY the same

bawomolo:

animals like foxes, coyotes aren't signs of deviation from the wolf? A thousand years is a relatively small time considering how old life is on earth. Why are there different breeds of wolf, shouldn't they all be the same if there was no evolution.

bawomolo:

There is nothing to help you prove considering your stance in rigid. we aren't going anywhere with this.

noetic:

keep chatting shit and refuse to address the basic questions raised.

PS: my reference to 300 years is an exclamation of how long the lie has been going on, it has notin to do with accurate dates.

noetic:

keep chatting shit and refuse to address the basic questions raised.

PS: my reference to 300 years is an exclamation of how long the lie has been going on, it has notin to do with accurate dates.

KAG:

How quaint. I'm starting to notice a pattern here. Creationist asks a question. The question gets answered, usually line by line. Creationist responds with a handwave and something along the lines of "you are refusing to ddress the basic questions". Wash, rinse, reapeat.

So what were the basic questions that I missed from your original post?

P.S. Neither Darwin nor Wallace was alive 300 years ago.

davidylan:

Ah here we go with Mrs. KAG, when she gets lost its back to the refuge of dear old ERVs. Nevertheless she NEVER answers the direct questions regarding the validity of ERVs AT ALL.

Dont bother cringing . . . much of the nonsense you have written is just what it is - desperate hogwash coated with insults and personality attacks. Its the usual we have come to expect from KAG.

First, to answer your question, endogenous retroviruses don't act like exoviruses because, surprise, endogenous retroviruses are the inherited remnants in the cells from previous failed viral attacks - it goes without saying that the failed viral attack has to be in germline cells. The exogenous ones aren't that. They are present attackers.

The portion in bold is an EXACT EXAMPLE of the problem . . . affirmative positions based on SPECULATION AND ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF! Why dont we see these "failed viral attacks" anymore that integrate into the genome and are inherited?

Typical - they hide when you bring questions, prefering to run into their sanctuaries of plagiarised web material. Pls show us ONE SHRED OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of intermediate life forms . . . thank you. We are tired of hearing stories.

Its your job to prove evolution is true, its mine to hang unto creationism . . . both depend on faith and belief anyway.