Revelation is starting to make some sense..

[deltastrike]

Quote from rcn10ec:

LOL!!! All you atheist get bent out of shape when you find out I get information from a Christian website.

I'm "bent out of shape" because the presentation of "evidence" is blatantly dishonest.

The information presented is available on secular websites as well.
Thing is, whether you are a Christian or not, the information puts seriously huge holes into the theories you guys adhere to.
Did you even read the article after you seen it came from a Christian website?

I read the articles, and some of the references. Like I said, no debunking is occurring here. They blatantly take small snippets out of scientific research to make it fit their argument. Rather dishonest for a "Christian", no?

Did you research the evidence gathereed that debunks the theories you have chosen to believe? The evidence presented is scientific.

Right, scientific and out of context within a warped and flawed argument.

Even if you leave God out of it, the scientific evidence presented should make anyone who claims to be "educated" at least do their own research on the studies that raise the questions.
If the information challenging what you believe in can be proven wrong then you will have accomplished something.

This part just proves you aren't operating at the intellectual level to even participate in this debate.

 

[jem]

Quote from piezoe:

Jem, bless your heart, I think you have answered your own question.

I have decided to name what I am seeing more and more of...
p.a.p

passive aggressive posting

 

[stu]

Quote from piezoe:
I don't want to get involved in any discussion regarding whether organisms evolve or not, or some goofy creationist theory. It is a complete waste of time; like debating whether the Sun orbits the earth or vice versa, when it is a settled issue.

But I do want to add something that may be of interest to the better educated contributors here, and that is the possibility that all life on Earth did not have a single origin. The idea has logical appeal and a growing body of evidence behind it. An example of an observation that is consistent with the multiple origin hypothesis is the discovery of non-redundant, but differing codons for the same amino acid in different primitive species. The separate plant and animal kingdoms, and perhaps speciation within them, could be rather nicely explained by multiple origins.

There will be huge progress in our understanding of how we got here in this 21st Century. I hope I live long enough to see some of the major breakthroughs that are on the way!

I personally have, since sometime in the 1980's, become increasingly convinced that a single life origin is statistically prohibited. I also want to acknowledge Jacques Fresco, who in a brief lunchtime conversation, started my thinking in its current direction.

Here is a paper that will lead to many others in case anyone is interested.
http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2981.abstract

If I understand your point I think it might be an academic one. The current common ancestors of all living things, bacteria / eukaryote / archaea may indeed have had multiple forbear lineages. There may well be many organisms preceding those ones, but at that level of molecular science, would it not be pure chemical reaction which is the precursor to the origin of life?
Inorganic chemicals reacting in numerous different ways, forming simple evolving self-replicating organic molecules in chains of nucleotides to RNA . From multiple root form origins, but essentially one common origin.
The actual detailed processes being another kettle of fish, but the origin of all life - I would suggest is basically a chemical one in any case.

Quote from piezoe:
Jem, bless your heart, I think you have answered your own question.

With his one answer to all questions, goddidit, that's must be pretty much true.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
"There is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life."

Quote from jem
For years you said we had proof that life came from non life.

Quote from jem:
Not only are you a liar for implying those statements or inconsistent...

You see, you can't reason. It's why you're forever arguing like a red neck creationist.

The first statement is mine and it's true.
The second is yours, which you changed in this thread by adding the words "or evidence".
At least in its original form the second is a blatent lie, now its .... well...still a lie.

Quote from jem:
you do not realize that it is possible that we have a multiverse and still have Creator, a theory of everything and still have a Creator...
and it is also possible we got here by random chance and still have a Creator...

Science does not have enough info to rule out a Creator... everyone with brain understands that.

Then science doesn't have enough info to rule out Odin, Goblins, Spiderman or the Speghetti Monster in that case. But what use is that to anyone? It isn't science.


Now true to form you've started re-repeating and cycling through like a thoughtless troll, more of your same old cut & pastes that have already been refuted debunked a thousand times. Well done.

Quote from jem:
I have decided to name what I am seeing more and more of...
p.a.p

passive aggressive posting

pathetic.
I have decided to name what I am seeing more and more of from you..
u.b.s.

utter bull shit.

 

[rcn10ec]

Quote from deltastrike:
I'm "bent out of shape" because the presentation of "evidence" is blatantly dishonest.

They blatantly take small snippets out of scientific research to make it fit their argument...

Right, scientific and out of context within a warped and flawed argument.

Give me some examples with explanations of the above accusations.
And while you are at it, show me some proof (not hypothese/unproven theories/speculation) that what you believe is undoubtedly true.

Quote from deltastrike:
...you aren't operating at the intellectual level to even participate in this debate.

Even the most highly respected scientists in their field have and still do debate these matters with each other and still haven't proven beyond doubt their theories.
That's why they are called hypothetical theories and not proven fact.
It's really very simple. If you can remove the speculation with proof... these type conversations/debates become extinct regardless of intellectual level. But, you cannot or you would have done so.
Use a little common sense... if something had been taking place for hundreds of millions of years there would be
plenty of undeniable evidence left behind to back up what had taken place.
Edit: I'm refering to simple life forms transitioning into fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from rcn10ec:

Give me some examples with explanations of the above accusations.
And while you are at it, show me some proof (not hypothese/unproven theories/speculation) that what you believe is undoubtedly true.

Even the most highly respected scientists in their field have and still do debate these matters with each other and still haven't proven beyond doubt their theories.
That's why they are called hypothetical theories and not proven fact.
It's really very simple. If you can remove the speculation with proof... these type conversations/debates become extinct regardless of intellectual level. But, you cannot or you would have done so.
Use a little common sense... if something had been taking place for hundreds of millions of years there would be
plenty of undeniable evidence left behind to back up what had taken place.
Edit: I'm refering to simple life forms transitioning into fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals.

So you want a worm with fins and legs and gills and lungs and mammary glands. Would you like wings with that too?

 

[rcn10ec]

Quote from futurecurrents:

So you want a worm with fins and legs and gills and lungs and mammary glands. Would you like wings with that too?

Yeah, that would be a pretty cool find, alright... kinda like the duck-billed platypus???

 

[deltastrike]

Quote from rcn10ec:

Give me some examples with explanations of the above accusations.
And while you are at it, show me some proof (not hypothese/unproven theories/speculation) that what you believe is undoubtedly true.

I could literally write about 10 pages on each article as to why they're wrong, how they're wrong, and present their own evidence against them. I don't have the time or patience to do that, so I will suggest you just read the first reference for that high school level Tiktaalik roseae "article" (Hint, it's in the last paragraph). If you can't differentiate between the intent of that article and the blatant attempt to use that quotation out of context in that horribly juvenile link you used, then we're done here.

Even the most highly respected scientists in their field have and still do debate these matters with each other and still haven't proven beyond doubt their theories.
That's why they are called hypothetical theories and not proven fact.
It's really very simple. If you can remove the speculation with proof... these type conversations/debates become extinct regardless of intellectual level. But, you cannot or you would have done so.
Use a little common sense... if something had been taking place for hundreds of millions of years there would be
plenty of undeniable evidence left behind to back up what had taken place.
Edit: I'm refering to simple life forms transitioning into fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals.

I really don't even see the point in debating you on this subject when you clearly don't understand the scientific method, what the word "theory" means, and the actual theory of evolution.

Like I said before, you're utilizing the 'god in the gaps' argument. This stance has been proven wrong time and time again. As more research is done, these gaps get smaller and smaller, and eventually disappear.

If you look up the definition of "theory" you'll find that it actually means a working idea substantiated by facts and evidence. When applied to the "theory of evolution", the evidence is amassing on a daily basis.

Here's a nice starting point for you

And you still haven't addressed my evidence from before. Probably because you don't understand it.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from rcn10ec:

Yeah, that would be a pretty cool find, alright... kinda like the duck-billed platypus???

The platypus is featured on the Australian 20 cent coin.
The strangeness of this animal is sometimes used as evidence that God did have a good sense of humor.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Platypus


more from conservapedia..


"like all modern animals . . . kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood."

"After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart, or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters."

Oh man that's good stuff.

and then there's this

"The Toyota Prius is a hybrid electric vehicle made in Japan. It is very popular with homosexuals."

 

[El Guapo]

Every time someone writes "that's why they're called theories and not facts" I have to laugh and must then believe they are children. Nah nah, poo poo, they are theories not facts. Fucking HA HA HA!

Quote from deltastrike:

I could literally write about 10 pages on each article as to why they're wrong, how they're wrong, and present their own evidence against them. I don't have the time or patience to do that, so I will suggest you just read the first reference for that high school level Tiktaalik roseae "article" (Hint, it's in the last paragraph). If you can't differentiate between the intent of that article and the blatant attempt to use that quotation out of context in that horribly juvenile link you used, then we're done here.



I really don't even see the point in debating you on this subject when you clearly don't understand the scientific method, what the word "theory" means, and the actual theory of evolution.

Like I said before, you're utilizing the 'god in the gaps' argument. This stance has been proven wrong time and time again. As more research is done, these gaps get smaller and smaller, and eventually disappear.

If you look up the definition of "theory" you'll find that it actually means a working idea substantiated by facts and evidence. When applied to the "theory of evolution", the evidence is amassing on a daily basis.

Here's a nice starting point for you

And you still haven't addressed my evidence from before. Probably because you don't understand it.