haddeylium:


which one is most complex
Cell or Spaceship?

You tell me.

A cell has many biochemical reactions happening at a time, up to 1 billion reactions per second.

But so does a space ship have many millions of programs and billions of calculations to cater to, by the mainframe, every second. Not even taking in the fact that the space ship is much much larger.

It also depends on the type of cell, the red blood cell would be much less busier than a brain cell for example.

So what?

haddeylium:


which one is most complex
Cell or Spaceship?

i think this is where all the mix up started

FatherOFJesus2:
you won case is serious because you don’t even know what mutations are

Now you are digging up research done in 1980

No wonder you also believe in talking snakes and the ribs nonsense

Like I earlier told you. This your “If science can't explain it, then the Bible is faulty” line of thought won't augur well with you. Tell me about clutching at straws right now

Your science emeriti have all agreed that induced mutations and external agents, though alter the genetic code, like DNA, do not result in distinct species.

The backbone of speciation, a procedure that scientists claim occurs under the guise of evolution is different from everything you've been saying on this thread.

Bacteriologist:


You tell me.

A cell has many biochemical reactions happening at a time, up to 1 billion reactions per second.

But so does a space ship have many millions of programs and billions of calculations to cater to, by the mainframe, every second. Not even taking in the fact that the space ship is much much larger.

It also depends on the type of cell, the red blood cell would be much less busier than a brain cell for example.

So what?

Which one is complex

A living cell or Spaceship?

DappaD:


Like I earlier told you. This your “If science can't explain it, then the Bible is faulty” line of thought won't augur well with you. Tell me about clutching at straws right now

Your science emeriti have all agreed that induced mutations and external agents, though alter the genetic code, like DNA, do not result in distinct species.

The backbone of speciation, a procedure that scientists claim occurs under the guise of evolution is different from everything you've been saying on this thread.

I agree with whatever you say as long as you can tell me how fossil record contradict evolution

I want to learn something sir

FatherOFJesus2:
As a matter of fact, recombinations and heritable mutations are the key facto for variation.

Without those two, evolution wouldn’t be possible. Without them, we won’t be here debating today.

Hope you now get what I was driving at? Just that they other guy was too slow to figure it

Actually sir evolution can still occur in a population without genetic recombination, as long as mutation is possible.

FatherOFJesus2:
well, I apologize. That must have been a mistake.

But I know recombination is the reason why we don’t look like our sibling.
My mistake

It's all good sir. Enjoy the rest of your day

FatherOFJesus2:
i think this is where all the mix up started

you're just a product of misinformed religionists

jamesid29:

Actually sir evolution can still occur in a population without genetic recombination, as long as mutation is possible.

correct.
But that’s in some microorganisms and other organisms that reproduce asexually. For as long as those organisms store genetic materials in form of chromosomes and it’s by sexual reproduction, recombination will happen.

FatherOFJesus2:
nope, that’s fact. Fossil record holds that evidence

There’s evidence that we didn’t come from ribs and dirt 6000years Ago

Keep dancing in your myth.

haddeylium:


Keep dancing in your myth.

So now tell us about how we were made from ribs

haddeylium:


you're just a product of misinformed religionists

So you mean that was how it happened?
Lol

Holy Spirit fuccking Mary and forcing Joseph to take responsibility. That’s the nonsense you want us to believe?

FatherOFJesus2:
I agree with whatever you say as long as you can tell me how fossil record contradict evolution

I want to learn something sir

What has been the long held view about Neanderthal fossil finds and what is the current view?
Why do fossil records not show species in development phase to another specie? Like why wasn't a specie developing into another and then suddenly died so we can find the remains today?
Those pictorial representations in your science textbooks have been overly exaggerated whether you agree or not.
The fact that distinct species occurs in fossil records is enough reason why it doesn't agree with the popular evolutionary theory.

FatherOFJesus2:
So now tell us about how we were made from ribs

if this is how you console yourself to sleep
I won't take it from you

haddeylium:


if this is how you console yourself to sleep
I won't take it from you

We won’t accept your biblical gibberish. Sorry

DappaD:


What has been the long held view about Neanderthal fossil finds and what is the current view?
Why do fossil records not show species in development phase to another specie? Like why wasn't a specie developing into another and then suddenly died so we can find the remains today?
Those pictorial representations in your science textbooks have been overly exaggerated whether you agree or not.
The fact that distinct species occurs in fossil records is enough reason why it doesn't agree with the popular evolutionary theory.

lol

@haddeylium, there's no need engaging him further. He has resorted to using red herring fallacies so that the errors of his evolution theory will not be called into account. It was expected.

DappaD:


What has been the long held view about Neanderthal fossil finds and what is the current view?
Why do fossil records not show species in development phase to another specie? Like why wasn't a specie developing into another and then suddenly died so we can find the remains today?
Those pictorial representations in your science textbooks have been overly exaggerated whether you agree or not.
The fact that distinct species occurs in fossil records is enough reason why it doesn't agree with the popular evolutionary theory.

if ignorance was a moniker

Do you even know how fossil records are gotten and dated?

DappaD:
@haddeylium, there's no need engaging him further. He has resorted to using red herring fallacies so that the errors of his evolution theory will not be called into account. It was expected.

You want to talk about evolution without talking about the nonsense in your bible.

As it is written in 2Timothy4vs3-5. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

FatherOFJesus2:
if ignorance was a moniker

Do you even know what fossil records are gotten and dated?

What does radiocarbon dating have to do with what I've said? Who's the ignorant one here?
Fossil records do not prove your evolution even in the slightest way. Remains dug up have always been distinct.

FatherOFJesus2:
You want to talk about evolution without talking about the nonsense in your bible.

---

---

---

DappaD:
There's no need engaging this man further. He has resorted to using red herring fallacies so that the errors of his evolution theory will not be called into account. It was expected.

At the end of the day your science professors will not still come to one conclusive definition of evolution meanwhile some other higher professors have debunked it as nonsense. The only thing stopping them is that they refuse to believe in a “God” because they feel it's farfetched.
You're just a disciple of rich, greedy men in labcoats so you can continue your rants. Call me when you're up for an INTELLIGENT conversation.

DappaD:


What does radiocarbon dating have to do with what I've said? Who's the ignorant one here?
Fossil records do not prove your evolution even in the slightest way. Remains dug up have always been distinct.

Where did I mention radiocarbon dating? Lol

DappaD:

---

---

---

At the end of the day your science professors will not still come to one conclusive definition of evolution meanwhile some other higher professors have debunked it as nonsense. The only thing stopping them is that they refuse to believe in a “God” because they feel it's farfetched.
You're just a disciple of rich, greedy men in labcoats so you can continue your rants. Call me when you're up for an INTELLIGENT conversation.

97% of them agree that evolution is fact.

The remaining 3% believe intelligent design and not the nonsense in the Bible that’s still ok btw

FatherOFJesus2:
97% of them agree that evolution is fact.

The remaining 3% believe intelligent design and not the nonsense in the Bible that’s still ok btw

I'm not that stupid to get my facts from a Wikipedia article that can be easily edited to fit the writer's view. What you're saying isn't new. Even your professor Richard Dawkins came to claim that the majority of scientists were in agreement with the evolution theory before several other professors stood up to correct him not to make statements in generalisation.

DappaD:

---

---

---

At the end of the day your science professors will not still come to one conclusive definition of evolution meanwhile some other higher professors have debunked it as nonsense. The only thing stopping them is that they refuse to believe in a “God” because they feel it's farfetched.
You're just a disciple of rich, greedy men in labcoats so you can continue your rants. Call me when you're up for an INTELLIGENT conversation.

We will believe in God only if you provide evidence that he exist.

Since no evidence is available we cannot believe anything doesn’t has not been proven.

As long as we know, evolution has been proven over and over again. God does not have evidence. If you can provide evidence, you might win a Nobel prize award for yourself.

DappaD:


I'm not that stupid to get my facts from a Wikipedia article that can be easily edited to fit the writer's view. What you're saying isn't new. Even your professor Richard Dawkins came to claim that the majority of scientists were in agreement with the evolution theory before several other professors stood up to correct him not to make statements in generalisation.

you can’t get fact from Wikipedia but you got a lot of it from the Bible.

Talk of stuppid

I can’t disbelieve Wikipedia and believe you.

FatherOFJesus2:
correct.
But that’s in some microorganisms and other organisms that reproduce asexually. For as long as those organisms store genetic materials in form of chromosomes and it’s by sexual reproduction, recombination will happen.

I think you are conflating two concepts sir.
Genetic recombination is by default an intrinsic part of sexual reproduction for biological organism on earth but it in itself is not an intrinsic necessity for evolution as long as mutation is a possibility. If you remove genetic recombination from the equation (let's say there's an alien population that each descent carries the exact same gene copies from the parents), as long as mutation is possible, evolution can still occur. The difference is that the rate and by extension adaptation would be alot slower than in a population in which recombination occurs. But as long as mutation at the genetic level is a possibility, evolution is a possibility.

DappaD:
@haddeylium, there's no need engaging him further. He has resorted to using red herring fallacies so that the errors of his evolution theory will not be called into account. It was expected.

Obviously
He's not even a cut out for this

This is according to just you. Most of your evolution buddies will never believe in a God because they want to set standards of what's right and wrong for themselves. The world's leading scientists won't agree with the words I've bolded and struck out. Like evidence has shown, there's no substantial evidence that any thing called evolution actually occurred in the past or now. Honest scientists will tell you the truth. Those who pursue their own interests will keep you in the dark and you'll continue dancing around them and picking up whatever they leave for you from their tables.

FatherOFJesus2:
We will believe in God only if you provide evidence that he exist.
Since no evidence is available we cannot believe anything doesn’t has not been proven.
As long as we know, [s]evolution has been proven over and over again.[/s]God does not have evidence. If you can provide evidence, you might win a Nobel prize award for yourself.

FatherOFJesus2:
you can’t get fact from Wikipedia but you got a lot of it from the Bible.

Talk of stuppid


I can’t disbelieve Wikipedia and believe you.

In the same manner. Lol.

I can't disbelieve the Bible and believe either you, your evolution or your Wikipedia.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander they say.

jamesid29:

I think you are conflating two concepts sir.
Genetic recombination is by default an intrinsic part of sexual reproduction for biological organism on earth but it in itself is not an intrinsic necessity for evolution as long as mutation is a possibility. If you remove genetic recombination from the equation (let's say there's an alien population that each descent carries the exact same gene copies from the parents), as long as mutation is possible, evolution can still occur. The difference is that the rate and by extension adaptation would be alot slower than in a population in which recombination occurs. But as long as mutation at the genetic level is a possibility, evolution is a possibility.

First stop trying to make a point from the “evolution can happen with just mutation” no one is disputing that.

You just keep repeating yourself.