cloudgoddess:


The fossil record tells us extremely valuable information about not only WHAT existed, but WHEN. See, the earth's crust was formed in a way such that older rocks are found in lower strata, and more recently formed rock is found in higher strata. This means that the lower we go, the older the rock we're coming in contact with, and thus, the older the fossils we find will be.

ElCount:
the earth's crust is not arranged according to age, go back to your geography, funny you call me ignorant and end up making this statement

cloudgoddess:

Yes it is.

cloudgoddess:

Unfortunately your post is a brilliant rebuttal of itself.
Not even remotely. Your understanding of what you're trying to argue against is so poor though, that it's easy to see why you'd be confused.

cloudgoddess:

According to the evolution theory after long periods of time radical changes to the genome bring about development of more complex species. There is no evidence for this
YES there is. See the graded fossil record and geological information on early earth - the vast majority of present day organisms, especially the more complex ones, WOULD NOT be able to survive in the environment in which life first arose. Only microbes could exist in such harsh environments, and as the fossil record shows us, ONLY microbial fossils are found in rock dated ~4 billion years old. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the common ancestor prediction were correct.

cloudgoddess:

And if more complex species are essentially species with more genetic material, and more specialized features as a result of that genetic material, then simpler genetic codes, subject to processes like gene duplication, mutation, and other means of alteration, can certainly give rise to more complex DNA, & thus more complex species. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

cloudgoddess:

Pre-existing genetic information cannot lead to the massive systemic macro-changes defined by Darwinian macro-evolution.
YES it can when given sufficient time. Macro-evolution is literally just microevolution, on much larger time scales. Between year 1 and 1,000 you might not see more than a few handfuls of changes made to the genome. This is microevolution. But between year 1 and 1 million, you will see massive changes. That is macroevolution.

cloudgoddess:

Insects will still be insects after millions of years. Reptiles will not become aves, and reptiles will not become mammals.
No, not necessarily. Under the correct conditions, species will speciate, PERIOD. Your uninformed and close-minded view of what an animal can and cannot become after millions of years of genetic modification is irrelevant to the facts. Labels like "horse" and "dog" are arbitrary, these names do not create boundaries for within which evolution must operate. There is no mechanism that halts evolution past a certain point. If the pre-existing genetic information and the environments under which this information is selected allows it, and sufficient time is allowed, a species will speciate. Traits will be gained and lost, morphologies will change, reproductive methods may be altered. That is all speciation is.

cloudgoddess:

But those organism's didnt come out of nowhere and from nothing.
No one is claiming it did.

Mold spores are present in the air we breath, just like bacteria. When a spore meets a food source, it physically lands on the food source, begins to break it down chemically, and the raw materials are used to fuel the spore's growth into mature mold. How is that anything other than chemical reactions?

Besides, putting rice in an aneorobic, sterilized container will see no organism forming,except those that can thrive anaerobically.
isnt that how canned food is marketed .
Yes, most science literate people are aware of this and why it is so. If the container is sterilized and blocked, no spores or bacteria can enter and carry out the chemical reactions necessary for their reproduction. I don't see how this bit supported your point in any way.

asalimpo:


Look at the post i responded to get my context.

If you dont still get it , this is my point:
the poster said, organisms have been forming out of reactions since 0bc.
in support of the bigi banga.
An inorganic process started organic life.

He used a canned food analogy to buttress his point, and i picked it up from there
to show that even with canned foods, biotic processes , only occured because to
organic matter were interacting. Actually, dynamic organisms - animals (bacteria etc)
were acting on non living organic matter (rice) in this case . Causing the reactions .

Making the argument he was proposing invalid - inorganic reactions jump starting organic life.

UyiIredia:

You are the one arguing for a failed theory.

This is not evidence. Microbial fossils are just that, they do not show that organisms evolved from simpler precursors.

There is no known natural process by which one adds genetic information to a species genetic code.

Empty talk bereft of evidence.

Again, empty talk without evidence.

cloudgoddess:

You are the one arguing for a failed theory.
Failed... according to whom?

If evolution is a failed theory then you need to quickly contact the thousands of evolutionary biology labs across the developed world (New Zealand and Japan have been doing some great research in the field lately), the pharmaceutical companies that are using their understanding of evolution to creat new medicines, the evolutionary biology departments at Harvard, Cambridge, Duke (ad infinitum for virtually every reputable university that exists), every natural science museum with an evolution exhibit, all the publishers of peer-reviewed evolutionary research journals and the researchers that publish to them, etc., etc.

If you are serious, contact them now and alert them that what they're studying is actually bunk and you have the answers instead.

This is not evidence. Microbial fossils are just that, they do not show that organisms evolved from simpler precursors.
Sigh. If there is sufficient evidence that at one very ancient point in earth's history, the ONLY living things in existence were microbes, then at what point following that history, and by what means, could multicellular organisms have originated? I probably shouldn't get my hopes up here. You're going to hit me with, "ID doesn't tell us the mechanisms but I still know its right and evolution is wrong", correct?

There is no known natural process by which one adds genetic information to a species genetic code.
Um... what? That is one of the most common types of mutations that happen.

"Gene duplication occurs when an error in DNA replication leads to the duplication of a region of DNA containing a (generally functional) gene. [http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/...]"

This kind of comment is precisely what makes it clear that you have no idea about the subject you are trying to refute. You don't know how DNA works, you don't know what genetic inheritence even entails, you likely don't know the basic premises behind evolution (I would not be surprised at all if you think it claims that humans came from monkeys, and that non-monophyletic species like birds and insects can give birth to one another).

You don't know about mutations -- what they actually are or the different ways they can happen (and that they are NOT all bad -- that is only what biology illiterate people think because the public is so used to hearing the word "mutation" solely used in a pathological context).

And this explains perfectly why you continue to hold such unsupported and superstitious notions. It's because you're not actually aware of what the alternative contains. You are ignorant. And I genuinely mean this in the least intentionally insulting way possible.

It is completely understandable why someone with near zero understanding of a topic, yet YEARS of powerful religious indoctrination, would fight to support the only thing they do have experience with, as well as a great amount of emotional investment in.

Empty talk bereft of evidence.


Again, basic biological principles here.

Again, empty talk without evidence.
No, just more concepts that you do not understand because you have been robbed of rudimentary biology education as a 21st century adult human being, and have instead been indoctrinated with slightly modified bronze-age superstition which is unfortunately still ruling your worldview (and in addition, strongly discouraging you from seeking out said education).

cloudgoddess:

You are the one arguing for a failed theory.
Failed... according to whom?

If evolution is a failed theory then you need to quickly contact the thousands of evolutionary biology labs across the developed world (New Zealand and Japan have been doing some great research in the field lately), the pharmaceutical companies that are using their understanding of evolution to creat new medicines, the evolutionary biology departments at Harvard, Cambridge, Duke (ad infinitum for virtually every reputable university that exists), every natural science museum with an evolution exhibit, all the publishers of peer-reviewed evolutionary research journals and the researchers that publish to them, etc., etc.

If you are serious, contact them now and alert them that what they're studying is actually bunk and you have the answers instead.

This is not evidence. Microbial fossils are just that, they do not show that organisms evolved from simpler precursors.
Sigh. If there is sufficient evidence that at one very ancient point in earth's history, the ONLY living things in existence were microbes, then at what point following that history, and by what means, could multicellular organisms have originated? I probably shouldn't get my hopes up here. You're going to hit me with, "ID doesn't tell us the mechanisms but I still know its right and evolution is wrong", correct?

There is no known natural process by which one adds genetic information to a species genetic code.
Um... what? That is one of the most common types of mutations that happen.

"Gene duplication occurs when an error in DNA replication leads to the duplication of a region of DNA containing a (generally functional) gene. [http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/...]"

This kind of comment is precisely what makes it clear that you have no idea about the subject you are trying to refute. You don't know how DNA works, you don't know what genetic inheritence even entails, you likely don't know the basic premises behind evolution (I would not be surprised at all if you think it claims that humans came from monkeys, and that non-monophyletic species like birds and insects can give birth to one another).

You don't know about mutations -- what they actually are or the different ways they can happen (and that they are NOT all bad -- that is only what biology illiterate people think because the public is so used to hearing the word "mutation" solely used in a pathological context).

And this explains perfectly why you continue to hold such unsupported and superstitious notions. It's because you're not actually aware of what the alternative contains. You are ignorant. And I genuinely mean this in the least intentionally insulting way possible.

It is completely understandable why someone with near zero understanding of a topic, yet YEARS of powerful religious indoctrination, would fight to support the only thing they do have experience with, as well as a great amount of emotional investment in.

Empty talk bereft of evidence.


Again, basic biological principles here.

Again, empty talk without evidence.
No, just more concepts that you do not understand because you have been robbed of rudimentary biology education as a 21st century adult human being, and have instead been indoctrinated with slightly modified bronze-age superstition which is unfortunately still ruling your worldview (and in addition, strongly discouraging you from seeking out said education).

asalimpo:


The so called reputable universities and developed countries you mentioned are researching under a false premise. And none of them is the custodian of truth.
Countries that condone homosexuality, and similar perversions, all because they are "developed"
are those the yard stick for correctness. With all their so called "education" they are clueless and blind as
primitive cave men on many issues. Their science , so called, only fuelling their perversion and delusion.

As for you, you have a slave mentallity, a white man comes up with a degrading incoherent theory of how
a mistake created life and so on and because he's white and has some credentials, you swallow without thinking!

Besides, many qualified scientists have contested the so called evolution theory - evolution is a shardy belief with the scientific community being marketed as science - objective fact.

cloudgoddess:

Not even remotely. Your understanding of what you're trying to argue against is so poor though, that it's easy to see why you'd be confused.

YES there is. See the graded fossil record and geological information on early earth - the vast majority of present day organisms, especially the more complex ones, WOULD NOT be able to survive in the environment in which life first arose. Only microbes could exist in such harsh environments, and as the fossil record shows us, ONLY microbial fossils are found in rock dated ~4 billion years old. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the common ancestor prediction were correct.

And if more complex species are essentially species with more genetic material, and more specialized features as a result of that genetic material, then simpler genetic codes, subject to processes like gene duplication, mutation, and other means of alteration, can certainly give rise to more complex DNA, & thus more complex species. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

YES it can when given sufficient time. Macro-evolution is literally just microevolution, on much larger time scales. Between year 1 and 1,000 you might not see more than a few handfuls of changes made to the genome. This is microevolution. But between year 1 and 1 million, you will see massive changes. That is macroevolution.

No, not necessarily. Under the correct conditions, species will speciate, PERIOD. Your uninformed and close-minded view of what an animal can and cannot become after millions of years of genetic modification is irrelevant to the facts. Labels like "horse" and "dog" are arbitrary, these names do not create boundaries for within which evolution must operate. There is no mechanism that halts evolution past a certain point. If the pre-existing genetic information and the environments under which this information is selected allows it, and sufficient time is allowed, a species will speciate. Traits will be gained and lost, morphologies will change, reproductive methods may be altered. That is all speciation is.

asalimpo:


The so called reputable universities and developed countries you mentioned are researching under a false premise. And none of them is the custodian of truth.
.

sonOfLucifer:

more Pastors than Engineers,... Pls, what kind of 'truth' do you have?

KingEbukasBlog:


Can you provide proof for this assertion

sonOfLucifer:

When you provide proof for your God.

KingEbukasBlog:


What kind of evasion is this .

sonOfLucifer:

The kind you taught me.

cloudgoddess:

The so called reputable universities and developed countries you mentioned are researching under a false premise. And none of them is the custodian of truth.
Go tell them that then. Bring your evidence and show them that their ideas are all wrong and their billions of dollars spent on evolutionary biology are a waste. If you don't have any (which is obvious), then sit down.

Countries that condone homosexuality, and similar perversions, all because they are "developed"
are those the yard stick for correctness. With all their so called "education" they are clueless and blind as
primitive cave men on many issues.
What such issues? Please name a few of these "primitive cave men ideas" that the developed world promotes (its very disturbing that you can say this, when the bible literally condones stoning of non-virgin women, killing of disobedient children, chopping off peoples' hands for stealing, and owning & raising slaves. the secular governments of today are clearly light years ahead of that and if you can't see that then you must be truly blind and ignorant).

Also, what makes homosexuality wrong? You realize that all homosexuality involves, is two human beings of the same sex being engaged in romantic relations. I want to know how that harms anyone. And "the bible says it's wrong" does not count for anything.

The reason developed countries are accepting it is because they don't base their morals on 2,000 year old barbaric BS that claims snakes can talk and that wearing clothes of different fabrics is offensive. They value human happiness over the happiness of made up deities.

As for you, you have a slave mentallity, a white man comes up with a degrading incoherent theory of how
a mistake created life and so on and because he's white and has some credentials, you swallow without thinking!
Why do you keep projecting confused falsehoods? Slavery is precisely the means by which white men brought Christianity to Africa, and robbed us of our native beliefs. Whereas evolution was proposed long after the abolition of slavery, and mostly amongst white scientists who had almost no involvement with blacks or Africans, let alone the slave trade. You literally just made that up.

Besides, many qualified scientists have contested the so called evolution theory - evolution is a shardy belief with the scientific community being marketed as science - objective fact.
No, not objective fact. Just more BS you just pulled out of your butt.
Wikipedia:
"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

And here's a list of just some of the organizations that oppose the teaching of ID & creationism as truth, and completely support evolution.
https://www.aclu.org/what-scientific-community-says-about-evolution-and-intelligent-design

"National Academy of Sciences
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history.

The American Chemical Society
Evolution cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation.The inclusion of non-scientific explanations in science curricula misrepresents the nature and processes of science and compromises a central purpose of public educationthe preparation of a scientifically literate workforce.

American Association of University Professors
"The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the natural world. [...] The American Association of University Professors deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution."

American Astronomical Society
Science is not based on faith, nor does it preclude faith. Whatever personal beliefs teachers, students, parents or administrators may hold, the teaching of important scientific concepts, such as the formation and aging of planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe, should not be altered or constrained in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines."

Joshthefirst:
lol. No, your understanding of the very theory you're arguing for, as well as your understanding of cellular genetics is poor. It is obvious you have only ever listened to one side of the story and have never bothered to look at it from another angle, as any true scientist would do.

This is a load of false assumptions based on false assumptions. You sound like an indoctrinated militant. There is no indoctrination in science. What evidence do you have that life arose in harsh environments or that life even arose by itself in a random accident? The probability of the random formation of an enzyme from amino acids on the earth's surface is calculated to be one in 10^20 (essentially zero).


This is a statement borne of ignorance of genetics. Look at processes like oxidative phosphorylation. There are so many complex enzymes and processes that make up important biochemical reactions in complex organisms. These enzymes and processes could not have evolved over time, because natural selection and the given course of said evolution would not favor their development. Non-functional DNA is ready for deletion, the formation of proteins and enzymes that have no use without their various pathways is a waste of cellular resources, and said enzymes being non-functional, would be weeded out and deleted by natural selection.

"The most basic processes upon which all life depends cannot be co-opted from pre-existing systems. For evolution to work, they have to come up from scratch, they have to be carefully balanced and regulated with respect to other processes, and they have to work before they will be kept."

Robert Carter.

There is no feasible link between micro and macro. Micro is adaptive and readily seen in our environment and based on already basic genetic information and processes. Macro is an imaginative story. Radical changes in the genome that you point out cannot and have not been demonstrated. (you could give me one non-circular example to prove your stance, or remain silent and dogmatic)

"An organism had to learn to convert sunlight to sugar. Another had to learn to convert sugars to energy. These amazingly complex processes involve multiple steps and functions that will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system"

-Robert Carter


In the end the very enemy of macroevolution is microevolution.


Yes. species will speciate. They will not gain relevant complexity to substantiate macroevolution though; this has never been shown to be true. All I hear is closeminded dogmatic irrational faith on your part.

Wikipedia:
"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

And here's a list of just some of the organizations that oppose the teaching of ID & creationism as truth, and completely support evolution.
https://www.aclu.org/what-scientific-community-says-about-evolution-and-intelligent-design

"National Academy of Sciences
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history.

The American Chemical Society
Evolution cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation.The inclusion of non-scientific explanations in science curricula misrepresents the nature and processes of science and compromises a central purpose of public educationthe preparation of a scientifically literate workforce.

American Association of University Professors
"The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the natural world. [...] The American Association of University Professors deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution."

American Astronomical Society
Science is not based on faith, nor does it preclude faith. Whatever personal beliefs teachers, students, parents or administrators may hold, the teaching of important scientific concepts, such as the formation and aging of planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe, should not be altered or constrained in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines."

cloudgoddess:

Wow. You truly do not know what you are talking about. Every single point of yours is a strange perversion of what's actually true in science, and I can't tell if you're doing it intentionally or if you were truly this miseducated. Your ideas are simply incorrect, I don't know what else to tell you on that. You don't understand what microevolution entails, you don't truly understand genetics because if you did, none of what you just posted would make any sense to you. I genuinely pity you, because from the looks of it, you have been incredibly misled and miseducated.

Not only that, but you are projecting the strangest religious qualities onto evolution where there are none. You know that evolution and the means by which it was discovered & is still being researched, are the direct opposite of faith and dogma, yet you try to project it as that because you know that faith and dogma are weak means of knowing things. Yet ironically, those are the PRECISE MEANS by which religion thrives! Religion would not exist without faith OR forcefully imposed dogma. You are literally discrediting the basis for your own beliefs.

And let's be clear, EVEN IF evolution was wrong, THERE WOULD STILL BE NO PROOF FOR YAHWEH, let alone ANY humanoid magician creating planets & life forms by "speaking them into existence". Your standpoint would still be void of any support whatsoever other than the bronze-age myths from which it originated.

I'll just leave this here from an earlier post in this thread.



You are simply wrong. Whether you choose to accept it or not is no longer my issue since you seem intent on sticking to your own religiously-motivated perversions of "science".

UyiIredia:




There is no known natural process by which one adds genetic information to a species genetic code.

cloudgoddess:



This is not evidence. Microbial fossils are just that, they do not show that organisms evolved from simpler precursors.
Sigh. If there is sufficient evidence that at one very ancient point in earth's history, the ONLY living things in existence were microbes, then at what point following that history, and by what means, could multicellular organisms have originated? I probably shouldn't get my hopes up here. You're going to hit me with, "ID doesn't tell us the mechanisms but I still know its right and evolution is wrong", correct?

cloudgoddess:

There is no known natural process by which one adds genetic information to a species genetic code.
Um... what? That is one of the most common types of mutations that happen.

"Gene duplication occurs when an error in DNA replication leads to the duplication of a region of DNA containing a (generally functional) gene. [http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/...]"

This kind of comment is precisely what makes it clear that you have no idea about the subject you are trying to refute. You don't know how DNA works, you don't know what genetic inheritence even entails, you likely don't know the basic premises behind evolution (I would not be surprised at all if you think it claims that humans came from monkeys, and that non-monophyletic species like birds and insects can give birth to one another).

You don't know about mutations -- what they actually are or the different ways they can happen (and that they are NOT all bad -- that is only what biology illiterate people think because the public is so used to hearing the word "mutation" solely used in a pathological context).

And this explains perfectly why you continue to hold such unsupported and superstitious notions. It's because you're not actually aware of what the alternative contains. You are ignorant. And I genuinely mean this in the least intentionally insulting way possible.

It is completely understandable why someone with near zero understanding of a topic, yet YEARS of powerful religious indoctrination, would fight to support the only thing they do have experience with, as well as a great amount of emotional investment in.

asalimpo:


I dont need to tell "fallen" man that. They're atheist professors who turned to christ.
What convinced them? the Cold logical facts of course.
They're atheists scientists who did the math and weight the logic and it didnt add up and by that ditched
your evo poo for the obviously plausible truth - Life is the result of intelligent design -

the secular governments of today are clearly light years ahead of that and if you can't see that then you must be truly blind and ignorant
The secular governments of today, had their starts from judeo-christian principles.
It is what formed their philosophies.
The founding fathers of America, Great Britain were all christians.
The humanitarian laws of the world that have made it a more tolerant place were all shaped by judeo-christian principles.
All thanks to the spread of christianity.
Yes, they were lots of errors , but overall the world has gained by having the gospel.
All those nations that were without the gospel, wallowed in darkness and inhumanity.
Infact, look at nations that dont have strong christian presence and you'll see this.
Degradation of women, contempt for human life, evil dictatorial ruling systems, social structures that entrench slavery (e.g caste systems in india , pakistan etc), large scale poverty.

Also, what makes homosexuality wrong? You realize that all homosexuality involves, is two human beings of the same sex being engaged in romantic relations. I want to know how that harms anyone. And "the bible says it's wrong" does not count for anything.


if your parents were homosxuals would you born to say this poo!
why dont you use your head as a hammer , since that's what it was designed for.
This is what perversion does, it blinds you to the truth so much that you can't distinguish good from evil.

Homosxuality is wrong bcause it is a misuse of the human body and goes against the pattern God created for expression of human sxuality.
God want's man and woman joined together in body not man and man.
Homo is a perversion.

By the same argument:
What makes zoophilia wrong?
What makes pedophilia wrong?
What makes corprophilia wrong?

The bible says it's wrong- the bible is the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD and it doesnt get out of date.
What should be the right standard-science?! Think again.

What you believe in affects how you view right and wrong-
You believe in evolution/atheism and you standard of morality becomes perverse.
Why should murder,cheating,lying be wrong?
When according to evo/no-theo , you are simply struggling to survive. It's a survival of the fittest
in a meaningless chaotic world.

Madam, sit tight, God's judgement is coming on the world. Then we shall know who was right or wrong.

UyiIredia:



Microbes never only existed at a point.



Your post here lacks substance. Gene duplication doesn't create new genetic information which is what is required.

Joshthefirst:
The fact that she uses gene duplication as an example shows she didn't do her homework

UyiIredia:



Microbes never only existed at a point.



Your post here lacks substance. Gene duplication doesn't create new genetic information which is what is required.

cloudgoddess:


Zoophilia and pedophilia are wrong because one party did not consent to the sexual act. This is also why rape is wrong. The two individuals involved in a mutually consenting homosexual relationship are not violating the rights of anyone.

What makes this definition of proper sx the standard?
You have defined a standard and are extolling it as the lens thru which a particular class of action
can be judged. What makes your standard definitive?
What happens if another society defines another standard and sticks by it- what makes theirs wrong?
e.g
does an animal have to consent to sx? No. When killing cattle/poultry- do they consent to the slaughter?
2) Does the other party have to consent to the act? Says who?
After all, all that matters is that the urge is real and hs to be satisfied.
By darwinian logic, this is a case of survival of the fittest.
We are all animals - mind you. Do you see chickens, dogs, play by any decorum when it comes to getting what they want?

By darwinian logic - rape can never be wrong.


Secular governments arising from Christian principles is a load of bull.
Government arising from atheism is insanity.
Take away eternal retribution, divinity of man, and aimless/purposeless of life and
yuo've just set the stage for mayhem and madness.
Any atheist, trying to be moral or right is just willing villifying himself for nothingness sake.
He may aswell, just do as he pleases, after all , he's only got this life.
There's no justification or incentive for an atheist to be moral.


Why do you think the United States declared seperation of church and state in the constitution? [b]Because even the writers of the constitution knew that biblical laws were insufficient for the type of society they wanted to create - one in which every person would have individual freedoms and no religion would be able to invoke their notions over other unwilling participants. The writers themselves were deists according to most historical accounts and their writings. They did not even believe in a biblical, intervening God. [/b]

The u.s separated church and state , because religious governments were abusing the religious
priviledges they had as rulers.
Not because, the bible is wrong but because man is inclined to excesses.
Look at it today, the same is the case with modern christianity. Pastor's abusing the prosperity message
etc. Does that mean the bible sanctions it? no.
When a pastor set a member on fire- did the bible sanction it? No.

Inspite of separation of church and state, the founding principles of America was biblical.
Some of the founding father's were staunch christians.
The elevation of human beings to respectable members of their nations and equality of all before the law,
was a precedence set by the united states and it had no equal in other nations.
This inspiration was from the bible.
America's human right codes have affected the way other nations crafted their social laws.


Also, Japan, China and South Korea are examples of countries who were not even touched by Christianity for the most part until very recently in their history. Why are they doing better than us in Nigeria? Why are their crime rates, child mortality rates & poverty rates so low in comparison to ours?

Yeah. But china, japan are very low on the human treatment index.
Their cultures encourage and condone a caste system that indoctrinates
people to believe lies that they are unworthy of equal treatment because of their social standing.
The chinese government is also supressive and devious.


Your threats of judgment mean absolutely nothing. They are the equivalent of me telling you, "listen to what I say otherwise a large spaghetti noodle will wrap you up and teleport you to a dimension of endless suffering". Yahweh is your noodle. I am not threatened by these ridiculous notions.


Nobody telling you of your fate is threatening you.


A life without supernatural deities does not make life meaningless. If that's what you think then that just shows how abusive and manipulative religion is, to make people believe that their existence does not have value if they are not worshipping some imaginary being.

Yes, it does. At the end of your philosophy is purposelessness and meaninglessness.
If this is so,then the products of purposeless chance should not cringe at death.
They shouldnt care whether they live longer or die.
It's stupid to think, careless chance created all the natural pleasures and desires of life-
that we all crave for.
The order and principle governing all of life.

A God who created you and gave you a meaning and a purpose in life. And died for your sins.
Made you a unique entity without duplicate. Deserves your worship. It's the least you could do .
You worship movie stars, sport athletes, influential people without thinking about it, how much more
the One who created them all.



Personally I HIGHLY value my existence. Given everything that had to happen for me to exist, cosmologically and evolutionarily, I am filled with wonder and awe. This knowledge also makes me inclined to make the absolute most of the life I live now. To pursue endeavors I find fulfilling, to make friendships and relationships with other incredible human beings, and to experience my humanhood as deeply as I can before my time comes. I can't imagine wasting another minute of this precious life whispering to imaginary friends instead of living to my fullest. Religion is a psychological trap which I am ecstatic to be free from.


filled with awe and wonder about what? how evolution made you? A mistake! An accident!
fashioned a complex entity like man, so complex, there's no computer yet to fully understand him.
You are deluded.
Religion is no trap. The truth of the word of God sets you free.
Being in the lie called atheism is the trap itself.

cloudgoddess:
I'm curious about how people who reject evolution would explain the more specific observations in nature that seem to support an evolutionary model. For example:

1. Why are the DNA sequences between species like, say, the chimpanzee and the human, or the bird and the dinosaur, so similar, if those organisms are not related? Wouldn't you expect to see completely random and dissimilar DNA sequences between all species if they shared no genetic relationship?

2. Why are simpler life forms consistently found in lower rock layers than their theorized present-day evolutionary descendents? Shouldn't we find all life forms mixed in all rock layers, if new species did not arise over time?

3. Why do human fetuses grow a layer of fur during development, which sheds later on before birth? And why does this fur grow at the same point in development as Chimpanzee fetuses do? If there were no relationship between us, wouldn't we expect human fetuses to lack such a thing?

4. In the same vein, why do the fetuses of all members of the Chordata phylum all look so similar?

5. Why are there organisms like flesh-eating bacteria, and parasitic, eye-burrowing worms that hurt humans? If such harmful and disease-causing organisms did not arise out of evolutionary adaptation, then why would they be created?

I am genuinely curious about how one would explain these phenomena in a non-evolutionary framework.

odijeks:

there are also questions that arise with the evolution theory. for example, why did evolution come to a stop with man. after several centuries, why didnt we keep evolving and evolving to more superior organisms.

after several years of chimpanzees existing, why hasn't any one of them or any other animal for that matter, evolved to a human or a more complex entity respectively. probably that's why it remains at the level of a theory tho. this evolution you speak of has remained as a theory since the 1800's when it was proposed till date of which we have had enormous leaps in science and technology since then. it stands to reason that with our technological prowess, after all that time, this scientist should be able to replicate what their theory states in the lab or in nature in order to remove all doubt.

its good u have knowledge about evolution and DNA similarities, but it would also enlighten you more to study and see how almost impossible it is for those light differences between species (that have look-alike DNAs) to transform and bridge the gap of those dissimilarities for e.g chimpanzee to man.
the evolution theory assumes that life appeared spontaneously and began to transform itself slowly. thats absurd and requires a lot of faith to believe dear

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."

cloudgoddess:

Well for one, there are a lot of false misconceptions about evolution in your post. And because your questions are based off of those misconceptions, they don't actually make much sense. I'll go one by one.

for example, why did evolution come to a stop with man. after several centuries, why didnt we keep evolving and evolving to more superior organisms.
Evolution has not come to a stop, nor will it until all life dies out. Every population of every species on earth is still evolving - it's an ongoing process involving tiny changes in the genetic material of populations generation after generation, which leads to large changes over large expanses of time (as in, millions of years for certain species - certainly not hundreds).

"Superior" is a meaningless term when comparing species with different biological niches. Evolution acts on organisms based on their environments, so the evolutionary fitness of organisms can only be measured in the context of their specific environment. If you placed a human being in a lion's den or a killer whale territory, you will quickly see that we are NOT superior to those creatures, just different. They have exactly the necessary features to survive in the environments they are presently home to, therefore they have achieved just as much evolutionary success as we have.

after several years of chimpanzees existing, why hasn't any one of them or any other animal for that matter, evolved to a human or a more complex entity respectively.
Again, this comment is based off the false assumption that humans are somehow the apex of evolution. We are not. Many animals have all sorts of features that humans lack - stronger sense of hearing, sight, and smell. Quicker reflexes, faster speed, specialized limbs & digestive systems.
Our pre-frontal cortex, the part of our brains that allows us to do all of the complex human behaviors that make us so "special", is really the only part of us that distinguishes us so much from other animals. Harm that area and people can quickly revert to very primal ways of behavior - no different than our closest living evolutionary relatives (chimpanzees & bonobos), or our less neurologically developed Homo ancestors (like Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc).

this evolution you speak of has remained as a theory since the 1800's when it was proposed till date of which we have had enormous leaps in science and technology since then.
This statement stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word theory in the context of science, versus the layman's meaning. In science, a theory is a thoroughly supported description of a body of facts - not a guess about what might have happened. An article from the National Acadamies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine sums it up nicely. Feel free to only read the bolded.


it stands to reason that with our technological prowess, after all that time, this scientist should be able to replicate what their theory states in the lab or in nature in order to remove all doubt.
And they have. Populations of E.coli bacteria and Drosophila flies have been observed to evolve new alleles in their DNA & thus new phenotypic traits after several generations of testing. Drosophila specifically were evolved to the point of genetic isolation - the marker that determines when a population has undergone speciation.

I don't expect you to have seen this research though, because it is likely (especially given your other misunderstandings, which very basic reading on evolutionary science would have eliminated) that you have only ever sought out [apparently false] information to reinforce your biases against evolution, rather than learn about the mountains of evidence that support it - or even the basic premises of the theory itself.

its good u have knowledge about evolution and DNA similarities, but it would also enlighten you more to study and see how almost impossible it is for those light differences between species (that have look-alike DNAs) to transform and bridge the gap of those dissimilarities for e.g chimpanzee to man.
Another misconception - Chimpanzees did not evolve into man. Man and chimpanzee share a common ancestor, which gave rise to multiple species over time - think of a cluster of tree branches with the same root, but different endings.

And the obvious dissimilarities between chimps & man are mostly caused by changes in regulatory genes. Chimp DNA has genes turning certain features 'on', which for us are turned 'off', and vise versa. Chimps & humans share over 98% of their DNA, nucleotide by nucleotide (that is very far from a "light similarity" ) and the differences we do see in our genomes are precisely those that would be expected after 5 million years of genetic divergence & isolation.

the evolution theory assumes that life appeared spontaneously and began to transform itself slowly. thats absurd and requires a lot of faith to believe dear
Evolution assumes nothing about the origin of life, actually. Another example of your comments being based on false premises.

ABIOGENESIS exclusively describes how the first primitive forms of life first arose on earth. Evolution EXCLUSIVELY describes the process by which life diversified into the millions of species we see today. They simply aren't the same study.

asalimpo:
^^^
In addition, almost all human inventions, have been inspired by nature - works of God, proving that man
came up with nothing new on his own.
Faced with more problems and thinking of how to battle them, scientist turn to the works of God, nature , for more inspiration ,yet try to sell us the pile of bull, that a mistake created this interwoven, intricate, complex life !
Still they continue, marvelling at and copying, the works of this mistake for their own good!!

The length people will go to deny the truth.