The complexity of DNA and the problem of mutations. (preach, New Testament, gospel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I, Eusebius, wrote that evolution is faith based then you stated this:
Well get cracking friend and start producing your shedloads of evidence that humans evolved from simpler organism. If you cannot, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, your belief is faith based.
And i have done this in the past and you have ignored it and said it was invented or misinterpreted and then later on this became "There isn't any". We have already seen how you repeatedly try to dismiss the very complete and significant 'Lucy' as a "Few Bones". But I have accepted that it might be a good idea to assemble the significant bits of evidence in an easy -to-present form. So thanks for that idea. not that it would make any difference to you. You would siimply say that proves nothing. God 'Made it that way' and ignore it as you do. We alsread y saw a sample of your "Evidence" ..to pee all over the evidence for evolution, as you have none of your own.
Quote:
I then wrote about evolutionists can't prove humans evolved from simpler organisms and ARQ replied:
Ah! So, your belief is faith based. I have heard this over and over by "scientists" that all life on earth began with a single cell. Yet there is no proof of that.
According to you there is no proof of anything that you don't want to accept. And of course you fond it hany to demand 'Proof' when we always talk of 'evidence'. The evidence is for evolution and you 'proof' is something that would convince you. Well I have already presented proof positive that Whales evolved from land animals and you simply ignored it. Why should we even bother to address your demand for 'proof'? Only because some people oyt there might still pay attention to your claims that we have no evidence.
Quote:
is there proof that this single cell morphed into multi-celled and then morphed into something into something else and grander and grander until all the trees and plants and animals and humans came about all as a result of that single cell. Yet there is not one shred of proof for any of this.
There is convincing evidence of it. Your denial is in spite of the evidence.
Quote:
Your belief is faith based. If you can't admit that then you are being disingenuous with yourself.
It is based on convincing evidence. You have been caught out so many times misrepresenting, rejecting and utterly misunderstanding this area that any pronouncements you may make have precisely Nil force.
Quote:
Of course you will say I don't know what I'm talking about, that I don't understand evolution.
You make that very clear yourself. I remind people of it
Quote:
No, you need to accuse your own biased scientists that they don't know what they are talking about and they don't really understand.
Hardly worth replying. Eusebius. Do you accept that that "macro" evolution is proved by the flipper - bones of whales and the wing bones of birds that have obviously evolved from land limb bones? If you do, evolution is proven. If you don't you are simply in denial.
Also from the link you provided "Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary."
Chimpanzee to human theory is something they made up and is a straw man argument. They make no reference to "knuckle-dragger" but specifically to human from chimpanzee. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that humans evolved from chimpanzees, rather that we both share a common "ape-like" ancestor. BTW, that website "Darwin Conspiracy" comes off as a little kooky. Please provide more trustworthy sources.
It's very typical of that type of website. "We're too stupid to understand anything about this, therefore it must not be true."
And there you have it folks. wallflash was asked to provide proof humans evolved from simpler forms and his proof? His proof: "You have been shown multiple times , and have it readily available at your fingertips through numerous sites that teach evolutionary biology."
Then the name calling: "obtuse, unknowlegeable, Poe, a slow witted 6 year old, dull witted creationist or Poe, fake persona."
You can tell when someone is backed into a corner. They strike out at the one trying to help them.
You have no proof humans evolved from simpler life forms. You only have cartoons and say-so from people who espouse your faith-based belief in evolution.
I did what wallflash suggested and did another GOOGLE search on "Did humans evolve from single cell" and found this from National Geographic entitled:
All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds
But look what they start with:
"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm."
Notice the catch word "seems? And what is the proof? Just a bunch of number crunching statistical mumbo jumbo. And yet this writer has the temerity to condemn creationism by saying "the independent origin of humans is an absolutely horrible hypothesis," based on his number crunching. But evolution is just an hypothesis. I would counter that evolution from a single cell to human is an absolutely horrible hypothesis.
Within the article it is written: "(As of publication time, requests for interviews with several creationist scientists had been either declined or unanswered.)" They are probably too embarrassed this guy would come to the conclusions he has.
There's your proof folks. Would you trust an article that supposedly PROVES evolution when it begins with "seems"? I wouldn't. Your evolution is faith-based.
The funny thing is that you show your own inadequacy over this. The study seems to confirm this. We have never said anything else. It is you and your demands for absolute proof of the evolution from a single cell that is the misrepresentation.
That evolution is a fact is undenied even by creationists, though they limit it to some vague 'kinds' barrier.
The mechanism also being accepted by even creationists, (though oddly they also seems to think that evolution is species interbreeding, but then, none of you creationists seems to understand it), there is heaps of evidence -as I have said and you have evaded by going back to the 'first cell' that is did happen. I have pointed to the stratification with matching developing fossils that totally confirms the theory, morphology that totally confirms the theory and several transitional forms which you have simply dismissed or tried to rubbish.
You gave comprehensively discredited yourself and showed quite clearly that you in fact do not understand evolution and do not want to. You are not interested in the evidence, but only in finding pretexts for ignoring it.
This harping on the first cell is just an example of that. The conclusion that life traced back to a single cell is a reasonable one. The foil first cell has been found. That is all that is claimed. Any evidence is going to be 'It seems to confirm'. But it is utterly obvious to all that you are simply picking on this as an excuse to reject the rest of the evidence.
At least it is an improvement on your false claim that there was not enough genetic material in an amoeba to propel all the species when evidence was produced that it has.
But that's your method - if you disproved on one thing, you find some other false argument on which to base your faith -based denial of the evidence for evolution.
It's very typical of that type of website. "We're too stupid to understand anything about this, therefore it must not be true."
It's not stupidity. It is as Kent Hovind said (though he didn't apply it to himself, of course) "Wilfully ignorant; dumb on purpose". They could understand the evidence if they wanted, but they mock, deny, misrepresent and lie in order to give themselves the pretext for dismissing the evidence.
The history of creationist lies over "Lucy" would fill a book. "It was a few separated bones"... "It is jut a chimp" ...cartoon of an ape looking stupid and holding a banana but...walking upright. Yes they got that right by mistake. Lucy is a chimp, pretty much, but it walks like a human. That's the transition.
They truly do not understand and do not want to and our pal Eusebius takes evasive denial to the level of an art -form. Knocking down the footling arguments he presents is the game, really, not debating evolution. That really is a done deal. It's as Done as the development of Egyptian civilization based on the remains with Eusebius pointing to an article in national Geographic: "The Egyptians came to the Nile in response to climate change, studies suggest" with Eusebius leaping on 'suggest' to deny the whole of Egyptian civilization. 'It was all done in 6 days'.
It's not stupidity. It is as Kent Hovind said (though he didn't apply it to himself, of course) "Wilfully ignorant; dumb on purpose". They could understand the evidence if they wanted, but they mock, deny, misrepresent and lie in order to give themselves the pretext for dismissing the evidence.
Light bulb. I would think that someone like Ken whose career is Creationism would frequent forums and such to refine his arguments with anonymous debate. If he joined City Data what sort of username would he choose? An obscure, ancient Bible scholar and literalist would fit the bill perfectly. Is Ken among us? One such ancient said: "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment."
The funny thing is that you show your own inadequacy over this. The study seems to confirm this. We have never said anything else. It is you and your demands for absolute proof of the evolution from a single cell that is the misrepresentation.
That evolution is a fact is undenied even by creationists, though they limit it to some vague 'kinds' barrier.
The mechanism also being accepted by even creationists, (though oddly they also seems to think that evolution is species interbreeding, but then, none of you creationists seems to understand it), there is heaps of evidence -as I have said and you have evaded by going back to the 'first cell' that is did happen. I have pointed to the stratification with matching developing fossils that totally confirms the theory, morphology that totally confirms the theory and several transitional forms which you have simply dismissed or tried to rubbish.
You gave comprehensively discredited yourself and showed quite clearly that you in fact do not understand evolution and do not want to. You are not interested in the evidence, but only in finding pretexts for ignoring it.
This harping on the first cell is just an example of that. The conclusion that life traced back to a single cell is a reasonable one. The foil first cell has been found. That is all that is claimed. Any evidence is going to be 'It seems to confirm'. But it is utterly obvious to all that you are simply picking on this as an excuse to reject the rest of the evidence.
At least it is an improvement on your false claim that there was not enough genetic material in an amoeba to propel all the species when evidence was produced that it has.
But that's your method - if you disproved on one thing, you find some other false argument on which to base your faith -based denial of the evidence for evolution.
I think it is important to question science, don't you? Where would we be today if we never questioned scientific theories and challenged them?
That being said, there is no proof, no, none whatsoever that humans evolved from a single cell. There likewise is no verifiable scientific proof all life evolved from a single cell. It is just based on the say so of evolutionists.
There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that all life began in a slime pond and out of that pond crept creatures which evolved into mastodons or dogs or apes or humans. So why even say it as if it is so? Because they have an agenda, that's why.
I have asked for proof over and over again and when I do, no proof is forthcoming except "We've already provided the proof." If you provided proof I wouldn't continue to ask for it. Saying one has provided proof and actually providing proof are two different things.
Likewise there is no verifiable proof that humans evolved from an animal that was not human. Again, it is just based on the say so of evolutionists.
Biblically, the earth was created possibly millions or billions of years ago. But something occurred to the earth that made it chaos and vacant and around 10,000 years ago, God made the earth habitable again and created all the plant and animal life and then created the human out of the soil of the ground in a day. 10,000 years is just too short a time for humans to have evolved from a non-human species of a knuckle dragger. Isaiah shows that God did not originally create the earth a chaos but created it to be inhabited. So the first eon was an earth created to be inhabited. Then, later, the earth became chaos and vacant of all life. The second eon reveals that the earth was made habitable again.
Isa_45:18 For thus says Yahweh, Creator of the heavens; He is the Elohim, and Former of the earth, and its Maker, and He, He established it. He did not create it a chaos. He formed it to be indwelt. "I am Yahweh, and there is none else."
The history of creationist lies over "Lucy" would fill a book. "It was a few separated bones"... "It is jut a chimp" ...cartoon of an ape looking stupid and holding a banana but...walking upright. Yes they got that right by mistake. Lucy is a chimp, pretty much, but it walks like a human. That's the transition.
See what I mean? Wild speculation on the part of ones who believe in evolution. They find a species of a chimp and say: "Aha! Look! This shows a chimp transitioning into a human like creature." Then the artist, paid for by the evolutionists, paints the chimp with a near human like face. And they say "Lookie here! Lucy is our ancestor!" But maybe Lucy was created that way. Maybe there were chimps created by God to be more ambulatory on their hind legs. The evolutionist has absolutely no proof of transition between Lucy and humans. It is just their say-so. The true idiot is the one who accepts what the evolutionist say as gospel.
Also it is really poor science to take just one find such as Lucy and say this proves transition. It proves nothing of the sort.
See what I mean? Wild speculation on the part of ones who believe in evolution. They find a species of a chimp and say: "Aha! Look! This shows a chimp transitioning into a human like creature." Then the artist, paid for by the evolutionists, paints the chimp with a near human like face. And they say "Lookie here! Lucy is our ancestor!" But maybe Lucy was created that way. Maybe there were chimps created by God to be more ambulatory on their hind legs. The evolutionist has absolutely no proof of transition between Lucy and humans. It is just their say-so. The true idiot is the one who accepts what the evolutionist say as gospel.
Also it is really poor science to take just one find such as Lucy and say this proves transition. It proves nothing of the sort.
It is evidence of bipedalism in what was pretty much an ape. Study of the bones indicates regular walking. I know that reconstructions make ape- men look wiser than they really did, but to point to such things and ignore the evidence is just misirection - of yourself, not us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I think it is important to question science, don't you? Where would we be today if we never questioned scientific theories and challenged them?
That being said, there is no proof, no, none whatsoever that humans evolved from a single cell. There likewise is no verifiable scientific proof all life evolved from a single cell. It is just based on the say so of evolutionists.
There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that all life began in a slime pond and out of that pond crept creatures which evolved into mastodons or dogs or apes or humans. So why even say it as if it is so? Because they have an agenda, that's why.
I have asked for proof over and over again and when I do, no proof is forthcoming except "We've already provided the proof." If you provided proof I wouldn't continue to ask for it. Saying one has provided proof and actually providing proof are two different things.
Likewise there is no verifiable proof that humans evolved from an animal that was not human. Again, it is just based on the say so of evolutionists.
Biblically, the earth was created possibly millions or billions of years ago. But something occurred to the earth that made it chaos and vacant and around 10,000 years ago, God made the earth habitable again and created all the plant and animal life and then created the human out of the soil of the ground in a day. 10,000 years is just too short a time for humans to have evolved from a non-human species of a knuckle dragger. Isaiah shows that God did not originally create the earth a chaos but created it to be inhabited. So the first eon was an earth created to be inhabited. Then, later, the earth became chaos and vacant of all life. The second eon reveals that the earth was made habitable again.
Isa_45:18 For thus says Yahweh, Creator of the heavens; He is the Elohim, and Former of the earth, and its Maker, and He, He established it. He did not create it a chaos. He formed it to be indwelt. "I am Yahweh, and there is none else."
I think it is important to question everything, don't you? Of course you are raising some points about holes on evolution, but these are questions still to be answered, not the One Thing that is going to bring Darwinism crashing down. That is not going to happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but...walking upright. Yes they got that right by mistake. Lucy is a chimp, pretty much, but it walks like a human. That's the transition.
