Fundamental Logic 101. A commitment to the truth (only sane choice), inherently expands to include all possibilities. Arbitrary dismissal of a possibility, breaches that commitment as a fatal logic error, proving themselves fundamentally insane liars & frauds. When Atheist/Satanists dismiss God as a possibility, they breach their commitment to the truth, resulting in the mindfucked insanity to argue justifying a lie, is rational behavior.
My comments effectively combine as Checkmate. Those who understand fundamental logic easily recognize arguing against the facts I have presented, is to argue on behalf of insanity, lying & deception. What I have written is not a clever argument, it is the simple Truth in simple terms, which sane people understand. My argument is supported by Fundamental Logic, which is predicated on a fundamental commitment to the Truth.
Atheists/Satanists are self proven fundamentally insane, lying frauds.
Providing brain dead Atheists/Satanists a reference to an online textbook that explains fundamental logic, in hopes they will read it, before posting another display their absolute ignorance. The basis of the human logic and belief structure, is a fundamental commitment to the Truth (ONLY SANE CHOICE), which inherently expands to include all possibilities.
"Logic, an online textbook by Garth Kemerling, explains the basic elements of elementary logic, at an undergraduate level."
@kingphilip2 If America was colonised by Europeans - why is there still a Europe? Think about that for a second and it will answer your question for you.
@parsivalshorse <----------- Sports a transparent Satanic Nazi Shill,Tutu. One of the regularly scheduled Squawking Nazi Buzzards, camping Evolutionist/Atheist/Satanist videos 24/7. Bed wetting Buzzards, contaminating the pool of public information, with a Satanic supply of pissed ignorance. Small dick Squawking Nazis, include active duty military from around the world (traitors) & Internet Terrorists engaged in an enemy attack against God, Countries, Constitution & Humanity!
Yeah.. this all stems from the half baked notions of evolution that christians are taught. In all seriousness, even at the baptist high school I attended.. they make every attempt to foster the notion that evolution means that a human was born whole.. as a human..from some lesser ape.
Baldwin is just parroting what he was taught in church instead of actually understanding how evolution works.
Unfortunately there wasn't anyone in that room with brains enough to correct him.
Prejudice is the thing I failed to mention. Just typing away without giving reasons for my actions and why I am lead to believe the things I do. The Idea that someone can truthfully reason with conviction and know that they live a correct life without waver. When they confront me on most levels. I want to help out..but that is all the rage now. One person falls everyone rushes to them and stands in line for that. Who was that man..For that I am wrong for typing about that.
Was it "all the rage" in the aftermath of the SF earthquake?.. either friggin one?
Was it.. "all the rage" in the Berlin airlift?.. Cosivo.. or the countless other acts of HUMANITY that we exhibit? You.. and your "god" going to take credit for every single noble thing man does out of his own accord?
if anything is "all the rage" it's religious dimwits trying to sell us on how friggin moral they are while they are getting hand jobs from the gay prostitutes they get their meth from, buggering altar boys or crashing planes into buildings.
I've had it up to my eyeballs with their pretentious bullshit. Oh..I understand why they are coming out of the woodwork to say these things..but the world is now waking up to their shit.
@PaleHearse <----------- Sports a transparent Satanic Nazi Shill,Tutu. One of the regularly scheduled Squawking Nazi Buzzards, camping Evolutionist/Atheist/Satanist videos 24/7. Bed wetting Buzzards, contaminating the pool of public information, with a Satanic supply of pissed ignorance. Small dick Squawking Nazis, include active duty military from around the world (traitors) & Internet Terrorists engaged in an enemy attack against God, Countries, Constitution & Humanity!
according to that chart bonobo and humans are related to each other more than humans and gorillas.. but bonobos and gorillas look more alike than humans and bonobos
...found with bonobos. If you google or yahoo "Juvenile bonobo" or "Juvenile bonobo skull" you will see something truly shocking. You will see a skull that so closely resembles our own as to be jaw dropping.
This might also explain our fine hair. It certainly explains the morphology of.. say.. a chihuahua compared to a wolf.
Once an organism splits off from it's progenitor, it has the DNA it has. It's diverse.. but it's still related to the animals it came from.
"but bonobos and gorillas look more alike than humans and bonobos"~
Again..morphology is a bitch sometimes and this is where science really comes into play.
Science looks at morphology on many different levels.. and one of those levels is in how the organism develops. For example.. if something codes in the DNA to make an organism stop maturing at a certain age.. it's morphology looks different in the adult but represents a VERY minor actual change in DNA.
The other interesting thing to me is, that we don't even know what happened 10,000 years ago, but somehow we totally know what happened 5 million years ago.
@greghench Human evolution is demonstrated by ERV markers in our DNA - you don't need to refer to fossils at all. So we can indeed know what happened in the past by looking at the evidence found in our genes today.
@greghench 10,000 years ago,Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society. Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or Human Era. You are the one who doesn't know about human history 10,000 years ago, so speak for YOURSELF!
@greghench Interesting thing to you my ass. You don't even know what interesting means. We have evidence tracing our evolutionary primate history all the way back to 65 million years ago, after the dinosaur extinction. Now, that's interesting. Genesis with a talking snake and a fairy tale about an ark isn't very interesting, deary.
It takes time and the perfect conditions for something to actually fossilize... so let's be very clear here... we are overjoyed to have the fossils we have but it's probably NEVER going to be anywhere near as complete a record as our DNA is.
So how come we get to see all the pictures of all the "Cousins" except for the original one? And does that mean their was an evolutionary step backwards and forwards at the same time form the first 5 Million Year old Uncle. hmmm.
@greghench You wrote: "So how come we get to see all the pictures of all the "Cousins" except for the original one?" Because this video isn't an evolutionary history lesson. Its a current modern image of living ape species alive now to prove that we did not evolve from the apes in the picture. Dumb ass fat druggy guy said we evolved from apes that are sill here and Dr Professor guy is showing we didn't evolve from them. Now, go back to bed.
Sorry about the spamming. I am a Female Christian rapper trying to network. I want to have my music heard by the good people of youtube. Please take a moment and Check out my channel! God Bless.
I not gonna drag race the Atheist to the end. but the holy spirit has carried me through. I believe in Being reborn a Christian I feel that Stephen has made the right choice and in some way shown light on my life.
What's annoying about your analogy is that your making the assumption that an atheist wouldn't have stopped.. eh?
That we are not also trying to do what's right by making damn sure that religious nut jobs aren't allowed to repeat nonsense in science class and try and pass it off as truth.
Don't confuse the moral compass of those who do not share your belief with "immorality".
To an atheist.. your the one with a morality problem... just so we're clear.
@klwneu Being raised an atheist all of my life, I have to say that statements such as yours are seen as mentally insane and I feel sorry for you. Two things occur with people like me when running into someone like you in person, we either steer clear of you pretending you don't exist or if confronted, we bow our heads looking at the ground waiting for you to stop your insane rant. Don't mistake our politeness as tolerance. We just learned to live in a world with maniacs.
@klwneu "but the holy spirit has carried me through."
-That's what all of you christians say, but yet, none of you can agree on what the bible is actually saying... causing you all to split up into approximately 38, 000 factions and still counting.
So there it was me in OKC driving down the freeway in heavy traffic. A truck clipped a motocycle sending the man and woman soaring into the air. Like hot air ballons they hovered as my truck was heading toward them. I had a choice as a driver. And I slammed my brakes on and left my truck in the freeway in front of them. I got out and helped them. I put my life in question when I did that. I have not ever seen a car parked in the middle of a freeway. but it worked and the people were helped.
@klwneu "I had a choice as a driver. And I slammed my brakes on and left my truck in the freeway in front of them. I got out and helped them"
You had a CHOICE??? You had a fucking CHOICE???? Are you telling us that you, as a christian, had a fucking CHOICE as to whether you should stop to keep from hitting these people or to help them???
"Choice" implies you had to stop to think about it. What you did should have been INSTINCT; claiming you made a CHOICE to do it is nauseating to me!
So, basically, humans just got the lucky end of the genes. A bunch of subspecies of apes fucked and one magical human came out of a vagina genetically deformed and awesome and here we are now
To those of you who misunderstand this chart. Every walking upright human like species is now extinct. We are the only ones left!!! We are NOT unique. This chart is showing MODERN apes and that we DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MODERN APES. OK??? Get it now?
@jessydaytime Also, I would ad that Just three more revolutions of cell division is the difference between a chimp's brain and a human's brain. That's all. So what! So we are different! In order to understand our intelligence and brain size is to understand evolution. That's the only science in which the answer is given.
interesting, am I the only one here that's sane enough to realize the insanity of Dawkins' claims? I mean look at the pics of the chimps, they all look alike except for the blond female human. Also, another question is to be posed, why only humans are the intelligent beings amongst all of those chimps? why are we the only entirely different from their physical appearance?...etc
Richard is just making up theories to somehow prove something that's obviously wrong.
@Lunarek If you are a college student, those questions you ask will be answered. It will be surprisingly logical and you'll realize that the chart is a genetic phylogeny mitocondial DNA chart, not a chart depicting every detail of every breeding population and ancestor. This is why you are misunderstanding it. The point of the chart is to show that we did not evolve from apes or chimps that the actor at a drug rehabilitation reality show asked in this video... Why are apes sill here?
I understand the chart, and I'm talking about a different point, saying that this is nothing more than just a theory, that hasn't been proven.
My point was, why all the other chimps look alike except for the human? if we were to talk about the DNA we share, then there are other species that we share the our DNA with like hamsters. Also, why only humans are the intelligent beings?
@Lunarek The chart is showing living modern apes not the ones that have passed away and no longer exist in order to show that we did not evolve from modern apes. That's all its showing. As far as only humans. Were we alive when other breeding hominids existed on this earth with intelligence? No, but we have their bones, their tools, their paintings and burial sites as well as their DNA to study. We just happen to be the only one's left. We can become extinct like the rest of them.
I see, so we are the only intelligent beings on earth even though we "evolved" from the same common ancestor. And the other intelligent creatures have ceased to exist?
@emfederin This person was asking legitimate questions that clearly demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is about. If you can answer this person's questions with evidential support and they refuse to accept evidence, then you can call the person a dumb fundie. Otherwise, the insult hasn't proven itself to be warranted.
you would expect evoloution to have brought our common ancestors to the upright walking ape or something along those lines like we were before we supposebly evolved into the humans we are now in this stage you wouldnt expect something which was around at the same time like us to be so far behind in its adolescent stages you would expect something atleast vaugely recognizable in comparison to how we have evolved but its not their its like we were the only branch of apes that evolved at all.
@listenup345 "its like we were the only branch of apes that evolved at all." It looks that way but that's not true. There are all kinds of walking upright populations of human like species discovered every few years that had intelligence, tools, and had cave paintings like humans did. They are being discovered at a more rapid rate than ever. We are not impervious to extinction. The cockroach has been here before the dinosaurs and will be here after we become extinct. Evolution.
And if you understand that black ring on steve's hand. and really have read and consulted with people in the faith. By the time you get there, you would be dumbfounded at understanding me. I am enough to outride the pope when it comes to god people of the united states how we learn and evolve. What you come correct to in your head. Simply put I am a ass for the most part humility resonates from me but falls on def ears. I get put into groups of the most famous people on earth literally by god.
As I said before it is obvious that the people these days don't know the difference between being a Christian and Science the proof is on Stephens hand;a black flat surfaced square stone embedded into a ring on his hand.So the argument that this comment page is having is:what if a evolutionist and a evolutionist(non-christian's) got in a debate.But the people making the comments are not keen on that.or they maker of the vid wants to imply a real christian nonexistant phony is better than nothin.
So now my question is... why should we put our cousins, which shares a common ancestral bloodline in cages/zoo/etc.? Should't we be treating them better? Perhaps not as good as humans are, but maybe as our pets or friends? Since they have the potential to be as smart as humans are; they would possibly retaliate against us one day in the future if they look back towards the atrocities/cruelty man commit against them.
@MiloBoz You must be confused. Evolution doesn't center around you, so the good news is that its based on genetic frequencies in populations so that admitting you're gay won't change the population explosion.
@MiloBoz Calling an attractive woman a whore who is spoken for is the first step to admitting you're gay. Why not pick Scientology? You're bound to find a closeted homo like yourself in that cult.
@MiloBoz Well I guess he would feel uninterested since the basic notion of evolution dates back to the ancient Greeks a couple of thousand years earlier.
@jessydaytime "One should then take a look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants.
The Animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in gradual process of creation, it finall leads to man, who is able to think and reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys."
@jessydaytime This was NOT stated by Darwin, but by a 14th century Muslim scientist named Ibn Khaldun, in his book titled "The Muqaddimah" or "The Introduction." This was written about 400 years before Darwin's theory of evolution. ISBN 0-691-01754-9 (Page 75) Western Scientists called it the "Muhammedan theory of evolution from lower forms".. Still denying the truth?
@MiloBoz Yeah, the difference is that your quote from Ibn Khaldun is about the origins of life, and the Theory of Evolution does not even discuss the origins of life. There are similar claims by the way in many ancient texts that are far older.
@parsivalshorse Ibn Kaldun's theory is actually far superior to any other evolution theory i've read. Instead of talking nonsense, why not post some sources for your claims?
@jessydaytime Don't try to pawn your BO off on me..We both know the filthy stinch is coming from your underpants..Don't forget to wash the asshole next time you take a dump.
@MiloBoz Whew... Stinky.... Again, you've got to take it outside unless you already had Jesus nibble on your turd who offered a piece to Mohammed like two guys and one cup.
@jessydaytime I came out of the closet this morning. Went in there to pick out a new pair of shoes for the day. I thought, i'm so greatful I don't have a stupid bitch like you around to stink up my house and talk shit.. Then again, that sandwich is sounding good right about now.
@jessydaytime Hello again pig, I'm sorry your man wears open toed sandals and broke down shit.. No need to take it out on me haha When your an alpha male such as myself, you don't need to worry about pussy.
@MiloBoz Aw, trying to suck on your own limp dick? Must be frustrating to be at that age where you can't get it up anymore. I can understand why you pass the time trolling for something to do when its too late for you to find a mate. Maybe you can go to Craig's list like you usually do or do you feel to broke for comfort???
@jessydaytime HA HA the only time i would have a problem getting it up is if i lacked confidence and was forced to copulate with a nasty beat up pig such as yourself. but that would never happen, because my genetics are superior to yours, and i refuse to compromise my children's genetics with that of a swine.
@MiloBoz Clearly there is something you fail to understand about my comment that the Theory of evolution is not about the origins of life - which is the bulk of your quote from Ibn Kaldun. I'll try to put it in even simpler terms - Ibn Kaldun's quote is about how life came to be, the Theory of evolution is not about how life came to be. If you want a source for that claim - just look at the wki page on 'The Theory of Evolution'.
@jessydaytime Feel free to research the book if you doubt anything I quoted.. I left the code/page number for you.. ISBN 0-691-01754-9 (Page 75).. or just google "Muhammedan theory of man from lower forms".. You're not very bright are you?
@MiloBoz Its not peer reviewed. Not interested in crap,so yes, i'm light years from you in intelligence. Explain to me speciation of plants without evolution dumb fuck.
@jessydaytime Darwin's contemporary John William Draper called it the "Muhameddan theory of man from lower forms" in his book "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science) page 188. Free on Google books for your broke ass. As far as your intelligence, I'll pretend I didn't hear that. I'm better looking then you, have a higher IQ then you, have more money then you.. And your lucky I'm even talking time out of my day to enlighten your bimbo brain. Call it my good deed for the day.: )
Ffs people! We live in the Milky Way Galaxy, one amongst billions galaxies in the observable universe on a planet that we now know is one amongst billions of other plants and you want to argue about the statistical probability of something being so low that intelligent design must be responsible for it? Grow up, your Kung foo is weak....
@walter42194 "to you who question the existence of GOD,please read my testimony on my channel"
We do read it often. It both reaffirms our disbelief and makes us laugh at the same time.
OTOH, maybe it does make me a bit more "religious" in a way...I read your deluded writings and I shudder in horror that any human mind could be so functionally reduced by self-delusion that I find myself thinking "There, but for the grace of god, go I".
To the creationist troll on this thread. Has someone ever irritated you to the point that you lose all respect for them? Don't even tell me that you are not human enough to have felt that way. Well, this is how most people feel about evangelizers. They are annoying as hell because they are not interested in respecting anyone else's point of view as their attitude is just like Amway. Its a cultish recruiting behavior and we are sick of it! Don't blame us for putting you down; blame yourself!
guys enough is enough!! at the end of the day it's ALL a theory of evolution, a theory of big bang, & BLa, bla, bla ,bla.Truth is no one knows what happened millions of years ago, and no one will ever know!! Thats why it's called a theory, because they will never be able to know, just take an informed guess!We think this they say, we think that they say, What they don't tell you is that they are stabbing in the dark, & tying to pass it off as FACT! if you don't like it bad luck! thats the TRUTH!
This is a funny post. You have not been informed about scientific theories. A scientific theory is not a guess. It is not an unknown. It is an explanation from a group of facts. Quantum theory, for example, deals with the behavior of atomic and subatomic particles which have dual particle/wave-like characteristics. These behaviors are facts. Like the laws of gravity. The "theory" of evolution is not a guess, it's an explanation of facts. That is what scientific theory is.
@ohsnap31 "Like the laws of gravity. The "theory" of evolution isn't a guess, it's an explanation of facts."
You're absolutely right up to a certain point. One must keep in mind, though, that what you're calling 'facts' must first be tested for accuracy through both observation and experimentation. The 'facts' for gravity are both observed and reproduced. 'Macro-Evolution' can't make such a claim. Until it's observed and reproduced it's merely a bunch of hypotheses and not a Scientific Theory.
@ohsnap31 Yeah, kind of like the scientific theory of abiogenesis, which has no scientific basis at all. It is just a guess...not testable by the scientific method, not reproducible, not observable..zilch. Not only improbable, but statistically, mathematically, and scientifically impossible.
@jmp789 So, basically, you are saying that scientists should have YOUR attitude that if you don't know for sure how something occurred naturally, then you should just throw in the towel and not try and figure things out. Just don't invent technology based on nature and allow us to have progress. Just believe that ONLY Jesus and an afterlife matters and that's it, huh... Great, just great. (sarcasm).
@truvelocity But that's the beauty of scientific theory process; a theory is never complete. It is built upon and expanded as it reaches new heights. It simply has to be backed up by the observable and the tested. This is not throwing in the towel. It's a journey towards truth with the highest levels of integrity; without placing any personal preference on the outcome. Many scientists have agenda's, however, which makes adherence to the Scientific Method of paramount importance to us.
@jmp789 Ya. But the theory of evolution has a scientific and factual basis and is highly probable and can even be observed in some instances, such as in bacteria gaining resistance to a medicine through generations. After a century and a half of research, science has only further confirmed Darwin's theory. Sorry but cop out explanations don't work here.
@iron100159 You are correct...evolution has been observed in these instances. However, there is no scientific or factual basis for abiogenesis. You just simply cannot get life from non-life or order from disorder. Its funny though, because it seems atheists think they are on the intellectual high ground in many cases, when really, their belief is just as absent of "hard evidence" as theists.
@jmp789 More "I don't know: Therefore God." logical fallacy here. Atheists contend that they have an educated estimation and method of how we came into being, and leave room that modifications still will be made to this theory. Theists claim to have all the answers, so ask no questions. Look into our history when brilliant people like Copernicus and Galilei had answers that theists didn't like. As science explains more concepts each century, there is less room for mysticism and gods of old.
@PaladinPump No, its really not a logical fallacy. It is actually very logical when one sees complexity or information to assume that it was created from some kind of intelligence. If I see a house, a building, or a computer, I assume it was intelligently created. What I do not assume, is that it appeared from random chance, which is what you believe. You believe in something that is scientifically impossible (abiogenesis).
@jmp789 You can take classes at your local community college on how to create those things,no assumption on my part is made,nor needed.I won't presume(like you)since we haven't even met or had a real discussion on what you believe,but I will say that invoking miracles/magic is very easy to argue with,wouldn't you say?I could say that I believe in a nocturnal vampire god, and besides failing the same step at the same point of the scientific method as your god,you immediately know how silly it is.
@PaladinPumph Listen buddy, I'm in medical school and I can tell you right now, I've studied my fair share of "those things", so I have an idea of how complex they and the processes that create them are. I don't think you realize how improbable abiogenesis really is. It is improbabilites stacked on improbabilities stacked on improbabilities. Go talk to any molecular biologist..I'm sure they would tell you the same thing.
@jmp789 I haven't even mentioned abiogenesis, you continue to do it over and over as if it gains ground or moves the proverbial "marker" anywhere at all. You ignore the solid point I made that invoking a god/magic/miracles is silly. Your fallacy you continue to make, and I'd like an admission that you understand what myself and others are pointing out about you for you to acknowledge, is that you bring up improbabilities. This is where you are ok, but hint then at "Therefore: God" = fallacy.
@PaladinPumph Yes, I believe in a designer, because I can observe intelligence, information, and complexity in the the world. When I see a book (information), I know there was an author, when I see a house (complexity), I know there was a construction worker, when I see a computer (intelligence), I know there was a creator. When I see things at the cellular level that are at a much greater magnitude than any of these things put together, you better believe I assume a designer.
"When I see the incredibly low probability for life arising on its own, "~
That incredibly low possibility.. would have to be ZERO.. before I would accept the conclusion that instead of identifiable natural processes... a magical sky daddy did it.. and then made it look as IF it could have been done by nature.
@PaleHearse Thats great for you, but I call it quits at about the 0.000000000000000000001% probability range. The reality is, the chance of life arising on its own is significantly less than that, and essentially is zero. Do you realize how many different things would have to occur, by chance, to make a single simple cell?
@PaleHearse The concept of 'Species' is also flawed. PaleHearse says they can't breed therefore they're definitely a new species. In practice there are discrepancies. For example, hundreds of distinctive dog breeds are considered to be of the same species (Canis familiars) as they can cross breed. However, the coyote or the grey wolf are considered to be different species though they are known to interbreed with dogs.
@PaleHearse "If they're of Kind then Humans are too"
The 99% figure for DNA similarity has been questioned for years. The 2002 comparative genomic map between chimp and human revealed that only 48.6% of the entire human genome matched chimp nucleotide sequences. The tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans. And, the chimp’s genome is around 10 percent larger than human’s. These differences have far reaching consequences which need to be explored.
At this point it's not actually a question of DNA similarity but instead one of morphology.
You seem to dance from one stance to the other as suits you.. and that's simply not science. Are you talking genetic similarity to describe what you are putting forward as "kind".. or is it morphology. You don't get to have it both ways. That's where your stuck.
Stick your fingers in your ears all you like.. this isn't going away.
"These differences have far reaching consequences which need to be explored."~
Ah.. yeah.. the "far reaching consequence" is that when a species can no longer breed with members of it's progenitor, it takes on from that day forward characteristics unique to it's new species. See goby and many others.
What you call macro evolution is unfolding all around you.. but because it doesn't happen on your narcissistic timescale.. your in denial.
Nevertheless, my unscientific hypotheses (due to lack of available data, observation nor analysis) would be that Chimps and Bonobos are very likely of the same 'kind' (sharing a genetic relationship through common descent from an ancestor organism and all it's decedents). Certainly different in taxonomic 'Species' but certainly of the same 'Order'/Kind.
"Chimps and Bonobos are very likely of the same 'kind' "~
Sorry I missed this.. it was flagged as spam. Probably due to your attempt not to actually have to discuss the topic but instead to lay down a diatribe of your own ideas of evolution.
So that out of the way.. then I expect you to then also admit that humans are still the same "kind" of animal as a chimp and bonobo because we share morphology.. correct? Or are you denying that?
His insistence is in line with his reasoning. For, to him, theories can be solely rationalized. A scientist first collects data and then formulates the hypotheses. PaleHearse and other pro-macro's do it in reverse; they formulate the theory and then search for data in an attempt to reaffirm their belief system.
PaleHearse insists on a Scientific stand on the 'Kind-ship' of Chimps and Bonobos. As I've already mentioned to him, there is no publicly available data on the Bonobo Genome nor is there a consensus on the Bonobo in the Scientific Community either. As such, a 'Scientific' stand is impossible.
@PaleHearse For example, in the mid 20th century morphology, rather than the ability to interbreed, was considered the main determinant of a Species. Today, the modern definition of a species tends to ignore the morphological differences/similarities and focus on whether or not a population interbreeds. Other schools of thought insist that a species is an isolated group of interbreeding populations.
@PaleHearse Okay. Kind (Baraminology): a group of organisms who share a genetic relationship through common descent from an organism. It is similar to what is known as a CLADE. Cladists do not rely solely upon morphology but also use fossil evidence, genetic and biochemical analysis. I am not heavily schooled in either of these two classification systems.
The concept of Kind (Min) are undergoing much scientific scrutiny in as much as the taxonomic classifications do.
Assumption 3: Genetic Variability and Speciation are proof for Macro-Evolution
Assumption 4: Scientific Theories derived through observing Micro-Evolutionary Processes and be 'rationalized' as being proof for Macro-Evolution and still be called 'Scientific'.
Assumption 5: Observable and Testable data is not necessary for the formulation of a pure Scientific Theory.
I also stated that an 'Ancestral Species' can split into new species within the limits of the genetic information already present in that kind. 'Kind' brought through much contention and the issuing of the chimp-bonobo 'test' from PaleHearse's pre-formulated repertoire.
PaleHearse posed the afore mentioned question due to the fact that I stated that the end population of the ring species phenomenon has the exact same alleles as for the original population and that the only difference between the two is differing amounts of these alleles. Meaning,no increase in genetic information has occurred i.e. no Macro Evolution.
Species: generally defined as a naturally-occurring population that is interbreeding and reproductively isolated from other such groups.
Allele: one of two or more forms of a gene or a gene locus (generally a group of genes). Different alleles can result in different observable phenotypic traits, such as different pigmentation. However, many variations at the genetic level result in little or no observable variation.
Before I continue, it's important to set aside a few definitions of terms as they have been discussed to date:
Macroevolution: change that occurs above the level of species. Changes occurring on geological time scales.
Microevolution: smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Occurs on the timescale of human lifetimes.
Please note that most of my comments have been fearfully marked as spam. Simply click on 'show' to view what has been censored within this community of 'debaters'.
"then made it look as IF it could have been done by nature."
Nature has not shown us that at all. Again, Macro-Evolution has no evidence to support such a hypotheses. Observable and testable proof is required for a Scientific Theory. No mere 'rationalizing' allowed. If the Scientific Method is not followed it's not Science.
@AvalonMoon22 Macro-evolution is proven by observed speciation events - and there are a great many of them. You seem to think that by inserting terms like 'kind' and 'subspecies' you can somehow invent a reality in which macro-ev. is not an observed fact. Macro-ev. means an evolutionary transition at or above the species level - and as such has been established scientific fact for more than a century. Google 'observed instances of speciation' and you will find many examples.
@jmp789 I enjoy the condescension with the "Listen buddy," and then say that you study things in school while completely missing the point. Comparing the construction and manufacturing of everyday goods and services to your "abiogenesis" point you keep bringing up is, lets say simply, not comparing apples to apples. One is demonstrable and the other is not. My point of the college classes was to demonstrate this difference. Please reconfigure your analogy as this is clearly fallacious.
@jmp789 You confuse hypothesis with theory, they are not interchangeable. It's sad you substitute poor logic and superstition for scientific understanding. Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings. There is no evidence that a God exists, plenty of evidence that we have evolved. You simply are living in denial of basic facts. Religious people use to believe the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. You would have believed that too.
@ohsnap31 'Micro-Evolution' has factual basis (i.e. observable and testable) but not 'Macro-Evolution'. You cannot make the leap of faith to infer that the observable 'micro' proves the assumption of 'macro'. If you make that assumption it is not based on science.
BTW most sciences in the ancient cultures have held the concept of the flat earth.
@ohsnap31 So there is plenty of evidence we evolved, ok. In theory, a higher power could have designed the process of evolution. But that is beside the point. I'm guessing that you are atheist, and by default, you believe in abiogenesis. Abiogenesis, once again, has never been observed, reproduced, and there is NO evidence that it is possible. In fact, statisically, the chances of abiogenesis occurring is 0. You have stronger faith than I.
@jmp789 You failed at the beginning here. You, at least for the sake of argument (and not to look ignorant of overwhelming evidence), agree to evolution.The fail happened when you brought a higher power into the discussion when it is not, even for the sake of argument, agreed upon by both sides.Everything you submit after this fallacy is null. The other fallacy is that things that cannot be observed by our eyes or machines is somehow false opens the door to many arguments towards this logic.
@jmp789 Evolution explains life perfectly. We have not need to invoke a God. Evolution from natural selection explains life on earth. Understanding the science of Evolution makes a God unlikely. Evolution is wasteful and brutal. An all-knowing God wouldn't have used evolution to create life. Evolution is too wasteful and sloppy. 99% of all forms that ever existed are extinct. Instead of cherry picking the bible look to archaeology, biology, fossil record, genetics for answers.
@ohsnap31 No, evolution does not explain how life started. Evolution happens AFTER life begins. If you are atheist, you believe that life came from non-life, a little thing called abiogenesis. The problem with that is it has ZERO chance of occurring! In other words, you believe in something that is impossible.
@jmp789 What authority do you claim to rule in such a matter of the dawn of the life of micro-organisms? You finished high school? College? You could have spent your life studying the matter, and at the end of your life, you would still be guessing (albeit with a method/pattern you submit as your hypothesis) and even then you would have to be peer reviewed with other contemporary scientists. You still have all of your work still ahead of you, I'm afraid.
@jmp789 Your basing a lot on abiogenesis being impossible but its not. It simply hasn't been proven entirely yet. Scientists have tried replicating the circumstance they believe life originated in and amino acids start forming. While its not conclusive I've never heard of anyone saying its scientifically impossible. Secondly, everything has a process. how did God create life if not through things that were not living? He would have a process and one that could be replicated by chance in nature.
@iron100159 The formation of amino acids is a far cry from life, my friend. It takes many specifically organized amino acids to even make up a single protein! And we're not even considering the hundreds of specialized proteins, DNA, RNA, and cell membrane needed to create the simplest of simple cells. There are so many problems with the idea of abiogenesis. And lets say by some crazy chance this primordial cell came into being...how does it replicate? for what purpose would it replicate?
@jmp789 Well I'm just saying that its not impossible scientifically. My point is that how do you believe God did it. how does he give life the inherent quality of an instinct to survive and reproduce. Cause if he can do that then can't nature by chance do the same. BTW I'm not an exactly an expert but fatty acid membranes do naturally form and life started with only RNA, not DNA.
@jmp789 I'm not 100% sure on this part but I'd imagine they replicate because of the RNA strings which do form naturally and naturally form ribosomes. Eventually you'd find one that produces the proper nucleoids for survival and such and that would be the one that survives, because it is the only one that it "trying" to survive. The fatty acid bilipid layers naturally allow for a split and RNA naturally unwinds and replicates due to bonding patterns of the chemicals.
@jmp789 Its a large multi-step process that took millions of years and probably to go from simple chemicals to a cell.A lot of the structures and pieces naturally form. and when these pieces find one another and interact in a certain way they form larger structures whi
This has been flagged as spam show
History of diabolical "missing link" frauds. Atheist/Satanists posing as scientists:
1913-53 Piltdown Man HOAX, Manufactured Planted Evidence
Nebraska Man, Discarded Pigs Tooth
Peking Man, Conglomeration of Co-Mingled Fossils
Lucy, Manipulated Fossil Using Plaster
Orce Man, 4 Month Old Donkey Bone
2009 Ida, Grossly Unsupportable Classification
2010 Sebida, equivelant of a deceased PetsMart Gerbil
*Evolution, science of a preponderance of bullshit, in lieu of irrefutable evidence.
waketheoblivious 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fundamental Logic 101. A commitment to the truth (only sane choice), inherently expands to include all possibilities. Arbitrary dismissal of a possibility, breaches that commitment as a fatal logic error, proving themselves fundamentally insane liars & frauds. When Atheist/Satanists dismiss God as a possibility, they breach their commitment to the truth, resulting in the mindfucked insanity to argue justifying a lie, is rational behavior.
Atheist/Satanists = Godforsaken Nazis
waketheoblivious 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My comments effectively combine as Checkmate. Those who understand fundamental logic easily recognize arguing against the facts I have presented, is to argue on behalf of insanity, lying & deception. What I have written is not a clever argument, it is the simple Truth in simple terms, which sane people understand. My argument is supported by Fundamental Logic, which is predicated on a fundamental commitment to the Truth.
Atheists/Satanists are self proven fundamentally insane, lying frauds.
waketheoblivious 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Providing brain dead Atheists/Satanists a reference to an online textbook that explains fundamental logic, in hopes they will read it, before posting another display their absolute ignorance. The basis of the human logic and belief structure, is a fundamental commitment to the Truth (ONLY SANE CHOICE), which inherently expands to include all possibilities.
"Logic, an online textbook by Garth Kemerling, explains the basic elements of elementary logic, at an undergraduate level."
waketheoblivious 4 hours ago
Stephen Baldwin asked why there are still APES..not chimpanzees. Dawkins does not answer the question.
kingphilip2 8 hours ago
@kingphilip2 If America was colonised by Europeans - why is there still a Europe? Think about that for a second and it will answer your question for you.
parsivalshorse 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@parsivalshorse <----------- Sports a transparent Satanic Nazi Shill,Tutu. One of the regularly scheduled Squawking Nazi Buzzards, camping Evolutionist/Atheist/Satanist videos 24/7. Bed wetting Buzzards, contaminating the pool of public information, with a Satanic supply of pissed ignorance. Small dick Squawking Nazis, include active duty military from around the world (traitors) & Internet Terrorists engaged in an enemy attack against God, Countries, Constitution & Humanity!
waketheoblivious 4 hours ago
@kingphilip2 Yes he did. Chimpanzees ARE apes. Watch the video at 1:28 again and listen to what Dawkins says.
kevin1086 6 hours ago
@kevin1086
Yeah.. this all stems from the half baked notions of evolution that christians are taught. In all seriousness, even at the baptist high school I attended.. they make every attempt to foster the notion that evolution means that a human was born whole.. as a human..from some lesser ape.
Baldwin is just parroting what he was taught in church instead of actually understanding how evolution works.
Unfortunately there wasn't anyone in that room with brains enough to correct him.
PaleHearse 2 hours ago
Stephen Baldwin's stupidity is palpable. Perhaps Santorum could use him as the poster boy for the perfect American?
goldenhopper 9 hours ago
Historically or evolutionarily? their is no god ! never was never will be .
7thsign68 12 hours ago
Prejudice is the thing I failed to mention. Just typing away without giving reasons for my actions and why I am lead to believe the things I do. The Idea that someone can truthfully reason with conviction and know that they live a correct life without waver. When they confront me on most levels. I want to help out..but that is all the rage now. One person falls everyone rushes to them and stands in line for that. Who was that man..For that I am wrong for typing about that.
klwneu 13 hours ago
@klwneu
".but that is all the rage now."~
With all due respect..
...Fuck you.. you arrogant self righteous prick.
Was it "all the rage" in the aftermath of the SF earthquake?.. either friggin one?
Was it.. "all the rage" in the Berlin airlift?.. Cosivo.. or the countless other acts of HUMANITY that we exhibit? You.. and your "god" going to take credit for every single noble thing man does out of his own accord?
You know.. how about you just shut up.
"all the rage".. get a grip junior.
PaleHearse 11 hours ago
@PaleHearse Well said. lol
dave474c 10 hours ago
@dave474c
Thanks..
if anything is "all the rage" it's religious dimwits trying to sell us on how friggin moral they are while they are getting hand jobs from the gay prostitutes they get their meth from, buggering altar boys or crashing planes into buildings.
I've had it up to my eyeballs with their pretentious bullshit. Oh..I understand why they are coming out of the woodwork to say these things..but the world is now waking up to their shit.
They do NOT hold the keys to our humanity.
PaleHearse 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse <----------- Sports a transparent Satanic Nazi Shill,Tutu. One of the regularly scheduled Squawking Nazi Buzzards, camping Evolutionist/Atheist/Satanist videos 24/7. Bed wetting Buzzards, contaminating the pool of public information, with a Satanic supply of pissed ignorance. Small dick Squawking Nazis, include active duty military from around the world (traitors) & Internet Terrorists engaged in an enemy attack against God, Countries, Constitution & Humanity!
waketheoblivious 4 hours ago
according to that chart bonobo and humans are related to each other more than humans and gorillas.. but bonobos and gorillas look more alike than humans and bonobos
Ian8sg 15 hours ago
Comment removed
PaleHearse 14 hours ago
@Ian8sg
...found with bonobos. If you google or yahoo "Juvenile bonobo" or "Juvenile bonobo skull" you will see something truly shocking. You will see a skull that so closely resembles our own as to be jaw dropping.
This might also explain our fine hair. It certainly explains the morphology of.. say.. a chihuahua compared to a wolf.
Once an organism splits off from it's progenitor, it has the DNA it has. It's diverse.. but it's still related to the animals it came from.
Did that help?
PaleHearse 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ian8sg
"but bonobos and gorillas look more alike than humans and bonobos"~
Again..morphology is a bitch sometimes and this is where science really comes into play.
Science looks at morphology on many different levels.. and one of those levels is in how the organism develops. For example.. if something codes in the DNA to make an organism stop maturing at a certain age.. it's morphology looks different in the adult but represents a VERY minor actual change in DNA.
That..is what they...
PaleHearse 14 hours ago
I like to turn around this ignoramus argument that has been refuted countless times
If Adam came from dirt why do we still have dirt?
robvlob 19 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dumb ass druggy guy, IF WE EVOLVED FROM APES HOW COME DAY ARE STILL HERE?
Professor smart guy, WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM THE APES THAT ARE STILL HERE!
Fucking dumb as creatards... Sheesh.
jessydaytime 1 day ago
READ A BOOK !!! and not the fairy-tales in the bible !
TheRealRealTalk 1 day ago
The other interesting thing to me is, that we don't even know what happened 10,000 years ago, but somehow we totally know what happened 5 million years ago.
greghench 1 day ago
@greghench Human evolution is demonstrated by ERV markers in our DNA - you don't need to refer to fossils at all. So we can indeed know what happened in the past by looking at the evidence found in our genes today.
parsivalshorse 1 day ago
@greghench what are you talking about ? we do know what happened 10,000 years ago ! READ A BOOK !
TheRealRealTalk 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greghench 10,000 years ago,Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society. Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or Human Era. You are the one who doesn't know about human history 10,000 years ago, so speak for YOURSELF!
jessydaytime 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greghench Interesting thing to you my ass. You don't even know what interesting means. We have evidence tracing our evolutionary primate history all the way back to 65 million years ago, after the dinosaur extinction. Now, that's interesting. Genesis with a talking snake and a fairy tale about an ark isn't very interesting, deary.
jessydaytime 1 day ago
@greghench
Historically or evolutionarily?
It takes time and the perfect conditions for something to actually fossilize... so let's be very clear here... we are overjoyed to have the fossils we have but it's probably NEVER going to be anywhere near as complete a record as our DNA is.
PaleHearse 14 hours ago
So how come we get to see all the pictures of all the "Cousins" except for the original one? And does that mean their was an evolutionary step backwards and forwards at the same time form the first 5 Million Year old Uncle. hmmm.
greghench 1 day ago
@greghench The reason there are no images of the common ancestor is because they are extinct - I would have thought that was obvious.
parsivalshorse 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greghench You wrote: "So how come we get to see all the pictures of all the "Cousins" except for the original one?" Because this video isn't an evolutionary history lesson. Its a current modern image of living ape species alive now to prove that we did not evolve from the apes in the picture. Dumb ass fat druggy guy said we evolved from apes that are sill here and Dr Professor guy is showing we didn't evolve from them. Now, go back to bed.
jessydaytime 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry about the spamming. I am a Female Christian rapper trying to network. I want to have my music heard by the good people of youtube. Please take a moment and Check out my channel! God Bless.
ChristianCutie83 1 day ago
So you're telling me that I'm closer to a Chimp than an Orangutan? Bullshit! I'm way closer to an Orangutan!
MrPudster1 1 day ago
I not gonna drag race the Atheist to the end. but the holy spirit has carried me through. I believe in Being reborn a Christian I feel that Stephen has made the right choice and in some way shown light on my life.
klwneu 1 day ago
@klwneu
What's annoying about your analogy is that your making the assumption that an atheist wouldn't have stopped.. eh?
That we are not also trying to do what's right by making damn sure that religious nut jobs aren't allowed to repeat nonsense in science class and try and pass it off as truth.
Don't confuse the moral compass of those who do not share your belief with "immorality".
To an atheist.. your the one with a morality problem... just so we're clear.
PaleHearse 1 day ago
@klwneu Being raised an atheist all of my life, I have to say that statements such as yours are seen as mentally insane and I feel sorry for you. Two things occur with people like me when running into someone like you in person, we either steer clear of you pretending you don't exist or if confronted, we bow our heads looking at the ground waiting for you to stop your insane rant. Don't mistake our politeness as tolerance. We just learned to live in a world with maniacs.
truvelocity 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@klwneu "but the holy spirit has carried me through."
-That's what all of you christians say, but yet, none of you can agree on what the bible is actually saying... causing you all to split up into approximately 38, 000 factions and still counting.
HomoSpaien78 9 hours ago
@klwneu "I believe in Being reborn a Christian I feel that Stephen has made the right choice and in some way shown light on my life."
-What if he became a muslim (in America)?
HomoSpaien78 9 hours ago
So there it was me in OKC driving down the freeway in heavy traffic. A truck clipped a motocycle sending the man and woman soaring into the air. Like hot air ballons they hovered as my truck was heading toward them. I had a choice as a driver. And I slammed my brakes on and left my truck in the freeway in front of them. I got out and helped them. I put my life in question when I did that. I have not ever seen a car parked in the middle of a freeway. but it worked and the people were helped.
klwneu 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@klwneu "I had a choice as a driver. And I slammed my brakes on and left my truck in the freeway in front of them. I got out and helped them"
You had a CHOICE??? You had a fucking CHOICE???? Are you telling us that you, as a christian, had a fucking CHOICE as to whether you should stop to keep from hitting these people or to help them???
"Choice" implies you had to stop to think about it. What you did should have been INSTINCT; claiming you made a CHOICE to do it is nauseating to me!
emfederin 1 day ago
So, basically, humans just got the lucky end of the genes. A bunch of subspecies of apes fucked and one magical human came out of a vagina genetically deformed and awesome and here we are now
pretty weird
Filiolus 1 day ago
its not over nothing is over..
klwneu 2 days ago
Comment removed
truvelocity 2 days ago
Eat up Stephen, you're the weakest
TheGreatGunar 2 days ago 10
@TheGreatGunar
Nice, made my day.
GoatvomitAhoy 9 hours ago
Finally the TRUTH has returned to the YouTube atheist debate...
If we're descended from Chimpanzees why do chimps still exist...?
The short answer is because they didn't vote Republican you fools...
spacelizardlaw 2 days ago 8
@spacelizardlaw lol
chromeman6 1 hour ago
To those of you who misunderstand this chart. Every walking upright human like species is now extinct. We are the only ones left!!! We are NOT unique. This chart is showing MODERN apes and that we DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MODERN APES. OK??? Get it now?
jessydaytime 2 days ago
@jessydaytime Also, I would ad that Just three more revolutions of cell division is the difference between a chimp's brain and a human's brain. That's all. So what! So we are different! In order to understand our intelligence and brain size is to understand evolution. That's the only science in which the answer is given.
truvelocity 2 days ago
interesting, am I the only one here that's sane enough to realize the insanity of Dawkins' claims? I mean look at the pics of the chimps, they all look alike except for the blond female human. Also, another question is to be posed, why only humans are the intelligent beings amongst all of those chimps? why are we the only entirely different from their physical appearance?...etc
Richard is just making up theories to somehow prove something that's obviously wrong.
I'm not a Christian btw.
Lunarek 2 days ago
@Lunarek Yes, you are pretty much the only one
moiseslima 2 days ago
@Lunarek Yep. Looks like you are alone on this one.
jessydaytime 2 days ago
@Lunarek If you are a college student, those questions you ask will be answered. It will be surprisingly logical and you'll realize that the chart is a genetic phylogeny mitocondial DNA chart, not a chart depicting every detail of every breeding population and ancestor. This is why you are misunderstanding it. The point of the chart is to show that we did not evolve from apes or chimps that the actor at a drug rehabilitation reality show asked in this video... Why are apes sill here?
jessydaytime 2 days ago
@jessydaytime
I understand the chart, and I'm talking about a different point, saying that this is nothing more than just a theory, that hasn't been proven.
My point was, why all the other chimps look alike except for the human? if we were to talk about the DNA we share, then there are other species that we share the our DNA with like hamsters. Also, why only humans are the intelligent beings?
P.S: it's "phylogeny mitochondrial DNA"
Lunarek 2 days ago
@Lunarek The chart is showing living modern apes not the ones that have passed away and no longer exist in order to show that we did not evolve from modern apes. That's all its showing. As far as only humans. Were we alive when other breeding hominids existed on this earth with intelligence? No, but we have their bones, their tools, their paintings and burial sites as well as their DNA to study. We just happen to be the only one's left. We can become extinct like the rest of them.
jessydaytime 2 days ago
@jessydaytime
I see, so we are the only intelligent beings on earth even though we "evolved" from the same common ancestor. And the other intelligent creatures have ceased to exist?
I see, so we are a rare case of existence?
Lunarek 2 days ago
@Lunarek Both you and jessydaytime could get some real answers from this: /watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o&feature=player_embedded#!
truvelocity 2 days ago
@Lunarek "I'm not a Christian btw"
You're still as dumb as any fundie.
emfederin 2 days ago
@emfederin This person was asking legitimate questions that clearly demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is about. If you can answer this person's questions with evidential support and they refuse to accept evidence, then you can call the person a dumb fundie. Otherwise, the insult hasn't proven itself to be warranted.
jessydaytime 2 days ago
you would expect evoloution to have brought our common ancestors to the upright walking ape or something along those lines like we were before we supposebly evolved into the humans we are now in this stage you wouldnt expect something which was around at the same time like us to be so far behind in its adolescent stages you would expect something atleast vaugely recognizable in comparison to how we have evolved but its not their its like we were the only branch of apes that evolved at all.
listenup345 2 days ago
@listenup345 "its like we were the only branch of apes that evolved at all." It looks that way but that's not true. There are all kinds of walking upright populations of human like species discovered every few years that had intelligence, tools, and had cave paintings like humans did. They are being discovered at a more rapid rate than ever. We are not impervious to extinction. The cockroach has been here before the dinosaurs and will be here after we become extinct. Evolution.
jessydaytime 2 days ago
Their is a soldier that got wounded in a war. I believe in that person. I believe in that idea. I want that person to be the highest.
klwneu 2 days ago
And if you understand that black ring on steve's hand. and really have read and consulted with people in the faith. By the time you get there, you would be dumbfounded at understanding me. I am enough to outride the pope when it comes to god people of the united states how we learn and evolve. What you come correct to in your head. Simply put I am a ass for the most part humility resonates from me but falls on def ears. I get put into groups of the most famous people on earth literally by god.
klwneu 2 days ago
As I said before it is obvious that the people these days don't know the difference between being a Christian and Science the proof is on Stephens hand;a black flat surfaced square stone embedded into a ring on his hand.So the argument that this comment page is having is:what if a evolutionist and a evolutionist(non-christian's) got in a debate.But the people making the comments are not keen on that.or they maker of the vid wants to imply a real christian nonexistant phony is better than nothin.
klwneu 2 days ago
So now my question is... why should we put our cousins, which shares a common ancestral bloodline in cages/zoo/etc.? Should't we be treating them better? Perhaps not as good as humans are, but maybe as our pets or friends? Since they have the potential to be as smart as humans are; they would possibly retaliate against us one day in the future if they look back towards the atrocities/cruelty man commit against them.
hardc0r3gam3r 2 days ago
National News. Kent Hovind is gay.
jessydaytime 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MiloBoz You must be confused. Evolution doesn't center around you, so the good news is that its based on genetic frequencies in populations so that admitting you're gay won't change the population explosion.
jessydaytime 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MiloBoz Calling an attractive woman a whore who is spoken for is the first step to admitting you're gay. Why not pick Scientology? You're bound to find a closeted homo like yourself in that cult.
jessydaytime 3 days ago
I wonder how he feels about the fact that Muslims came up with the theory of evolution 400 years before Darwin.
MiloBoz 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MiloBoz Well I guess he would feel uninterested since the basic notion of evolution dates back to the ancient Greeks a couple of thousand years earlier.
parsivalshorse 3 days ago
@MiloBoz Because they didn't.
jessydaytime 3 days ago
@jessydaytime "One should then take a look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants.
The Animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in gradual process of creation, it finall leads to man, who is able to think and reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys."
MiloBoz 3 days ago
@jessydaytime This was NOT stated by Darwin, but by a 14th century Muslim scientist named Ibn Khaldun, in his book titled "The Muqaddimah" or "The Introduction." This was written about 400 years before Darwin's theory of evolution. ISBN 0-691-01754-9 (Page 75) Western Scientists called it the "Muhammedan theory of evolution from lower forms".. Still denying the truth?
MiloBoz 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MiloBoz Yeah, the difference is that your quote from Ibn Khaldun is about the origins of life, and the Theory of Evolution does not even discuss the origins of life. There are similar claims by the way in many ancient texts that are far older.
parsivalshorse 3 days ago
@parsivalshorse Ibn Kaldun's theory is actually far superior to any other evolution theory i've read. Instead of talking nonsense, why not post some sources for your claims?
MiloBoz 3 days ago
@MiloBoz Oh... MiloBoz... Jesus Christ... Phew... Can you take it outside??? What did you eat!!! Shit!!! You stink!!!
jessydaytime 3 days ago
@jessydaytime Don't try to pawn your BO off on me..We both know the filthy stinch is coming from your underpants..Don't forget to wash the asshole next time you take a dump.
MiloBoz 3 days ago
@MiloBoz Whew... Stinky.... Again, you've got to take it outside unless you already had Jesus nibble on your turd who offered a piece to Mohammed like two guys and one cup.
jessydaytime 3 days ago
@jessydaytime Shut your annoying ass up and make me a sandwich.
MiloBoz 3 days ago
@MiloBoz My stud actually cooks for me and satisfies me, my little pip squeak who squawks.
jessydaytime 3 days ago
@MiloBoz What's the matter? Not come out of the closet, yet?
jessydaytime 3 days ago
@jessydaytime I came out of the closet this morning. Went in there to pick out a new pair of shoes for the day. I thought, i'm so greatful I don't have a stupid bitch like you around to stink up my house and talk shit.. Then again, that sandwich is sounding good right about now.
MiloBoz 3 days ago
@MiloBoz You know what they say. Men who think of shoes instead of pussy are thinking of their Mr. Right some day.
jessydaytime 3 days ago
@jessydaytime Hello again pig, I'm sorry your man wears open toed sandals and broke down shit.. No need to take it out on me haha When your an alpha male such as myself, you don't need to worry about pussy.
MiloBoz 3 days ago
@MiloBoz Aw, trying to suck on your own limp dick? Must be frustrating to be at that age where you can't get it up anymore. I can understand why you pass the time trolling for something to do when its too late for you to find a mate. Maybe you can go to Craig's list like you usually do or do you feel to broke for comfort???
jessydaytime 3 days ago
@jessydaytime HA HA the only time i would have a problem getting it up is if i lacked confidence and was forced to copulate with a nasty beat up pig such as yourself. but that would never happen, because my genetics are superior to yours, and i refuse to compromise my children's genetics with that of a swine.
MiloBoz 3 days ago
Comment removed
jessydaytime 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MiloBoz Clearly there is something you fail to understand about my comment that the Theory of evolution is not about the origins of life - which is the bulk of your quote from Ibn Kaldun. I'll try to put it in even simpler terms - Ibn Kaldun's quote is about how life came to be, the Theory of evolution is not about how life came to be. If you want a source for that claim - just look at the wki page on 'The Theory of Evolution'.
parsivalshorse 3 days ago
@MiloBoz No, ti wasn't.
jessydaytime 3 days ago
@jessydaytime Feel free to research the book if you doubt anything I quoted.. I left the code/page number for you.. ISBN 0-691-01754-9 (Page 75).. or just google "Muhammedan theory of man from lower forms".. You're not very bright are you?
MiloBoz 3 days ago
@MiloBoz Its not peer reviewed. Not interested in crap,so yes, i'm light years from you in intelligence. Explain to me speciation of plants without evolution dumb fuck.
jessydaytime 3 days ago
@jessydaytime Darwin's contemporary John William Draper called it the "Muhameddan theory of man from lower forms" in his book "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science) page 188. Free on Google books for your broke ass. As far as your intelligence, I'll pretend I didn't hear that. I'm better looking then you, have a higher IQ then you, have more money then you.. And your lucky I'm even talking time out of my day to enlighten your bimbo brain. Call it my good deed for the day.: )
MiloBoz 3 days ago
@MiloBoz Ooooh. Does religion and science conflict? No! Really??? That's news to me... Not!!! AHAHAHAHAHA
jessydaytime 3 days ago
@jessydaytime Are you a used whore? That's news to me... NOOOOT!
MiloBoz 3 days ago
Comment removed
jessydaytime 3 days ago
Ffs people! We live in the Milky Way Galaxy, one amongst billions galaxies in the observable universe on a planet that we now know is one amongst billions of other plants and you want to argue about the statistical probability of something being so low that intelligent design must be responsible for it? Grow up, your Kung foo is weak....
MrJcman100 3 days ago
to you who question the existence of GOD,please read my testimony on my channel.
walter42194 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@walter42194 "to you who question the existence of GOD,please read my testimony on my channel"
We do read it often. It both reaffirms our disbelief and makes us laugh at the same time.
OTOH, maybe it does make me a bit more "religious" in a way...I read your deluded writings and I shudder in horror that any human mind could be so functionally reduced by self-delusion that I find myself thinking "There, but for the grace of god, go I".
emfederin 4 days ago
Petty arguments and myopic claims.
The human race is such a pathetic species.
RavidBunny 4 days ago
Ohsnap31 don't act like you were in special forces or navy seals. That you scientificly don't have a breaking point. just like your name.
klwneu 4 days ago
@klwneu The word is spelled "scientifically". Your comment is not related to anything I wrote. Strive to think more critically and logically.
ohsnap31 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To the creationist troll on this thread. Has someone ever irritated you to the point that you lose all respect for them? Don't even tell me that you are not human enough to have felt that way. Well, this is how most people feel about evangelizers. They are annoying as hell because they are not interested in respecting anyone else's point of view as their attitude is just like Amway. Its a cultish recruiting behavior and we are sick of it! Don't blame us for putting you down; blame yourself!
truvelocity 4 days ago
Comment removed
truvelocity 4 days ago
guys enough is enough!! at the end of the day it's ALL a theory of evolution, a theory of big bang, & BLa, bla, bla ,bla.Truth is no one knows what happened millions of years ago, and no one will ever know!! Thats why it's called a theory, because they will never be able to know, just take an informed guess!We think this they say, we think that they say, What they don't tell you is that they are stabbing in the dark, & tying to pass it off as FACT! if you don't like it bad luck! thats the TRUTH!
sympin2dis 4 days ago
@sympin2dis
This is a funny post. You have not been informed about scientific theories. A scientific theory is not a guess. It is not an unknown. It is an explanation from a group of facts. Quantum theory, for example, deals with the behavior of atomic and subatomic particles which have dual particle/wave-like characteristics. These behaviors are facts. Like the laws of gravity. The "theory" of evolution is not a guess, it's an explanation of facts. That is what scientific theory is.
ohsnap31 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ohsnap31 "Like the laws of gravity. The "theory" of evolution isn't a guess, it's an explanation of facts."
You're absolutely right up to a certain point. One must keep in mind, though, that what you're calling 'facts' must first be tested for accuracy through both observation and experimentation. The 'facts' for gravity are both observed and reproduced. 'Macro-Evolution' can't make such a claim. Until it's observed and reproduced it's merely a bunch of hypotheses and not a Scientific Theory.
AvalonMoon22 4 days ago
@ohsnap31 Yeah, kind of like the scientific theory of abiogenesis, which has no scientific basis at all. It is just a guess...not testable by the scientific method, not reproducible, not observable..zilch. Not only improbable, but statistically, mathematically, and scientifically impossible.
jmp789 4 days ago
@jmp789 So, basically, you are saying that scientists should have YOUR attitude that if you don't know for sure how something occurred naturally, then you should just throw in the towel and not try and figure things out. Just don't invent technology based on nature and allow us to have progress. Just believe that ONLY Jesus and an afterlife matters and that's it, huh... Great, just great. (sarcasm).
truvelocity 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@truvelocity But that's the beauty of scientific theory process; a theory is never complete. It is built upon and expanded as it reaches new heights. It simply has to be backed up by the observable and the tested. This is not throwing in the towel. It's a journey towards truth with the highest levels of integrity; without placing any personal preference on the outcome. Many scientists have agenda's, however, which makes adherence to the Scientific Method of paramount importance to us.
AvalonMoon22 4 days ago
@jmp789 Ya. But the theory of evolution has a scientific and factual basis and is highly probable and can even be observed in some instances, such as in bacteria gaining resistance to a medicine through generations. After a century and a half of research, science has only further confirmed Darwin's theory. Sorry but cop out explanations don't work here.
iron100159 4 days ago
@iron100159 You are correct...evolution has been observed in these instances. However, there is no scientific or factual basis for abiogenesis. You just simply cannot get life from non-life or order from disorder. Its funny though, because it seems atheists think they are on the intellectual high ground in many cases, when really, their belief is just as absent of "hard evidence" as theists.
jmp789 4 days ago
@jmp789 More "I don't know: Therefore God." logical fallacy here. Atheists contend that they have an educated estimation and method of how we came into being, and leave room that modifications still will be made to this theory. Theists claim to have all the answers, so ask no questions. Look into our history when brilliant people like Copernicus and Galilei had answers that theists didn't like. As science explains more concepts each century, there is less room for mysticism and gods of old.
PaladinPumph 4 days ago
@PaladinPump No, its really not a logical fallacy. It is actually very logical when one sees complexity or information to assume that it was created from some kind of intelligence. If I see a house, a building, or a computer, I assume it was intelligently created. What I do not assume, is that it appeared from random chance, which is what you believe. You believe in something that is scientifically impossible (abiogenesis).
jmp789 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jmp789 "You believe in something that is scientifically impossible (abiogenesis)"
Sophist drivel unless you can show evidence that it's "scientifically impossible".
emfederin 4 days ago
@jmp789 You can take classes at your local community college on how to create those things,no assumption on my part is made,nor needed.I won't presume(like you)since we haven't even met or had a real discussion on what you believe,but I will say that invoking miracles/magic is very easy to argue with,wouldn't you say?I could say that I believe in a nocturnal vampire god, and besides failing the same step at the same point of the scientific method as your god,you immediately know how silly it is.
PaladinPumph 3 days ago
@PaladinPumph Listen buddy, I'm in medical school and I can tell you right now, I've studied my fair share of "those things", so I have an idea of how complex they and the processes that create them are. I don't think you realize how improbable abiogenesis really is. It is improbabilites stacked on improbabilities stacked on improbabilities. Go talk to any molecular biologist..I'm sure they would tell you the same thing.
jmp789 3 days ago
@jmp789 I haven't even mentioned abiogenesis, you continue to do it over and over as if it gains ground or moves the proverbial "marker" anywhere at all. You ignore the solid point I made that invoking a god/magic/miracles is silly. Your fallacy you continue to make, and I'd like an admission that you understand what myself and others are pointing out about you for you to acknowledge, is that you bring up improbabilities. This is where you are ok, but hint then at "Therefore: God" = fallacy.
PaladinPumph 3 days ago
@PaladinPumph Yes, I believe in a designer, because I can observe intelligence, information, and complexity in the the world. When I see a book (information), I know there was an author, when I see a house (complexity), I know there was a construction worker, when I see a computer (intelligence), I know there was a creator. When I see things at the cellular level that are at a much greater magnitude than any of these things put together, you better believe I assume a designer.
jmp789 3 days ago
@PaladinPumph When I see the incredibly low probability for life arising on its own, yes, I assume there was an intelligent designer.
jmp789 3 days ago
@jmp789
"When I see the incredibly low probability for life arising on its own, "~
That incredibly low possibility.. would have to be ZERO.. before I would accept the conclusion that instead of identifiable natural processes... a magical sky daddy did it.. and then made it look as IF it could have been done by nature.
Please.. at some point.. get a grip on reality.
PaleHearse 3 days ago
@PaleHearse Thats great for you, but I call it quits at about the 0.000000000000000000001% probability range. The reality is, the chance of life arising on its own is significantly less than that, and essentially is zero. Do you realize how many different things would have to occur, by chance, to make a single simple cell?
jmp789 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jmp789 "Thats great for you, but I call it quits at about the 0.000000000000000000001% probability range"
No you don't. You believe in gods, ghosts and demons,
emfederin 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse The concept of 'Species' is also flawed. PaleHearse says they can't breed therefore they're definitely a new species. In practice there are discrepancies. For example, hundreds of distinctive dog breeds are considered to be of the same species (Canis familiars) as they can cross breed. However, the coyote or the grey wolf are considered to be different species though they are known to interbreed with dogs.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse "If they're of Kind then Humans are too"
The 99% figure for DNA similarity has been questioned for years. The 2002 comparative genomic map between chimp and human revealed that only 48.6% of the entire human genome matched chimp nucleotide sequences. The tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans. And, the chimp’s genome is around 10 percent larger than human’s. These differences have far reaching consequences which need to be explored.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
@AvalonMoon22
At this point it's not actually a question of DNA similarity but instead one of morphology.
You seem to dance from one stance to the other as suits you.. and that's simply not science. Are you talking genetic similarity to describe what you are putting forward as "kind".. or is it morphology. You don't get to have it both ways. That's where your stuck.
Stick your fingers in your ears all you like.. this isn't going away.
PaleHearse 2 days ago
@AvalonMoon22
"These differences have far reaching consequences which need to be explored."~
Ah.. yeah.. the "far reaching consequence" is that when a species can no longer breed with members of it's progenitor, it takes on from that day forward characteristics unique to it's new species. See goby and many others.
What you call macro evolution is unfolding all around you.. but because it doesn't happen on your narcissistic timescale.. your in denial.
PaleHearse 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse
Nevertheless, my unscientific hypotheses (due to lack of available data, observation nor analysis) would be that Chimps and Bonobos are very likely of the same 'kind' (sharing a genetic relationship through common descent from an ancestor organism and all it's decedents). Certainly different in taxonomic 'Species' but certainly of the same 'Order'/Kind.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
@AvalonMoon22
"Chimps and Bonobos are very likely of the same 'kind' "~
Sorry I missed this.. it was flagged as spam. Probably due to your attempt not to actually have to discuss the topic but instead to lay down a diatribe of your own ideas of evolution.
So that out of the way.. then I expect you to then also admit that humans are still the same "kind" of animal as a chimp and bonobo because we share morphology.. correct? Or are you denying that?
PaleHearse 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse
His insistence is in line with his reasoning. For, to him, theories can be solely rationalized. A scientist first collects data and then formulates the hypotheses. PaleHearse and other pro-macro's do it in reverse; they formulate the theory and then search for data in an attempt to reaffirm their belief system.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse
PaleHearse insists on a Scientific stand on the 'Kind-ship' of Chimps and Bonobos. As I've already mentioned to him, there is no publicly available data on the Bonobo Genome nor is there a consensus on the Bonobo in the Scientific Community either. As such, a 'Scientific' stand is impossible.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
@AvalonMoon22
"there is no publicly available data on the Bonobo Genome nor is there a consensus on the Bonobo in the Scientific Community either."~
There is actually:
genetics . org / content / 164/4/ 1511 . full
And that's just a single study.
Your long dodge is meant to hide the fact that you have YET to actually answer the question.
Are, in your mind.. chimps and bonobos the same "kind" of creature.. or are they different?
It's a simple question you don't want to answer.
PaleHearse 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse For example, in the mid 20th century morphology, rather than the ability to interbreed, was considered the main determinant of a Species. Today, the modern definition of a species tends to ignore the morphological differences/similarities and focus on whether or not a population interbreeds. Other schools of thought insist that a species is an isolated group of interbreeding populations.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse Okay. Kind (Baraminology): a group of organisms who share a genetic relationship through common descent from an organism. It is similar to what is known as a CLADE. Cladists do not rely solely upon morphology but also use fossil evidence, genetic and biochemical analysis. I am not heavily schooled in either of these two classification systems.
The concept of Kind (Min) are undergoing much scientific scrutiny in as much as the taxonomic classifications do.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse
Assumption 3: Genetic Variability and Speciation are proof for Macro-Evolution
Assumption 4: Scientific Theories derived through observing Micro-Evolutionary Processes and be 'rationalized' as being proof for Macro-Evolution and still be called 'Scientific'.
Assumption 5: Observable and Testable data is not necessary for the formulation of a pure Scientific Theory.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse
We also need to consider various glaring ASSUMPTIONS which form part of PaleHearse's question:
Assumption 1: Taxonomy is an absolute classification without ongoing scientific debate and revision on the topic.
Assumption 2: It's a scientific fact that humans are of the Primate Order. Meaning, Macro-Evolution is also an absolute fact.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse
I also stated that an 'Ancestral Species' can split into new species within the limits of the genetic information already present in that kind. 'Kind' brought through much contention and the issuing of the chimp-bonobo 'test' from PaleHearse's pre-formulated repertoire.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse
PaleHearse posed the afore mentioned question due to the fact that I stated that the end population of the ring species phenomenon has the exact same alleles as for the original population and that the only difference between the two is differing amounts of these alleles. Meaning,no increase in genetic information has occurred i.e. no Macro Evolution.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
@PaleHearse
Species: generally defined as a naturally-occurring population that is interbreeding and reproductively isolated from other such groups.
Allele: one of two or more forms of a gene or a gene locus (generally a group of genes). Different alleles can result in different observable phenotypic traits, such as different pigmentation. However, many variations at the genetic level result in little or no observable variation.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse
Before I continue, it's important to set aside a few definitions of terms as they have been discussed to date:
Macroevolution: change that occurs above the level of species. Changes occurring on geological time scales.
Microevolution: smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Occurs on the timescale of human lifetimes.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse
Please note that most of my comments have been fearfully marked as spam. Simply click on 'show' to view what has been censored within this community of 'debaters'.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaleHearse
"then made it look as IF it could have been done by nature."
Nature has not shown us that at all. Again, Macro-Evolution has no evidence to support such a hypotheses. Observable and testable proof is required for a Scientific Theory. No mere 'rationalizing' allowed. If the Scientific Method is not followed it's not Science.
AvalonMoon22 3 days ago
@AvalonMoon22 Macro-evolution is proven by observed speciation events - and there are a great many of them. You seem to think that by inserting terms like 'kind' and 'subspecies' you can somehow invent a reality in which macro-ev. is not an observed fact. Macro-ev. means an evolutionary transition at or above the species level - and as such has been established scientific fact for more than a century. Google 'observed instances of speciation' and you will find many examples.
parsivalshorse 3 days ago
Comment removed
PaladinPumph 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jmp789 I enjoy the condescension with the "Listen buddy," and then say that you study things in school while completely missing the point. Comparing the construction and manufacturing of everyday goods and services to your "abiogenesis" point you keep bringing up is, lets say simply, not comparing apples to apples. One is demonstrable and the other is not. My point of the college classes was to demonstrate this difference. Please reconfigure your analogy as this is clearly fallacious.
PaladinPumph 3 days ago
@jmp789 Google "And then a miracle occurs" to see a picture of what I'm talking about, it is quite funny. I think we could agree on that at least.
PaladinPumph 3 days ago
@jmp789 You confuse hypothesis with theory, they are not interchangeable. It's sad you substitute poor logic and superstition for scientific understanding. Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings. There is no evidence that a God exists, plenty of evidence that we have evolved. You simply are living in denial of basic facts. Religious people use to believe the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. You would have believed that too.
ohsnap31 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ohsnap31 'Micro-Evolution' has factual basis (i.e. observable and testable) but not 'Macro-Evolution'. You cannot make the leap of faith to infer that the observable 'micro' proves the assumption of 'macro'. If you make that assumption it is not based on science.
BTW most sciences in the ancient cultures have held the concept of the flat earth.
AvalonMoon22 4 days ago
@ohsnap31 So there is plenty of evidence we evolved, ok. In theory, a higher power could have designed the process of evolution. But that is beside the point. I'm guessing that you are atheist, and by default, you believe in abiogenesis. Abiogenesis, once again, has never been observed, reproduced, and there is NO evidence that it is possible. In fact, statisically, the chances of abiogenesis occurring is 0. You have stronger faith than I.
jmp789 4 days ago
@jmp789 You failed at the beginning here. You, at least for the sake of argument (and not to look ignorant of overwhelming evidence), agree to evolution.The fail happened when you brought a higher power into the discussion when it is not, even for the sake of argument, agreed upon by both sides.Everything you submit after this fallacy is null. The other fallacy is that things that cannot be observed by our eyes or machines is somehow false opens the door to many arguments towards this logic.
PaladinPumph 4 days ago
@ohsnap31 Oh, and in reference to your attack on religion, the Bible actually talks about the earth being circular. Isaiah 40:22
jmp789 4 days ago
@jmp789 Evolution explains life perfectly. We have not need to invoke a God. Evolution from natural selection explains life on earth. Understanding the science of Evolution makes a God unlikely. Evolution is wasteful and brutal. An all-knowing God wouldn't have used evolution to create life. Evolution is too wasteful and sloppy. 99% of all forms that ever existed are extinct. Instead of cherry picking the bible look to archaeology, biology, fossil record, genetics for answers.
ohsnap31 4 days ago
@ohsnap31 No, evolution does not explain how life started. Evolution happens AFTER life begins. If you are atheist, you believe that life came from non-life, a little thing called abiogenesis. The problem with that is it has ZERO chance of occurring! In other words, you believe in something that is impossible.
jmp789 4 days ago
@jmp789 What authority do you claim to rule in such a matter of the dawn of the life of micro-organisms? You finished high school? College? You could have spent your life studying the matter, and at the end of your life, you would still be guessing (albeit with a method/pattern you submit as your hypothesis) and even then you would have to be peer reviewed with other contemporary scientists. You still have all of your work still ahead of you, I'm afraid.
PaladinPumph 4 days ago
@jmp789 Your basing a lot on abiogenesis being impossible but its not. It simply hasn't been proven entirely yet. Scientists have tried replicating the circumstance they believe life originated in and amino acids start forming. While its not conclusive I've never heard of anyone saying its scientifically impossible. Secondly, everything has a process. how did God create life if not through things that were not living? He would have a process and one that could be replicated by chance in nature.
iron100159 4 days ago
@iron100159 The formation of amino acids is a far cry from life, my friend. It takes many specifically organized amino acids to even make up a single protein! And we're not even considering the hundreds of specialized proteins, DNA, RNA, and cell membrane needed to create the simplest of simple cells. There are so many problems with the idea of abiogenesis. And lets say by some crazy chance this primordial cell came into being...how does it replicate? for what purpose would it replicate?
jmp789 4 days ago
@jmp789 Well I'm just saying that its not impossible scientifically. My point is that how do you believe God did it. how does he give life the inherent quality of an instinct to survive and reproduce. Cause if he can do that then can't nature by chance do the same. BTW I'm not an exactly an expert but fatty acid membranes do naturally form and life started with only RNA, not DNA.
iron100159 4 days ago
@jmp789 I'm not 100% sure on this part but I'd imagine they replicate because of the RNA strings which do form naturally and naturally form ribosomes. Eventually you'd find one that produces the proper nucleoids for survival and such and that would be the one that survives, because it is the only one that it "trying" to survive. The fatty acid bilipid layers naturally allow for a split and RNA naturally unwinds and replicates due to bonding patterns of the chemicals.
iron100159 4 days ago
@jmp789 Its a large multi-step process that took millions of years and probably to go from simple chemicals to a cell.A lot of the structures and pieces naturally form. and when these pieces find one another and interact in a certain way they form larger structures whi