Evolutionary Theory

[abu afak]

What a stuopid argument. First, the proteins only have to "align perfectly" for cells to perform exactly as they do. Different pressures would have created different cells. Secondly, cells were not always so complicated. Third, of course the cells we observe are exactly as they are...the many, many other variations which did not perform or persist no longer exist. Third, you are wielding a fallacy knownas "Hoyle's fallacy", by which the probability of any event can be reduced to virtually zero. It is not sound reasoning.

Your denier talking points are tired and debunked. You say ridiculous and false things. As it is clear you know less than nothing about evolutikn, your argument boils down to, "I don't understand, therefore it's false and must be magic instead!"

Exactly: somewhat akin to calling this "perfect".. AFTER the fact.

 

[RWNJ]

The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.

Can you tell us the steps involved in magically evolving the first working cell?

We can tell you several possibilities. Unfortunately, none of them involve magic, so you probably won't like them. Let's try to remember who invokes and believes in magic: that would be you.

And life arising from lifeless chemicals isn't magic? LOLOL! Good one.

 

[RWNJ]

The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.

Can you tell us the steps involved in magically evolving the first working cell?

Funny, I thought the discussion was the Theory of Evolution. That is about how species became so diverse. It does not address the first cellular life.

They are one and the same.

No, they aren't. Not at all.

They are both part of an unbroken chain of events. They are the same in the fact that they both deny the existence of a Creator. They rely on 'natural' processes. They are the same.

 

[RWNJ]

Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.

Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.

You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!

 

[WinterBorn]

"Half an arch won't stand, Clarice"

When you went to the store, did you make random turns to get there

If I make random turns I will get somewhere.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.

Can you tell us the steps involved in magically evolving the first working cell?

Funny, I thought the discussion was the Theory of Evolution. That is about how species became so diverse. It does not address the first cellular life.

They are one and the same.

No, they aren't. Not at all.

They are both part of an unbroken chain of events. They are the same in the fact that they both deny the existence of a Creator. They rely on 'natural' processes. They are the same.

No. That it is an unbroken chain of events (in the broadest sense) does not change that.

The formation of the planet is part of that unbroken chain as well, but it is not part of the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is an attempt at a scientific explanation of the process by which organisms change over time. It is about changes in organisms. It is not about the first cellular life form.

 

[WinterBorn]

Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.

Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.

You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!

No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.

Can you tell us the steps involved in magically evolving the first working cell?

We can tell you several possibilities. Unfortunately, none of them involve magic, so you probably won't like them. Let's try to remember who invokes and believes in magic: that would be you.

And life arising from lifeless chemicals isn't magic? LOLOL! Good one.

Not at all. Life, in all its variations, is a chemical process.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.

Can you tell us the steps involved in magically evolving the first working cell?

Funny, I thought the discussion was the Theory of Evolution. That is about how species became so diverse. It does not address the first cellular life.

They are one and the same.

No, they aren't. Not at all.

They are both part of an unbroken chain of events. They are the same in the fact that they both deny the existence of a Creator. They rely on 'natural' processes. They are the same.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for a Creator. None. To claim that science denies the existence of a Creator is nonsense. The Theory of Evolution does not address any Creator in any way, pro or con.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.

Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.

You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”- Isaac Asimov -

Others may wish to waste their time with you, I don't.

 

[RWNJ]

Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.

Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.

You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!

No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.

The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.

 

[RWNJ]

Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.

Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.

You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!

No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.

The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.

 

[RWNJ]

Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.

Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.

You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!

No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.

The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.

 

[RWNJ]

Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.

Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.

You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”- Isaac Asimov -

Others may wish to waste their time with you, I don't.

I accept your unconditional surrender. Have a nice day.

 

[RWNJ]

Can you tell us the steps involved in magically evolving the first working cell?

Funny, I thought the discussion was the Theory of Evolution. That is about how species became so diverse. It does not address the first cellular life.

They are one and the same.

No, they aren't. Not at all.

They are both part of an unbroken chain of events. They are the same in the fact that they both deny the existence of a Creator. They rely on 'natural' processes. They are the same.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for a Creator. None. To claim that science denies the existence of a Creator is nonsense. The Theory of Evolution does not address any Creator in any way, pro or con.

Then why are evolutionists always referring to abiogenesis, as if it was a fact? It used to be part of evolutionary theory. Then scientists realized that they were not likely to ever explain how it supposedly happened. So they disowned it. And there may not any direct scientific of a Creator, but the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more ridiculous evolution looks. And there is no scientific proof for evolution. It has not been witnessed to happen. No one knows how it could have happened or what it's driving mechanism is. Science has no answers. Only guesses. And, finally, evolution denies the existence of the Creator since it believes that everything is the result of "natural forces" Give me a break. Why don't you ask some evolutionists if they believe in a Creator.See how many say yes.

 

[RWNJ]

The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.

Can you tell us the steps involved in magically evolving the first working cell?

We can tell you several possibilities. Unfortunately, none of them involve magic, so you probably won't like them. Let's try to remember who invokes and believes in magic: that would be you.

And life arising from lifeless chemicals isn't magic? LOLOL! Good one.

Not at all. Life, in all its variations, is a chemical process.

But information is not. DNA contains information. Information, by every observation ever made, is the result of intelligence. You might want to study up on information theory. Maybe then you might learn just how inpossible abiogenesis is.

 

[WinterBorn]

Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.

Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.

You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!

No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.

The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.

No, not an assumption. The amount of carbon-14 in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains constant. That is not an assumption. That is a fact. As long as the organism is alive, it will have the same amount of carbon-14. This is also a fact. Not one single instance of a variation from this has ever been demonstrated.

After the organism dies, the amount of carbon-14 is reduced thru decay. The rate of decay is uniform and steady. No variation in the rate or uniformity has ever been demonstrated.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.

Can you tell us the steps involved in magically evolving the first working cell?

We can tell you several possibilities. Unfortunately, none of them involve magic, so you probably won't like them. Let's try to remember who invokes and believes in magic: that would be you.

And life arising from lifeless chemicals isn't magic? LOLOL! Good one.

Not at all. Life, in all its variations, is a chemical process.

But information is not. DNA contains information. Information, by every observation ever made, is the result of intelligence. You might want to study up on information theory. Maybe then you might learn just how inpossible abiogenesis is.

DNA is part of the chemical process. The information is not stored as information, but in the number and pattern of one or more of 4 nucleobases. It is very much a chemical process.

 

[WinterBorn]

Funny, I thought the discussion was the Theory of Evolution. That is about how species became so diverse. It does not address the first cellular life.

They are one and the same.

No, they aren't. Not at all.

They are both part of an unbroken chain of events. They are the same in the fact that they both deny the existence of a Creator. They rely on 'natural' processes. They are the same.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for a Creator. None. To claim that science denies the existence of a Creator is nonsense. The Theory of Evolution does not address any Creator in any way, pro or con.

Then why are evolutionists always referring to abiogenesis, as if it was a fact? It used to be part of evolutionary theory. Then scientists realized that they were not likely to ever explain how it supposedly happened. So they disowned it. And there may not any direct scientific of a Creator, but the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more ridiculous evolution looks. And there is no scientific proof for evolution. It has not been witnessed to happen. No one knows how it could have happened or what it's driving mechanism is. Science has no answers. Only guesses. And, finally, evolution denies the existence of the Creator since it believes that everything is the result of "natural forces" Give me a break. Why don't you ask some evolutionists if they believe in a Creator.See how many say yes.

The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.

 

[RWNJ]

Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.

Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.

You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!

No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.

The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.

No, not an assumption. The amount of carbon-14 in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains constant. That is not an assumption. That is a fact. As long as the organism is alive, it will have the same amount of carbon-14. This is also a fact. Not one single instance of a variation from this has ever been demonstrated.

After the organism dies, the amount of carbon-14 is reduced thru decay. The rate of decay is uniform and steady. No variation in the rate or uniformity has ever been demonstrated.

So, tell us how scientists know how much c14 was in the atmosphere several thousand years ago. Keep in mind that this dating method can only date objects 35,000 years of age or less. How do scientists know how much c14 was there? The only honest answer is that they can't. It's variable. always has been. Scientific fact.