₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
Have you forgotten about the myth of evolution?  The fairytale of how goo became you via the zoo .  The lie that the enemy of your soul sold to you which you swallowed hook, line and sinker (stinker)? that said that god is created in the image of man instead of the other way round.

Yes, the strawman that states the theory of evolution as "goo to you via the zoo" is certainly fairy tales. And no, I didn;t buy the lies of the Russians ("the enemy", nor did I swallow them. Leninism is dead, long live Marx. Yes, the gods are created in the images of the humans from which they spring.

Alright I conceed that I am wrong that the word ardent is wrong, would acute be more appropriate?  Have you forgotten that the myth of evolution is based on the premise that there is no need for a god for the universe and life to exist?

Uh? For the first; and uh? for the second. The theory of evolution isn't based on the premise that there is no need for a god. It's based on the premise that natural incidents that are evidenced are explainable in naturalistic ways. That those explanations for natural phenomenon haven't been falsified inclines us to think that it works. Many theists accept the theory of evolution just fine.

Can you give us one coercive evidence of evolution that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world and human life?  Without an answer to this question, your foundation is based on shaky ground and then qualifies as a blind faith.

I can give you a great evidence for the occurence of evolution. Shared ervs between animals. See: http://www.christianforums.com/t96639/#post1828403

OLAADEGBU:
Let's celebrate April fool's day in sympathy with our unbelieving friends.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul", the holy man preached:

How do we begin a myth? We are the center of the universe, after all. Our start is creating our gods in our image, give them the same physical apparatuses we have - a nose for a nose; a back for a back; an eye for an eye. Then our creation, abstract and elevated beyond questioning makes us chosen in his image. Life goes on.

There was one ardent evolutionist (KAG) who heard that and exclaimed That's no big deal we have discovered how to create life "scientifically" and by evolutionary means;

That's wrong. The evolutionist would have realised that evolution doesn't preclude gods. Further, the evolutionist would have gotten that the inference of evolution dealling with the origins of life and matter is fallacious.

The holy man replied: Go ahead, take all the time you need and get on with it ;

"KAG" moved quickly to gather dust together with the diabolic intention of creating man, but the holy man interrupted him by saying: Not so fast, young man, you have to start with your own dust.

"KAG began to stammer and cough: but, but, but, erm, erm; scratching his head, I think I need some matter to start with.

I wonder, why would the evolutionist want to use dust to create a man? Is he Jewish? By that I mean, is in the business of constructing golems? I wonder. Of course we could point out that evolution doesn't also preclude the existence of matter, dust etc. and that humans - man? The sexist declares - aren't a goal, but you know, whatever.

OLAADEGBU:
Thanks for filling in the missing link

You're welcome.

but on a second note did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his or her right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform and develop but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation of the human body.

The ball is now in your court

Now that I have the ball, I can respond by pointing out that the variations in eyes aren't entirely based on chance, but are caused by the mixture of mutations and selection. In addition, humans don't have to be able to create eyes (although "artificial" eyes can and have been created) to understand the modes of evolution of eyes in different species. Interestingly, it has been discovered that several different types of eyes developed separately in different lineages of animals. In any case, this isn't the thread for the evolution of eyes.

Incidentally, no one suggests that eyes evolved from nothing.

I am Stultitia, Goddess of Folly, from whom gods and men derive all cheerfulness. I am incapable of deceit. Look how great Jupiter has given men an ounce of reason to each pound of passion. The male sex is born to transact the business of the world, but Jupiter took my advice and added women- foolish and frivolous but with the beauty which lets them rule the world. Says Plato. "states will prosper when guided by philosophy." But history tells us otherwise. I charm away woes, and makes life bearable. It is I who make old men wear wigs. As to the wisdom of the learned professions, the more empty-headed any one of them is, the more he will be thought of. Fake physicians, pettifogging lawyers, chattering barristers- and they make for themselves fortunes! I make men drunk like wine! It is I who alleviate the drudgery of the schoolmaster. The poets ought to laud me, but waste their time with manuscripts and the praise of few. The servile, insipid, empty-headed court grandees frankly live a life of folly with their lazy religion and ridiculous pastimes. Popes, cardinals and bishops are no better. So, live and drink lustily, my most excellent disciples of Folly!

From "The Very Squashed Version" of Eramus' In Praise of Folly http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/erasmus.htm

OLAADEGBU:
Point conceded. Let's move on to the next victim.

Charles Darwin said,

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
- Charles "don't call me Chuck" Darwin

Thanks for playing.

I have some more:

Both groups generally don't believe in the existence of the Christian's god.

. . .

that's all I got. There really aren't that many things that atheists and Muslims share other than the more obvious things that Christians also share, i.e. they are humans, breathe in oxygen, etc.

Going through my old links and stuff, I found these:

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Regional Patterns of Gene Expression in Human and Chimpanzee Brains
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1462.full#TBL1

Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11161738?dopt=Abstract

Abiogenes:

The Triplet Code From First Principles
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys7450/phys7450_sp05/downloads/tripletcode.pdf (pdf file)

That's a good idea. I say they should do it. I mean, if nothing else, that will allow all the many other important threads not started by atheists to be seen and enjoyed. Wait, what?

But really, I think it's a good idea.

This one is taken from the late Winace's self-penned eulogy before he died. I still love it. This is a telling quote.

[size=14pt]And for those who think I deserve to be tortured forevermore for sincerely held ideological views that differ from theirs: a hearty "**** You, it's your Hell, you burn in it" will suffice.[/size]


I don't know if the lack of its context affects this one, but as I remember it, I thought it to be one of the funniest and insightful responses to an argument on the old CF (Christian Forums). I seem to recall that the Christian apologist was bent on just posting fallacies, so this was Tenka's response:


Until Christians can convince me that God isn't trying to trick us into believing because he needs followers to come to him willingly so he can eat their souls when they die, I ain't converting to nothing.
- Tenka.

Yet another one I liked from the old CF:

By the actions and choices he has made, the biblical God has demonstrated time and time again that he is not perfect. Throughout the bible, the biblical God `repents' of certain courses of action. On other occasions, the biblical God chooses to act in an entirely arbitrary way "the Esau I have hated" stupidity, among other things, plus the entirity of the bet with Satan over Job.

The `perfection' of the biblical God is the self proclaimed `perfection' of the sociopath, who, because he deems himself perfect, automatically regards everybody else as `imperfect' and is utterly incapable of seeing that he is, if anything more flawed than those whom he passes judgement upon.

- Thinker

davidylan:
Only after being questioned repeatedly over his penchant for criticizing christianity and not islam. He himself admitted being afraid to post about islam for fear of being banned and harassed.

I didn't know that. I was just aware of his posting threads on Islam and then getting banned for them. Oh well.

isnt it also funny that threads that seem to denigrate christianity end up on the front page while those on islam are quickly locked and relegated to the backwaters of the "islamic section"?

It's sickening, really. Unfortunately, this forum has taken to being an e-representation of those who would be cowed by Islamic threats. Oh well.

DeReloaded:
who's IIRC? Never seen his/her posts.

If I remember correctly.

Never seen Huxley make a post about Islam either

He did. Several times. He eventually got banned for it.

Of course it doesnt only lie on you guys, also lies on the fact that any critcism against Christianity is allowed while the admin and co only remove the ones directed towards Islam

That's a good point. It's disgusting, but there's not much to be done about it.

DeReloaded:
I would like proof of "many" who do on NL and as for you, I'd like to see links of you doing the same.

Thanks in advance.

No problem. Here are a few links produced from a quick search. Note: I'm only including the ones from the forum in which I use the same username as on NL.


From about a month ago - Showing Muslim apologetics for the fraud it is: http://www.naijaryders.com/forums/224640-prophet-muhammed-said-1400-years-ago-man-has-360-joints-he-right-money.html

My first post is the 37th one in the thread.

Where I argue again, and show that Mo' was a pedophile: http://www.naijaryders.com/forums/212653-contest-kag-please-come-outn-definen-differentiate-pedophilia-frm-ephebophilia.html

More Mo' and pedophilia: http://www.naijaryders.com/forums/184071-paedophiles-will-get-castration-jab.html#post3468607

One of my earliest and lengthiest series of responses to fraudulent Islamic apologetics: http://www.naijaryders.com/forums/152686-amazing-truths-about-science-found-4th-century-quran-mohammed-saw-dictated.html

Another: http://www.naijaryders.com/forums/133447-only-these-gospel-writers-trully-christs-disciple-while-alive.html

Funnily enough, most of them are largely responses to the same idiot.



As for non-theists that have responded to Muslims and Islam on Nl, I have, Huxley has, and Nferyn, IIRC, also did. Several of our posts on the topic have been deleted, and huxley was even banned when he was bent on showing Islam for what it is. However, I suspect that if you go back to at least a year ago, you should be able to find some of our posts on the subject.

noetic:
Atheism is an irrational state of mind. , . where the subject of ones disbelief cannot be substantiated or defined.

Noetic, Nairaland.

Well, now, that's just not true, but that's another thread.

This was written by Aron-Ra a few years ago, and I liked it so much; so here it is for your pleasure.

The One True Religion


African Methodist Episcopal
African Methodist Episcopal Zion
African Orthodox Church (1)
American Baptist Churches USA
Amish
Anabaptist
Anglican Catholic Church
Antiochian Orthodox
Armenian Evangelical Church
Armenian Orthodox
Assemblies of God
Associated Gospel Churches of Canada
Association of Vineyard Churches
Baptist
Baptist Bible Fellowship
Branch Davidian
Brethren in Christ
Bruderhof Communities
Byzantine Catholic Church
Calvary Chapel
Calvinist
Catholic
Cell Church
Celtic Orthodox
Charismatic Episcopal Church
Children of God
Christadelphian
Christian and Missionary Alliance
Christian Churches of God
Christian Identity
Christian Reformed Church
Christian Science
Church of God (Anderson)
Church of God (Cleveland)
Church of God (Seventh Day)
Church of God in Christ
Church of God of Prophecy
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
Church of Scotland@
Church of South India
Church of the Brethren
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America
Church of the Nazarene
Church of the New Jerusalem
Church of the United Brethren in Christ
Church Universal and Triumphant
Churches of Christ
Churches of God General Conference
Congregational Christian Churches
Coptic Orthodox
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Disciples of Christ
Episcopal
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Evangelical Congregational Church
Evangelical Covenant Church
Evangelical Formosan Church
Evangelical Free Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church
Evangelical Methodist Church
Evangelical Presbyterian
Fellowship of Christian Assemblies
Fellowship of Grace Brethren
Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches
Free Church of Scotland
Free Methodist
Free Presbyterian
Free Will Baptist
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Gnostic
Great Commission Association of Churches
Greek Orthodox
House of Yahweh
Hutterian Brethren
Independent Fundamental Churches of America
Indian Orthodox
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
International Churches of Christ
Jehovah's Witnesses
Living Church of God
Local Church
Lutheran
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Mennonite
Messianic Judaism
Methodist
Moravian Church
Nation of Yahweh
New Frontiers International
Old Catholic Church
Oriental Orthodox
Orthodox
Orthodox Church in America
Orthodox Presbyterian
Pentecostal
Plymouth Brethren
Presbyterian
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Presbyterian Church in America
Primitive Baptist
Protestant Reformed Church
Quaker
Reformed
Reformed Baptist
Reformed Church in America
Reformed Church in the United States
Reformed Churches of Australia
Reformed Episcopal
Reformed Presbyterian Church
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Revival Centres International
Romanian Orthodox
Rosicrucian
Russian Orthodox
Serbian Orthodox
Seventh Day Baptist
Seventh-Day Adventist
Shaker
Society of Friends
Southern Baptist Convention
Spiritist
Syrian Orthodox
True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
Two-by-Twos
Unification Church
Unitarian-Universalism
United Church of Canada
United Church of Christ
United Church of God
United Free Church of Scotland
United Methodist Church
United Reformed Church
Uniting Church in Australia
Unity Church
Unity Fellowship Church
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
Virtual Churches
Waldensian Church
The Way International
Web Directories
Wesleyan
Wesleyan Methodist
Worldwide Church of God

These are all the denominations I can find just within Christianity, currently the world’s most popular religion. But each of these hold different beliefs, and some of them conflict quite harshly with all the others. Only when combined can they be considered the world’s largest religion. And even then, they only account for a third of the global population at most.

Islam is the world’s second-largest religion; But it is also the fastest-growing religion, and is expected to soon eclipse the deeply-divided denominations of collective Christianity everywhere in the world, including the United States. Muslims are also divided into denominations of their own, such as the Sunni, Sufi, Shia, and Wahabe.

The next largest religion, (and the oldest religion still in practice) is Hindu. Their 800 million some-odd believers are also divided into sub-categories of their own, Shivites, Jains, Shaktas, Viasnavas, Brahmin, etc., -based largely on their interpratation of Karma, or which aspect of their triunal god-head they feel the deepest personal relationship with. One of those factions, the Bhakti, have beliefs that parallel Christian faith in many ways, except of course that neither their gods nor any part of their religious traditions ever had anything to do with Moses or Abraham.

The fourth largest religion is Buddhism, which, (along with Taoism) account for the majority of religious adherents in the Orient. Being spread across cultures from India to Indonesia, and through the Himalayas into the China and the islands of the far east, they have also diverged into several denominations of their own; Mahayana, Non-sectarian, Nyingma, Pure Land, Rinzai, Shambala, Shin, Soto, Tendai, Theravada, Tibetan, Vajrayana, Vietnamese, Vipassana, Won, and Zen. Some Buddhist groups have lots of little gods, and sometimes they have no gods at all, and rever the bodhisatva instead, which may or may not include a supernatural aspect -depending on who you ask.

Then of course, there are the Jews, who are also divided into several different denominations. And there are also many tens of millions of Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and followers of Baha'u'llah, to say nothing of the pagan polytheists including Helenists, Odinists, Druids, Egyptian and Celtic witches, in addition to a few remaining millions of Shaman and Shinto.

Each religion claims to be unique, and each one pretends to superior in some way. But it is a logical fallacy that all of these groups disagree to some degree with all the others, and conflict violently with most of them, yet the vast majority of them claim that their religions are the one "true" ones, the "one" among them all who "knows" the "absolute truth". And they all believe what they do for the same reasons; some mere human wrote a book while pretending to speak for his god, and told them to believe what they do -for no reason at all. All of them believe contradictory things asserted as fact, but assumed on faith alone, so that none of them really knows anything they pretend to.

"Man is a religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only
animal that has the True Religion - several of them. He is the only animal
that loves his neighbour as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't
straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to
smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. , The higher animals
have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the
hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste."
-Mark Twain, The Lowest Animal

One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
Robert A. Heinlein

You see, the religious people — most of them — really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would've listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition.

- Sol Hadden in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 285.

Ascony:
and hey! i thought this thread was to be for quotes?

Aye, that it is.

“The Persian shows the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster, the lawgiver of Persia, and calls it the divine law; the Brahmin shows the Shaster, revealed, he says, by God to Brahma, and given to him out of a cloud; the Jew shows what he calls the law of Moses, given, he says, by God, on the Mount Sinai; the Christian shows a collection of books and epistles, written by nobody knows who, and called the New Testament; and the Mahometan shows the Koran, given, he says, by God to Mahomet: each of these calls itself revealed religion, and the only true Word of God, and this the followers of each profess to believe from the habit of education, and each believes the others are imposed upon.”
--Thomas Paine; The Age of Reason


Calvin: This whole Santa Claus thing just doesn't make sense. Why all the secrecy? Why all the mystery? If the guy exists, why doesn't he ever show himself and prove it? And if he doesn't exist, what's the meaning of all this?

Hobbes: I dunno. Isn't this a religious holiday?

Calvin: Yeah, but actually, I've got the same questions about God.

- Calvin and Hobbes


Some people say it is not nice to question God. They think that believing the myth is more important than finding out what is really true. —Dan Barker

DeReloaded: Should I be amused that atheist never have the guts to go after the Qu'ran the way they do about The Bible.

The vocal ones on NL always hide their necks when it comes to Islam (they believe in an "imaginary person" too BTW) but when it comes to the Bible they start shining teeth

Unless you can rant your gibberish about both religions, be quiet. Cowards.

Way to tar with a broad brush. The thing is there are many atheists that have no problem criticising Islam - I'm one of them. In fact, I'm probably more likely to criticise Islam, the beliefs in Islam, and their crazy apologetics, than its Christian counterpart. That such criticism appears on forums and mediums that don't immediately delete commentary pointing out the flaws in a religion helps.

By the way, the last time someone brought this up, I was happy to give him a link to a group of atheists dedicated to dispelling the myth of Islam.

noetic:
@ DavidDylan

10* Gbosa for u. I can only commend ur intellect and tolerance.

"Un sot trouve toujours un plus sot, qui l'admire" - Boileau

Badriyyah:
Can't creationists and Evolutionists argue without the insults? It's an interesting topic, but when I start to read the insults I lose interest, geez.

Yes they can However, it occurs to me that at least one of the Creationist party (probably both in this thread, in fact) have, through their behaviour in a number of threads, invited others to see and treat them with derision and scorn. I, for one, oblige that invitation.

davidylan:
again slowpoke, the ERV example was used to buttress a FACT that bows your argument out of the water. If mutation could not completely change alleged ERV insertions into the human genome that makes up a mere 10% of the total genome, how could mutations have completely changed the mtDNA of humans such that there is no similarity between it and the cockroach version . . . a 100% change?

Thou fool . . . only a blockhead like you cant get the allusions here.

I read this, laughed, and decided it's not worth it. I'm not gonna stop laughing. You jackass, you don't work with proteins or genes. You just made that up.

Yes, my entire response is one big ad hominem. No, it doesn't mean I don't know anything about the subject, or that I can't point out why the entire post shows you aren't significantly knowledgable on biology to work with genes. Yes, I'm going to keep laughing irrespective of any other nonsense you spew.

I'm out, you other guys can keep going at it with Davidylan, the resident troll, but I won't.

davidylan:

1 "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)."

In other words - you dont know, you're not sure, you're merely speculating what may have been WITHOUT VALID PROOF.
Where did the rocks that became meteors come from? thin air? Why was earth chosen of over 9 planets? How did these extraterrestrial bodies form? How was the earth formed? What brough oxygen here?

No, in other words I'm not dogmatic about it. And yes, I'm not sure. There's nothing wrong with pointing towards what the evidence indicates but avoiding dogmatically stating it - that's how science works. Further, to reiterate a point I keep having to make, science doesn't do proof. Proof is for alcohol.

On extraterrestial rocks, the sources for thos vary, from parts of other planetary bodies dislodged by impacts, to smaller pieces of space bodies crashing into each other and eventually getting caught in the Earth's orbit.

What do you mean by "why was the earth chosen"? Every planet in our solar systme (and even beyond our solar system) are impacted by meteorites. The earth hasn't been the only one. Extraterrestrial bodies form in different ways, depending on the one in question. I've already given a couple of examples for stray rocky objects.

The Earth was formed probably through accretion. We already discussed oxygen in an earlier thread and there's little need to go over it again.

And you dare accuse us of basing our beliefs on mere faith?  Shocked

No, you base your beliefs on ignorance. Faith has nothing to do with much of what you do, I'm afraid.

2"There are many examples of fossilised remains of intermediate life forms, or transitional animals. However, the relative rarity in fossilisation means that obviously not every type of changes between species will be represented in the fossil record. Having said that, there are enough fossils to get a good idea of several changes that have happened between species, genuses, etc.

Can you show us JUST ONE of such "many examples" pls? We are getting tired of verbose claims that have no basis in reality.
Why are transitionals RARE but more complex life forms of even unicellular organisms are common place in the fossil record?

Um, if you had bothered to carry on reading, you'd have seen the example I gave. No, it's not just transitionals that are rare, fossils in general are relatively rare.

As far as examples go, one of the ones I'm fond of giving is that there are several dinosaur-bird transitionals, with archeopteryx being perhaps the best known."

You've been bleating about this for the last 4 threads . . . are there NO SIMPLE EXAMPLES?
Where are the horse transitionals? where are the goat, human, ape, fish, kangaroo transitionals?

What the hell are you on about? The last four threads? Other than this thread I don't remember mentioning transitionals in almost a year. In fact, why don't you show me where I mentioned dinosaur-birds transitionals or archeopteryx in the last four threads. I won't hold my breath.

In any case, this would be you trying to use duplicity to avoid the example for a transitional for which you've been asking, would it? Other than probably a couple of the transitionals between humans and previous ancestors, this is as simple an example as you'll get, because much has been published and found about the dinosaurs-birds transition.

So, there you go.

[Quote]

However, I can go further on the first question. First, one should realise that it s likely that it wasn't just life that was necessary for evolution, but lifeforms, as evolution occurs in populations. Now, as to the origins of the first lifeforms, there exist only different hypotheses that propose, in some cases, tangible ways life may have arisen. The RNA world hypthesis is probably the most well known.

In other words - you dont know, you're not sure, you're merely grasping at straws . . . and you accuse us of basing our entire beliefs on faith alone?[/quote]Deja vu. Someone played with the matrix? Not your best attempt at handwaving, though.

[Quote]

Lol. I'll just wait for you to insult yourself.

to be expected when you run into the brickwall of your own denial.[/quote]Lol. So, I'm guessing your Morton's demon has helped you repress ERVs, too, eh? Mazel tov.

davidylan:
U mean questions like:

1. How did the primordial life that started evolution appear on earth?

2. Where are the intermediate life forms from evolution?

I'd love a "line by line" answer too.

1 "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)."

2"There are many examples of fossilised remains of intermediate life forms, or transitional animals. However, the relative rarity in fossilisation means that obviously not every type of changes between species will be represented in the fossil record. Having said that, there are enough fossils to get a good idea of several changes that have happened between species, genuses, etc.

As far as examples go, one of the ones I'm fond of giving is that there are several dinosaur-bird transitionals, with archeopteryx being perhaps the best known."



However, I can go further on the first question. First, one should realise that it s likely that it wasn't just life that was necessary for evolution, but lifeforms, as evolution occurs in populations. Now, as to the origins of the first lifeforms, there exist only different hypotheses that propose, in some cases, tangible ways life may have arisen. The RNA world hypthesis is probably the most well known.

As regards ERVs, i need to sleep - comprehensive questions detailing how appallingly untrue much of that will be coming tomorrow. Pls dont miss it!

But you have a chance to insult me till then. Have a good night.

Lol. I'll just wait for you to insult yourself.

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.

That's nice. It's an obvious lie, but it's nice, nonetheless.

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.

It's hard not to cringe when a supposed biologist\biochemist keeps making such terrible, unforgiveable mistakes.

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?

I have taken the liberty of quoting the part in question. Before I respond to it, I'm going to point out a mistake that keeps cropping up: the use of the word proof. Science doesn't do proof.

Now, it actually isn't speculation as parts of the original genetic make-up of the retrovirus can still be noticed in the ERV. Further, an example of a slightly more modern HERV you'd have seen if you had read the links I provided is the indictment in some cancers. Winace's example was "High-risk papillomaviruses. .  .  as one of the leading causes of cervical tumors" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12813471?dopt=Abstract

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.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

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

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

Yeah, it doesn't work that way. I presented a line of evidence. Rather than rebutt it, you simply stated it was a tired fraud. Silly me, for thinking you had a viable response to the argument, then.

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.

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

Strange! You say that, yet you responded to those mysteriously hidden materials in the next few lines. Wow!

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?

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.

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.

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?

[Quote]

Shared Endogenous Retroviruses

Do you say anything else beyond this tired old fraud?[/quote]Hey, if it's a tired old fraud, you shouldn't have any problems thoroughly refuting it. Have at it.

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?

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.

[Quote]

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.

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.[/quote]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.

[Quote]

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).

Your supposed knowledge of evolution truly amazes me.
hisses and walks away[/quote]Wonderful rebuttal.

[Quote]

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.

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.[/quote]No, abiogenesis isn't in reference to prokaryotes as the first inhabitants of the earth, 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. 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)  

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

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.

noetic:

Actually, it's after 150 years, not 300 years. Also, the theory of evolution is "still" a theory because science, especially in its modern form, insists on avoiding dogmatism; therefore leaving every proposal open to falsification and further enquiry, i.e a theory. What that means is that a theory never changes to anything else - it will always remain a theory. Unsurprisingly, then, the highest level of enquiry in science is the scientific theory as it contains several lines of evidence and can be potentially falsified.

In line with the above, an hypothesis, on the other hand, can change into a theory, provided it meets the criteria.

What nonsense are u saying?

It's not nonsense, it was several lines aimed at correcting your misconceptions of the meaning of a scientific theory. Basically, in science, contrary to what you implied, a theory doesn't change into a "higher" form. Therefore, the theory of evolution is "still just a theory" because that's the highest form of enquiry in science.

Finally, like has been pointed out to you, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Theories and hypotheses in\on abiogenesis deal with the origin of life from a scientific perspective. The theory of evolution deals with the origin and divergence of species.

ur ignorance on this subject amazes me considerin that u are a self proffessed evolutionist.

Have u ever heard about evolution of life?

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.

if u have, what preceded the prokaryotes, since evolutionist claim they existed more than 3 billion years ago?
Or is the basic consesus amongst evolutionist not that all organisms share the same genetic pool implying that prokaryotes  are descent from another organism.so where did they originate from?

evolution claims that life today is composed of a complex chemical reaction that originated from simpler chemical reactions. I am asking u the evolutionist what was the very first simple chemical reaction, that coupled with others resulted in the complex reaction that kick started the evolution process vis a vis life?

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).

And u come here saying evolution does not discuss the origin of life. 

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.

Dont bother to reply unless u have sometin meaningful to say.

Good thing I always have something meaningful to say then, eh.

Yeah, I'm responding to this one too, but this will probably be my last response to Davidylan. There's only so much time that can be devoted to an exercise in futility.

davidylan:
As regards KAG's post, i will repeat as i have oft said . . . note the COMPLETE lack of ANY shred of scientific examples . . . its filled with incoherent verbiage, long on grammar (and personal insults as usual) but desperately short on both science and logic. Responding to it is a pure waste of time. I'm eagerly anticipating clear-cut examples of evolution rather than grammar lessons.

Lol. You're a weird liar. Are you assuming that people are so stupid as to not read my post and take your word for it? Or are you still trolling? Either way, some examples from my previous post:

"You can start from ERV's as presented in the last couple of posts in that thread from which you're hiding."

"As far as examples go, one of the ones I'm fond of giving is that there are several dinosaur-bird transitionals, with archeopteryx being perhaps the best known."

For the other one: the lack of external changes in a species in the face of no pressure to evolve, my explanations were logical and scientific. I just didn't bother to give any peer-reviewed journal references because I neither used any nor thought them necessary.

I can pull some up, but it's pointless as you tend never to engage with the material provided.

davidylan:
I am more than prepared to remain here as long as the responses remain ON POINT and with RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC EXAMPLES. Isnt it a shame that of the 4-5 "evolutionists" who have shown up here NONE has even managed to give us JUST ONE EXAMPLE of evolution happening in the lab or before our very eyes?

I will repeat again, should google.com shut down, many of you will be unable to post.

Shared Endogenous Retroviruses

noetic:
and why is it still a theory after 300 years?? the biggest lie ever told to mankind.

I refuse to  be drawn into this side arguments. . . please address the issues about the origin of life i raised in my previous post

Actually, it's after 150 years, not 300 years. Also, the theory of evolution is "still" a theory because science, especially in its modern form, insists on avoiding dogmatism; therefore leaving every proposal open to falsification and further enquiry, i.e a theory. What that means is that a theory never changes to anything else - it will always remain a theory. Unsurprisingly, then, the highest level of enquiry in science is the scientific theory as it contains several lines of evidence and can be potentially falsified.

In line with the above, an hypothesis, on the other hand, can change into a theory, provided it meets the criteria.


Finally, like has been pointed out to you, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Theories and hypotheses in\on abiogenesis deal with the origin of life from a scientific perspective. The theory of evolution deals with the origin and  divergence of species.

Mad_Max:
It depends on who's using the term,and in what context.In biology it's merely the changes that take place in the traits of a species over time;which traits are reproduced and which aren't. It's just genes, genetic drift and natural selection.  One gets lost in the details, but it merely studies change in a species over extended periods of time.

But it's dishonest to hide behind semantics and simple 'biology textbook' definitions when it's obvious it's gone far beyond that in reality, has counterparts in physics, paleontology,zoology,evolutionary psychology et al, and so deals with the origins of life and the universe.

What Bawomolo said.

davidylan:
Enough of merely regurgitating the nonsense you read online from so-called "experts". If bacterial genomes were changing we would be in serious trouble by now.

Okay, I just saw this. I say dude is a poe and is trolling. Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic.

I'm going to respond to this post because there seems to be some attempt at engaging with the question I asked in the previous thread.

davidylan:
the usual parade of delusionists.

Dont be too full of urself, i didnt abandon the thread. I simply got bored of repeating the same things over and over and over again to people who merely READ the internet and think they know. I work with genes and proteins 7 days a week . . . when you actually start saying something other than what you cull from wikipedia or atheist websites then i'd be more than willing to give up part of my work time to debate you.

No, you're lying yet again. You did abandon the thread, and not because of boredom, but because it soon became apparent that you were grossly ignorant of what ERVs meant despite trying to pretend you did. If you do indeed work with genes and proteins, I suspect you wouldn't have posted gems like this one: "ERVs do NOT generate independent viruses in human cells like exogenous RVs do, why? Afterall arent they all about gag, pol and env?"

Then again, where would we be if yet another dishonest Creationist didn't use the "appeal to authority" fallacy?

By the way, if those that accept the theory of evolution were truely as clueless as you persist on insisting, you shouldn't have any trouble refuting anything we present. You can start from ERV's as presented in the last couple of posts in that thread from which you're hiding.

- Humans and chimps share 99% of their DNA and yet possess STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT PHENOTYPES - WHY?
- Identical twins share 100% of their DNA and YET sometimes exhibit strikingly different phenotypes and behaviour - WHY?

I don't know, that's why I asked you. So, why do you think humans and chimps share "99% of DNA" and ervs?

Start from there. You atheists have a way of subtly refusing to answer the questions that expose your theories for the falsehoods they are . . . rather you would prefer creationists (whom you despise) to answer them for you?

Don't be daft. It is those that accept the theory of evolution that do answer questions posed. If you can stop deluding yourself for a while just take a cursory skim through threads that have dealt with evolution on this forum. Actually, that's not quite right, as some Creationists do answer questions in return so that both parties understand better the different positions and can weigh them. No, strangely, it is mostly you that has a "way to subtly refus[e] to answer the questions that expose" you for what you are: disingenuous.

How does the theory of evolution explain the fact that the dragon fly has remained unchanged for 400 million yrs?

Organisms that best fit the niche in which they exist require little to no change except the conditions in their environment changes significantly to cause a population shift in attributes that will help the species survive said changes. That is, if the environment in which a species - in this case, perhaps dragonflies - is stable and the species has evolved the neceessary traits to survive in that environment, unless the conditions in the species' niche changes, then further evolution needn't occur. Meaning that the species won't have the external impetus to evolve new, but unnecessary external traits.

However, to bring in another dimension, that is not to say all species go that route, as factors like sexual selection can also create effects for adaptation in some species.

How does the theory of evolution explain the missing intermediate life forms?

There are many examples of fossilised remains of intermediate life forms, or transitional animals. However, the relative rarity in fossilisation means that obviously not every type of changes between species will be represented in the fossil record. Having said that, there are enough fossils to get a good idea of several changes that have happened between species, genuses, etc.

As far as examples go, one of the ones I'm fond of giving is that there are several dinosaur-bird transitionals, with archeopteryx being perhaps the best known.

How does the theory of evolution explain the complete failure of single-celled organisms to evolve after thousands of yrs? Why have bacteria remained the same for so long?

That's a similar question to the dragonfly one. Further to the answer given to that question, I should point out that bacteria don't need to change their form too much as they are one of the most - if not the most - succesful living things on the planet. Most bacteria have found themselves successful at surviving with the need for only very minor changes. The theory of evolution points to survival of a species as a sign of fitness.

What you and your ilk have done is NOT provide evidence but simply condescendingly knock the theories of others.

Dishonest Christian is dishonest. I say you're dishonest because I'm pretty sure nobody that "works with proteins and genes seven days a week" (lol, seven days a week?) has that bad a memory.

huxley:
Hello KAG,

Yes, the skeptic podcast is great. There have interviews with many experts in various fields. Yes, have been a fan of the Infidel guy's shows for some time, although I find he is kinda running out of material to discuss now. I was on the site yesterday and notice there has been nothing new there for many months.

What is the comedy podcast you listen to? I need to diversify a bit too.

There are other podcast you may find interesting - FFRF(Freedom From Religion Foundation), Point of Inquiry, FreedomainRadio. Check them out.

Cool. I'm going to try to listen to a few today. I haven't listened to the infidel guy in a long time, but it's a shame that he's running out of material. Oh well, I guess it happens.

The comedy podcast I listen to is keith and the girl (see:http://www.keithandthegirl.com/).

Hey, thanks for the other shows as well.

Thanks. I didn't know the skeptic magazine had a podcast. This will make a healthy change from the only other podcast I listen to, which is a comdey podcast.

By the way, have you ever listened to the Infidel guy's show?