Theists Logic, please people read slowly


- The big bang cannot just come from nothing, but God comes from nothing. Don't question it, just accept it.

- Other species cannot become a new species but God a spirit can become physical. You just have to believe it. Yet we can't see him.

- Evolution, despite the resemblance we have with other species can't be true at all, but God can wave his hands and then the universe will appear from nothing without building anything. Once again, you cannot just question it.

- Our God is not a magician, but we he likes making things appear and disappear. He can create light without the sun.

- Our God is not a wicked God, neither is he evil, but he doesn't have a problem killing innocent firstborns in Egypt. Although, he knew very well that some firstborns would have been little children and old folks.

- Oh well, what do you know? Our God is just and he judges rightly, although he is unable to ascertain the difference between a criminal and an innocent, he can punish children for the sins their parents committed. Just accept it.

- our God doesn't make mistakes, although he once used water to erase many of the mistakes he made. Please, once again, don't question

- Our God can kill whenever he likes, but he does not want to kill Satan. But don't question it because he can kill you.

- And all these are above science, although science is responsible for what we are enjoying now. And if you read the book of Isaiah and revelations, you will be able to tell the future. You can even create the next technology by praying and reading the Bible only, the Bible is full of knowledge.

Akin1212:


Viruses are not considered dead either. As a matter of fact, that is another fact that RNA world existed in times past.

That there are viruses which have RNA-based genomes in a DNA world does not prove that there was a time when all life forms had RNA as their genetic materials, just like finding people who still store water with only cups in a world where water is stored in buckets does not prove that there was a time when everyone stored water with only cups.

It all depends on the environmental conditions available. When viruses invade a living system they become living organisms by carrying out replication and other characteristics of life. This alone gives the possibility of RNA life, and it remains undisputed.

You are going straw man again by comparing non-living things to living things when evolution is concerned.

Let me ask you, sir, how do you do it? How do you decide to argue unintellectually? It bemuses me that you cannot see what's before you. How can you even comprehend a bucket and a cup as beings who can evolve? Your ignorance is legendary sir.

In light of this obvious and amusing ignorance, I come to the conclusion that you are not really worthy of intelligent discussion.

I would be wasting my time going back and forth with you, every part of science you have quoted are not even understood by you. You don't even argue rationally.

One thing that describes stress in this life is arguing/discussing with people who don't know what they are doing.

I ask you again: do organisms evolve? You talk as if evolution has been proven, and that organisms definitely evolve. You're yet to show me a unicellular organism in the process of becoming a multicellular one.

When you asserted that water makes proteins fall apart was when I noticed I may be having an intellectual intercourse with novice, you further confirmed it when you repeated it.

Let me clear this once and for all for the sake of people who want to learn.

A reaction that eliminates water can proceed forward in the presence of water. Such reaction is an acid and a base reaction.
Both acids and bases are always in aqueous solutions. That is the molecules in water, when they react they still produce salt and water.
That is if the total volume of water is 10cm3 before the reaction it increases to eg 15cm3 after the reaction.

The same thing goes for the polymerization of amino acids. It proceeds forward in the presence of water.

This is accounted for by the solubility property of proteins. For goodness sake proteins are soluble, and proteins don't break up into amino acids when they are in water as stated by the pseudo-scientist I am discussing with.

If proteins are not soluble, then we are dead. It is very clear that theists are turning science upside down to prove that their imaginary friend and sky daddy exists. They have failed woefully.

Where have I claimed that proteins are not soluble in water? Or you just want to feel good by demolishing the strawman which you have erected?

For someonewho claims to be a biochemist, I find you really ignorant. Proteins can react with water, breaking down into their amino acid building blocks.
protein + water →◊amino acids
This reaction is extremely slow unless a catalyst is added. When the catalyst is HCl, the reaction requires several days to complete, but when the catalyst is a digestive enzyme, the reaction is complete within an hour. https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/proteins-react-water-breaking-amino-acid-building-blocks-pro-chapter-6-problem-88qp-solution-9781285430232-exc

Wikipedia says that the uncatalysed hydrolysis of peptide bonds is extremely slow, taking hundreds of years. That establishes the fact that water can break down proteins into their component amino acids(even though it may be slow). The billions of years you evolutionists tout makes the problem even worse, because their is more than enough time for water to break down the peptide bonds between any two amino acids which may try to form a dipeptide(before they even proceed to oligopeptides, and then to proteins, which are polypeptides), in the primitive ocean. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteolysis

Although water is portrayed by some "scientists" as the key to how life came to be, the fact is that water spontaneously breaks down complex molecules that living organisms need to exist: such as DNA,* RNA, proteins and their components.** For example, an article on Molecular Cloning says that:

"Proteins are usually soluble in water solutions because they have hydrophilic (i.e. water-attracting) amino acids on their surfaces." 1

Amino acids have been called the building blocks of life, and when two or more are joined together they are called a peptide and the bond that holds them together is a peptide bond. When ten or more are linked up they may be called a polypeptide, and if they are ordered and folded correctly, they become a protein. In this regard, a wikipedia article on peptide bonds tells us that:

"a peptide bond can be broken by ... hydrolysis" *** (just by) ... "adding ... water" ... (and that the) ... bonds in proteins are metastable, meaning that in the presence of water they will break spontaneously." 2

Another article on this topic 3 says that hydrolysis is:

"A chemical reaction in which water is used to break the bonds of certain substances. In ... living organisms, these substances are often ... such as ... between two amino acids in a protein ... "

A. E. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D. (organic chemistry), said the following with regard to the problems associated with life beginning in water in a book on life's complexity.4

"Amino acids and other building blocks present in the macromolecules of living matter aggregate to form larger units ... by ... (a reaction) called condensation.**** The combinations usually involve the elimination of one molecule of water between two combining molecules. It is the removal of this molecule ... which presents the major difficulty ... For ... (to do so) requires energy ..."

"A further difficulty arises in this ... elimination of water. For, in the prebiotic world, it is assumed that the condensation reaction took place in the presence of a large ... (supply) of water which would tend, according to the law of mass action, to hinder the condensation process and ... (promote) decomposition (or breakdown of peptides and polypeptides) ... The more water, the less condensation."

"If the reaction is to proceed in the direction of the dipeptide, (or two amino acids joined together) ... the water molecule ... (that results) must be removed from the reaction ... since the reaction is reversible. If it is not removed ... (it will) hydrolyze (or separate) the dipeptide back ... to the (individual) constituent amino acids ..." Emphasis Added

This means the "primordial soup," or "warm little pond" where Darwin speculated that life began could not have been simply water, since it would "hydrolyze" or break down complex molecules back to their original amino acids as soon as they formed. Dr. Charles McCombs explains the problem as follows in an article called life by chance.

"Every time one component reacts with a second component forming the polymer, the chemical reaction also forms water as a byproduct ... There is a rule of chemical reactions ... called the Law of Mass Action that says all reactions proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration. This means that any reaction that produces water cannot be performed in the presence of water. This Law of Mass Action provides a total hindrance to protein, DNA/RNA, and polysaccharide formation because even if the condensation took place, the water from a supposed primordial soup would immediately hydrolyze them. Thus, if they are formed according to evolutionary theory, the water would have to be removed ... which is impossible in a 'watery' soup." 5 Emphasis Added

But because the "watery soup" in living cells is surrounded by a membrane, the "water" inside the cell "behaves very differently" 6 than ordinary water. In fact, the "water" in a cell is not water but a blend of water, amino acids, proteins, and many other chemicals called cytosol. This mixture is the result of the DNA's ability to regulate what goes in and out of the cell -- via numerous channels that control and regulate what is allowed to pass through the cell membrane, and thus maintain a favorable environment and PH for DNA, RNA and protein synthesis and for life itself to exist.

If the concentration of amino acids is high enough, some of them will link up with others to form dipeptides and tripeptides. An article on this subject states that:

"It is important to recognize that by whatever reactions polymerization (or the joining of amino acids) occurred, they had to be reactions that would occur in an ... aqueous environment. This presents difficulties because condensation of amino acids to form peptides, or of nucleotides to form RNA or DNA, is not ... favorable in aqueous (or water) solution. {6}

"The explanation for this is partly that the concentration of amino acids decreases as amino acids form pairs (called dipeptides) in a solution. This decreased concentration causes the velocity of the peptide synthesis reaction to slow down, and some dipeptides begin breaking up, again becoming single amino acids. The solution reaches equilibrium when just as many dipeptides dissociate as associate. A very tiny fraction of the dipeptides add another amino acid to form a tripeptide. ... Oligopeptides (Oligo=few) and polypeptides (poly=many) will form only very rarely. Tripeptides dissociate faster than dipeptides in the same solution" 7

In this regard, a tripeptide has only three amino acids, while the simplest protein has eight.

Another writer on the evolution of life from non-life says this with regard to the primeval soup.

Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.18 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began.

http://www.earthage.org/is_water_the_solution.htm

@op,

Question 13 is "imbecilic"(I can't find a better word to describe it)!!!

These are the scientific advances!!!

1. •Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
2. •Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
3. •Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
4. •Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
5. •Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
6. •Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).
7. •Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
8. •Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
9. •Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
10. •Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
11. •Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).

Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
12. •enzymes (Arnold 2001)
13. •pigments (Arnold 2001)
14. •antibiotics
15. •flavors
16. •biopolymers
17. •bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
18. Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2]

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[5] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[6] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[6][7]

Read More https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

This is what DoctorAlien and Hermosa7, which are both the same person has resorted to. Please knowledge seekers, be wise.

Akin1212:
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2]

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[5] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[6] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[6][7]

Read More https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

This is what DoctorAlien and Hermosa7, which are both the same person has resorted to. Please knowledge seekers, be wise.

The story that all life arose from a single cell in the ocean is not pseudoscience, right?

Oh! You have now resorted to claiming that I am Hermosa7?

DoctorAlien:


The story that all life arose from a single cell in the ocean is not pseudoscience, right?

Oh! You have now resorted to claiming that I am Hermosa7?

Do you now want to discuss using your mind without quoting other people's long articles?

That you are Hermosa7 is not a claim, it's the fact but that's not my problem.

And the claim that all life arose from a single cell is not pseudoscience, all you need do is learn science because you don't know it.

[s]

Akin1212:


Do you now want to discuss using your mind without quoting other people's long articles?

That you are Hermosa7 is not a claim, it's the fact but that's not my problem.

And the claim that all life arose from a single cell is not pseudoscience, all you need do is learn science because you don't know it.

[/s]

C R A P !

Was I discussing with my leg before?

Have you not always quoted Wikipedia? As far as the argument is not faulty, it doesn't matter who it is coming from.

I must note that you're a typical Nairaland atheist. Their cop out mechanism is to begin to accuse other people of multiple identities.

DoctorAlien:
[s][/s]

C R A P !

Was I discussing with my leg before?

Have you not always quoted Wikipedia? As far as the argument is not faulty, it doesn't matter who it is coming from.

I must note that you're a typical Nairaland atheist. Their cop out mechanism is to begin to accuse other people of multiple identities.

You can note whatever you want to note, it doesn't change anything.

Yes, you have been copying irrelevant articles from the internet and pasting it into this argument.

Quoting Wikipedia and copying Wikipedia are two different things. I only quote Wikipedia to buttress my points and not copy-paste the whole article.

I have carried out polymerization in the presence of water, the reaction proceeded in the forward reaction but slowly, hence the need for a catalyst( an enzyme in a living system).

On the other hand, you don't know neither have you carried out polymerization reactions before in your life, so you're just copying false claims and pasting here.

Akin1212:


You can note whatever you want to note, it doesn't change anything.

Yes, you have been copying irrelevant articles from the internet and pasting it into this argument.

Quoting Wikipedia and copying Wikipedia are two different things. I only quote Wikipedia to buttress my points and not copy-paste the whole article.

I have carried out polymerization in the presence of water, the reaction proceeded in the forward reaction but slowly, hence the need for a catalyst( an enzyme in a living system).

On the other hand, you don't know neither have you carried out polymerization reactions before in your life, so you're just copying false claims and pasting here.

And by chance there came along THE PERFECT catalyst to complete the process right?

By the way how many times did this unguided process of nature keep trying out different catalysts under PERFECT polymerization conditions until it found the right one?

Humour me.

You must be a bet9ja fanatic.

Akin1212:


You can note whatever you want to note, it doesn't change anything.

Yes, you have been copying irrelevant articles from the internet and pasting it into this argument.

Quoting Wikipedia and copying Wikipedia are two different things. I only quote Wikipedia to buttress my points and not copy-paste the whole article.

I have carried out polymerization in the presence of water, the reaction proceeded in the forward reaction but slowly, hence the need for a catalyst( an enzyme in a living system).

On the other hand, you don't know neither have you carried out polymerization reactions before in your life, so you're just copying false claims and pasting here.

Polymerization reactions, especially the one that forms peptide bonds are reversible. Polymerization could occur in the presence of water, but only when the concentrations of the monomers are high. If the concentration of water is high (e.g. the primordial soup in the ocean claimed by evolutionists), the law of mass action demands that the reaction proceed in the reverse direction, and the polymer formed would be broken down into monomers again.

DoctorAlien:


Polymerization reactions, especially the one that forms peptide bonds are reversible. Polymerization could occur in the presence of water, but only when the concentrations of the monomers are high. If the concentration of water is high (e.g. the primordial soup in the ocean claimed by evolutionists), the law of mass action demands that the reaction proceed in the reverse direction, and the polymer formed would be broken down into monomers again.

That guy watches too many science fiction movies.

butterflyl1on:


That guy watches too many science fiction movies.

He claims to be a biochemist.

DoctorAlien:


He claims to be a biochemist.

A biochemist with a degree in pseudo science aka science fiction.

DoctorAlien:


Polymerization reactions, especially the one that forms peptide bonds are reversible. Polymerization could occur in the presence of water, but only when the concentrations of the monomers are high. If the concentration of water is high (e.g. the primordial soup in the ocean claimed by evolutionists), the law of mass action demands that the reaction proceed in the reverse direction, and the polymer formed would be broken down into monomers again.

The polymerization reaction of amino acids is not reversible in the presence of WATER. The reversibility of polymerized amino acids, which is also called denaturation takes place in the presence of acid, heat, and enzymes. Water does not reverse polymerization, I repeat. You cannot turn science upside down, you just can't. You should know that. These are processes that have been demonstrated millions of times in the laboratory.
You cannot disprove them on Nairaland.
The conservation of mass or law of mass action does not apply here. The law only applies when you are talking about the mass a compound and the individual mass of the constituents, and the law of mass action proposes that the rate of a chemical reaction is directly proportional to the product of the activities or concentrations of the reactants. However, WATER is not a reactant in the polymerization of AMINO ACIDS, it is a product and hence can be added to more water in the solution. Or are you saying water cannot be added to water? Are you saying protein(the product of polymerization of amino acids) will become amino acids when in water?

My brother, don't let your brain run riot because you want to disprove evolution, it cannot be disproved by pseudoscience. I can meet up with you and then we will carry out polymerization of amino acids, if you don't mind.

butterflyl1on:


And by chance there came along THE PERFECT catalyst to complete the process right?

By the way how many times did this unguided process of nature keep trying out different catalysts under PERFECT polymerization conditions until it found the right one?

Humour me.

You must be a bet9ja fanatic.

Why are you surprised? Didn't your so-called intelligent designer come by chance and started waving his hands saying let there be this and let there be that? Excuse you.

It took the unguided nature as many times as it took your imaginary intelligent designer to make so many mistakes. Or this universe seems perfect to you? You are twice as dumb as god.

butterflyl1on:


That guy watches too many science fiction movies.

Science fiction is better than the passion of christ, the religion fiction.

butterflyl1on:


That guy watches too many science fiction movies.

Science fiction is better than the passion of christ movie, the religion fiction.

butterflyl1on:


A biochemist with a degree in pseudo science aka science fiction.

Do you have problems with the use of English or understanding it?

Science supports evolution, pseudoscience doesn't. Think about the rest.

Akin1212:


Why are you surprised? Didn't your so-called intelligent designer come by chance and started waving his hands saying let there be this and let there be that? Excuse you.

It took the unguided nature as many times as it took your imaginary intelligent designer to make so many mistakes. Or this universe seems perfect to you? You are twice as dumb as god.

You are being unneccesarily insultive and volatile all of a sudden. All I did was ask a simple question which I expected you to have a ready made answer for since you seem to have one ready for everything.

Obviously this particular question I asked can never produce an answer from you since its a mystery which as we know evolutionists try to use a lot of assumptions and stories to fill in the blanks.

My question was strictly about nature and her evolutionary tendencies which you subscribe to and not about a nature Vs God comparison.

Keep your head on your shoulder and stop wringing your hair.

Akin1212:


Do you have problems with the use of English or understanding it?

Science supports evolution, pseudoscience doesn't. Think about the rest.

Science does not exist alone. Science is made up of scientists. Without scientists there would be no science and last time I checked, these scientists who make up science as it were are still more or less divided about evolution.

A lot of them have even called evolution a night time fairy tale. Do your research.

butterflyl1on:



You are being unneccesarily insultive and volatile all of a sudden. All I did was ask a simple question which I expected you to have a ready made answer for since you seem to have one ready for everything.

Obviously this particular question I asked can never produce an answer from you since its a mystery which as we know evolutionists try to use a lot of assumptions and stories to fill in the blanks.

My question was strictly about nature and her evolutionary tendencies which you subscribe to and not about a nature Vs God comparison.

Keep your head on your shoulder and stop wringing your hair.

Why are you seeing the truth as insults? I don't know how to insult people, I only told you the truth about yourself, deal with it, bro.
In fact, I gave you the perfect answer since you're the one rooting for perfection. Evolutionists do not preach perfection, you creationists do, that's why I answered by the ridiculous perfection you believe in.
There is no mystery to me when it comes to Evolution and abiogenesis, you are the one who is confused about the whole thing and you have decided to fill the gaps with God, I don't blame you, seriously, it's what a dumb person would do.

I guess you have made a wrong use of the "assumption," science is based on empirical facts and tested theories, on the other hand, some dumb people assumed there is a god without evidence and theories. The fossil records alone disproves creation, what would a dumb person think?

And please, don't let the word dumb annoy you, that is what you seem like right now, it's just the truth and not an insult.

Akin1212:


Why are you seeing the truth as insults? I don't know how to insult people, I only told you the truth about yourself, deal with it, bro.
In fact, I gave you the perfect answer since you're the one rooting for perfection. Evolutionists do not preach perfection, you as a creationists do, that's why I answered by the ridiculous perfection you believe in.
There is no mystery to me when it comes to Evolution and abiogenesis, you are the one who is confused about the whole thing and you have decided to fill the gaps with God, I don't blame you, seriously, it's what a dumb person would do.

I guess you have made a wrong use of the "assumption," science is based on empirical facts and tested theories, on the other hand, some dumb people assumed there is a god without evidence and theories. The fossil records alone disproves creation, what would a dumb person think?

And please, don't let the word dumb annoy you, that is what you seem like right now, it's just the truth and not an insult.

The fact is that despite knowing you are dumber than expected I chose to apply a herculean effort to bridle my tongue and stop myself from calling you so.

However you wish to force feed me with your assumption of me being dumb simply because I oppose your position. I wonder when opposition now translates to being dumb. I guess your head definitely isn't screwed on right. And indeed it wasnt when you said I was as dumb as my god. I would let that slide though because I despise rolling in the mud with you especially since I noticed you love it down there.

So back on track. Where are the facts about the origin of life without the use of words like PROBABLY, ASSUME, COULD HAVE BEEN, PERHAPS, I THINK, ETC. All words of assumption.

Plus where are the facts about the fossil records backed up by the MISSING LINKS and the ANCESTORS of these so called fossils as fact.

Humour me further

butterflyl1on:


Science does not exist alone. Science is made up of scientists. Without scientists there would be no science and last time I checked, these scientists who make up science as it were are still more or less divided about evolution.

A lot of them have even called evolution a night time fairy tale. Do your research.

It seems you have been doing a lot of research lately. Science does not exist alone, and Pseudoscience exists alone? What nonsense.
Where do you leave DoctorAlien who is a renowned Pseudoscientist?

Science is a study, and there are disagreements between scientists, this is largely because so many scientists are also believers in the fairy tale god, and they don't want to let go. However, lap proceedings distinguish what is true and what is false. Nobody wants to share ancestors with Chimpanzees, so we have to establish the truth.

Speaking of disagreement, I guess you can explain the large number of sects of up to 44 thousand in Christianity alone, talk more of more than 5 thousand different religions. Don't you all believe in God?

If you want to use the disagreement of scientists on evolution as a point, then you better start explaining the disagreement of theists of God and religion, don't tell me you are lost.

And wait, didn't the Pope say recently that you people should start believing the big bang and evolution?

The only mistake he made was when he use believing instead of knowing.

butterflyl1on:


The fact is that despite knowing you are dumber than expected I chose to apply a herculean effort to bridle my tongue and stop myself from calling you so.

However you wish to force feed me with your assumption of me being dumb simply because I oppose your position. I wonder when opposition now translates to being dumb. I guess your head definitely isn't screwed on right. And indeed it wasnt when you said I was as dumb as my god. I would let that slide though because I despise rolling in the mud with you especially since I noticed you love it down there.

So back on track. Where are the facts about the origin of life without the use of words like PROBABLY, ASSUME, COULD HAVE BEEN, PERHAPS, I THINK, ETC. All words of assumption.

Plus where are the facts about the fossil records backed up by the MISSING LINKS and the ANCESTORS of these so called fossils as fact.

Humour me further

You may try hard as you can to repudiate the fact that you are dumb, it doesn't elevate the level of your dumbness a bit. And if you see it as an insult, you can report the case to any Sars you know, or better still tell your god, he may fight for you

Science, of course, would not lie, nor reach a conclusion as a study which insists on 100% accuracy. Hence the use of words which represent likelihood and not an assumption as you have understood it, of course dumbly once again.

Since you a researcher, why don't you do your own research on fossil records, or you asked so I may bring them to your house?

Akin1212:


It seems you have been doing a lot of research lately. Science does not exist alone, and Pseudoscience exists alone? What nonsense.
Where do you leave DoctorAlien who is a renowned Pseudoscientist?

Science is a study, and there are disagreements between scientists, this is largely because so many scientists are also believers in the fairy tale god, and they don't want to let go. However, lap proceedings distinguish what is true and what is false. Nobody wants to share ancestors with Chimpanzees, so we have to establish the truth.

Speaking of disagreement, I guess you can explain the large number of sects of up to 44 thousand in Christianity alone, talk more of more than 5 thousand different religions. Don't you all believe in God?

If you want to use the disagreement of scientists on evolution as a point, then you better start explaining the disagreement of theists of God and religion, don't tell me you are lost.

And wait, didn't the Pope say recently that you people should start believing the big bang and evolution?

The only mistake he made was when he use believing instead of knowing.

You are all over the place. Get yourself organised and stop swaying like a drunk ninja.

We are talking exclusively science and you are trying too hard to switch this to Church and denomination talk?

What in blazes has that got to do with this discussion and my question?

Akin1212:


You may try hard as you can to repudiate the fact that you are dumb, it doesn't elevate the level of your dumbness a bit. And if you see it as an insult, you can report the case to any Sars you know, or better still tell your god, he may fight for you

Science, of course, would not lie, nor reach a conclusion as a study which insists on 100% accuracy. Hence the use of words which represent likelihood and not an assumption as you have understood it, of course dumbly once again.

Since you a researcher, why don't you do your own research on fossil records, or you asked so I may bring them to your house?

Oh so you have the very much elusive fossil records that the whole scientific world has been looking for?

So you have custody of the missing links? Fossil ancestory?

Guy gerraarrahia. You are full of hot poo.

butterflyl1on:


Oh so you have the very much elusive fossil records that the whole scientific world has been looking for?

So you have custody of the missing links? Fossil ancestory?

Guy gerraarrahia. You are full of hot poo.

The Lack of Transitional Fossils

There are relatively few fossils forms that, because they are intermediate in certain respects, can be characterized as “transitional” from one type or species to another type or species. By the time Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859, much fossil collecting had already been done, and few intermediate forms had been found. Darwin acknowledged that, according to his theory, we should find many transitional forms in the fossil record and that, in fact, we do not.

The following are the very words of Charles Darwin in his satanic book The Origin of Species

". . . the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory."

butterflyl1on:


You are all over the place. Get yourself organised and stop swaying like a drunk ninja.

We are talking exclusively science and you are trying too hard to switch this to Church and denomination talk?

What in blazes has that got to do with this discussion and my question?

Well, I can see your ignorance bro, show it no further.

You are ignorant of science and you are ignorant of religion, to my utmost expectation you are also ignorant of human differences.

However, since it has been established that you are really dumb, I will not stress it much anymore.

It's true that your questions are not related to my response, pardon me, I just thought I should give you a second chance to prove me wrong.

I should have known you wouldn't be able to decipher the points I was trying to make about human differences in everything by using the very thing you think you are living for, god.

However, since simpletons always require simple answers, I was trying to point out to you that the disagreements in science on evolution is due to the fact that human differences and ways of understanding is different.
Which can be seen in every practice and ideology.

For example, if God is one then why are you Christians divided about him? Have I elevated your dumbness a little?

Please, I am not humoring you, I am making you smarter.

butterflyl1on:


Oh so you have the very much elusive fossil records that the whole scientific world has been looking for?

So you have custody of the missing links? Fossil ancestory?

Guy gerraarrahia. You are full of hot poo.

I have explained your inability to decipher words in my immediate previous post.

Who made you a simpleton? That's not an insult though, it's a question.

"British science journalist Richard Milton, who is not a creationist, has described the failure of the fossil record to yield the type of evidence that Darwinism predicts:

The case for Darwinism would be made convincingly if someone were to produce a sequence of fossils from a sequence of adjacent strata showing indisputable signs of gradual progressive change of the same basic stock, but above the species level (as opposed to sub-specific variation). Ideally this should be demonstrated in a long sequence, ten or twenty or fifty successive fossil species, showing major generic evolution – but a short sequence would be enough. But this simple relationship is not what is shown in the sequence of the rocks. Nowhere in the world has anyone met this simple evidential criterion with a straightforward fossil sequence from successive strata. Yet there are so many billions of fossils available from so many thousands of strata that the failure to meet this modest demand is inexplicable if evolution has taken place in the way Darwin and his followers have envisaged."

hermosa7:



The Lack of Transitional Fossils

There are relatively few fossils forms that, because they are intermediate in certain respects, can be characterized as “transitional” from one type or species to another type or species. By the time Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859, much fossil collecting had already been done, and few intermediate forms had been found. Darwin acknowledged that, according to his theory, we should find many transitional forms in the fossil record and that, in fact, we do not.

The following are the very words of Charles Darwin in his satanic book The Origin of Species

". . . the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory."

Did Charles Darwin make this statement yesterday? Oh, don't tell me how many years back and don't tell me the number of fossil records that have been found after Darwin died. I am enjoying this


Seriously, creationists on this thread are nincompoops, in this order of decreasing dunderheadedness. Hermosa7-> Butterflyl10n-> DoctorAlien

Akin1212:


Well, I can see your ignorance bro, show it no further.

You are ignorant of science and you are ignorant of religion, to my utmost expectation you are also ignorant of human differences.

However, since it has been established that you are really dumb, I will not stress it much anymore.

It's true that your questions are not related to my response, pardon me, I just thought I should give you a second chance to prove me wrong.

I should have known you wouldn't be able to decipher the points I was trying to make about human differences in everything by using the very thing you think you are living for, god.

However, since simpletons always require simple answers, I was trying to point out to you that the disagreements in science on evolution is due to the fact that human differences and ways of understanding is different.
Which can be seen in every practice and ideology.

For example, if God is one then why are you Christians divided about him? Have I elevated your dumbness a little?

Please, I am not humoring you, I am making you smarter.

Wow so you can magically elevate someone else's dumbness but not yours? Amazing

Your magic must be "pseudo magic".