Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[LOki]

I didn't notice you advance an argument.

The fact they claim to understand an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence or purpose to it

really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?

Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution. However that may be, evolution is not an accident: It is not random.

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.

What design?

Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.

What calculation?

The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.

What design?

 

[Hollie]

You do know that scientific theories are never categorised as fact?

That they represent the current best available knowledge?

Do you?

So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.

So you admit you know nothing of science.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

The fact they claim to understand an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence or purpose to it

really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?

Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution. However that may be, evolution is not an accident: It is not random.

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.

What design?

Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.

What calculation?

The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

 

[Hollie]

really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?

Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution. However that may be, evolution is not an accident: It is not random.

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.

What design?

Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.

What calculation?

The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

Which was done by means of the magical hand of the gawds.

Don't be led astray by those Evilutionists.

 

[LOki]

really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?

Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution. However that may be, evolution is not an accident: It is not random.

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.

What design?

Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.

What calculation?

The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?

Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution. However that may be, evolution is not an accident: It is not random.

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.

What design?

Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.

What calculation?

The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.
I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Hollie]

Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution. However that may be, evolution is not an accident: It is not random.

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.

What design?

Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.

What calculation?

The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.
I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.

What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.

What design?

Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.

What calculation?

The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.
I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.

What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?

It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.

 

[Hollie]

What design?

What calculation?

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.
I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.

What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?

It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.

Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.

Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.
I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.

What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?

It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.

Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.

Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?

That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.

 

[LOki]

Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution. However that may be, evolution is not an accident: It is not random.

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.

What design?

Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.

What calculation?

The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Fact? Demonstrate.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.

 

[Hollie]

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.
I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.

What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?

It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.

Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.

Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?

That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.

That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.

I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.

There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.

What design?

Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.

What calculation?

The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Fact? Demonstrate.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.
I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.

What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?

It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.

Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.

Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?

That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.

That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.

I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.

There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?

Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven? Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed. The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened. The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.

Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...

 

[LOki]

What design?

What calculation?

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Fact? Demonstrate.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.

What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.

What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?

It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.

Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.

Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?

That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.

That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.

I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.

There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?

Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?

Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.

Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.

Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.

The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.

Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.

The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.

Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...

If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.

You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Fact? Demonstrate.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.

It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.

Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.

Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?

That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.

That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.

I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.

There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?

Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?

Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.

Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.

Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.

The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.

Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.

The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.

Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...

If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.

You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.

So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?
I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.

 

[LOki]

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Fact? Demonstrate.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.

Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.

Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?

That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.

That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.

I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.

There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?

Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?

Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.

Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.

Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.

The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.

Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.

The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.

Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...

If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.

You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.

So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?

Non-sequitur much?

Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."

You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.

I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.

You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Fact? Demonstrate.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.

That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.

That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.

I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.

There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?

Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?

Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.

Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.

Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.

The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.

Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.

The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.

Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...

If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.

You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.

So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?

Non-sequitur much?

Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."

You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.

I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.

You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[LOki]

Fact? Demonstrate.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.

That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.

I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.

There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?

Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?

Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.

Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.

Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.

The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.

Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.

The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.

Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...

If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.

You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.

So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?

Non-sequitur much?

Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."

You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.

I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.

You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.

Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?

 

[Abishai100]

Sci-Tech Statisticians


There are at least two archaeological totems for our modern age of sci-tech sophistication as it pertains to 'lifestyle improvement' :

1. The Crock Pot (a fun and easy way to plan Thanksgiving potluck dinners)

2. The Compact Audio Cassette (the first portable audio media storage-playback toy)

3. The Human Genome Project [HGP] (a study into the malleability of the human genetic composition as it pertains to phenotypes and genotypes)


Are such totems symbols of a human sociological perspective on evolution-gauged tool-use (and science) transformation/homogeonization?






www.apple.com

 

[sealybobo]

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.

What design?

Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.

What calculation?

The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.

What design?

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Fact? Demonstrate.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.

Sure it is. Evolution claims all life comes from the same first life. We dont know exactly when or how but life started. Maybe a mold or something even more basic than single cell organisms but they turned into more complex life and defects caused variations and that led to the diversity we see today.

Monkeys evolved from something not a monkey and we evolved from monkeys. There was no "first 2 humans.".

This is why religion hates evolution. Religion tells a story that god put Adam and eve here. Science explains why this is wrong and it makes theists uncomfortable because evolution is a much better explaination for how we came to be than the creation story.