Another transitional species found (hell, genesis, quote, faith)
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.
There was an encoder...an evolutionary process more akin to Thermo 2 driven particle evolution than natural selection (which had to await predation)
No, in fact, it is impossible for luck or chance to have coded the cell just as it is impossible for luck or chance to have coded the computer you use to post on these boards.
06-28-2016, 05:25 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
No, in fact, it is impossible for luck or chance to have coded the cell just as it is impossible for luck or chance to have coded the computer you use to post on these boards.
There's that assertion without evidence again! Too actually know that it is impossible Eusi you would have to exhaust all possible knowledge regarding nature. We are no where near doing that. You can't possibly claim such a thing. If you want to demonstrate how it is impossible then by all mean get started and stop merely asserting it.
No, in fact, it is impossible for luck or chance to have coded the cell just as it is impossible for luck or chance to have coded the computer you use to post on these boards.
Craftily false analogy which debunks itself. It is a hoary Creationist ploy to pick Mechanical analogies because we are immediately bamboozled into thinking 'metal...machinery...man made...intelligently designed'. Use a biological analogy - genetic engineering and we trace it back to genetic engineering when we didn't know about DNA (breeding) and back to when we did it without even knowing about natural selection, and thus back to natural selection and evolution itself.
That is the correct analogy to and refutation of the claims that it can't happen by "chance" because it is too complicated or ordered or your faith based incredulity, because it sure isn't based on any sound reasons.
At least you do better than 'Ah didn't come from no monkey!" arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Of course I can claim neither luck nor chance programmed every cell in the human body to function copacetically. Just as I can claim neither luck nor chance programmed the computer you used. The cell us much more complex than the computer you use with all the communication structures in place for all the varied nano machines. Surely you don't think I am as stupid as an evolutionist who believes it coded itself!
Argument from complexity, misrepresentation of what the 'evolution' argument is, repetition of the debunked 'Coding' claim and incredulity, The broken record is getting a bit tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
And mine was a reference to you - as usual you can't understand what you read.
Pot meet kettle it has been demonstrated repeatedly that you don't read, let alone comprehend, the stuff you post in support of Creationism, let alone the stuff we post to rebut it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
No, in fact, it is impossible for luck or chance to have coded the cell just as it is impossible for luck or chance to have coded the computer you use to post on these boards.
And such claims are untenable, even if we conceded that they were correctly framed, since you cannot know what is or in not possible, and gutsy attempts (1) to make the evolution of DNA impossible - using the scientific methods you dismiss as an atheist - funded conspiracy of lies when it doesn't suit you - have been shown to be based on statistical parameters pulled out of the Creationist ass.
(1) one clip we will not ever be able to aim at you
No, in fact, it is impossible for luck or chance to have coded the cell just as it is impossible for luck or chance to have coded the computer you use to post on these boards.
Most of us give you that it isn't "luck" or "chance" for life to start. It was going to start somewhere. Like the interactions inside a cell looked random 50 years ago and now it looks less random today.
By why do you need Omni-dude to go "poof there it is". Why hold on to that notion despite it looking like your god has both of his hands on your shoulders and saying to you "Look, the rock record is the only thing I wrote in stone and its in my handwriting."
There's that assertion without evidence again! Too actually know that it is impossible Eusi you would have to exhaust all possible knowledge regarding nature. We are no where near doing that. You can't possibly claim such a thing. If you want to demonstrate how it is impossible then by all mean get started and stop merely asserting it.
Of course I can claim neither luck nor chance programmed every cell in the human body to function copacetically. Just as I can claim neither luck nor chance programmed the computer you used. The cell us much more complex than the computer you use with all the communication structures in place for all the varied nano machines. Surely you don't think I am as stupid as an evolutionist who believes it coded itself!
Pot meet kettle it has been demonstrated repeatedly that you don't read, let alone comprehend, the stuff you post in support of Creationism, let alone the stuff we post to rebut it.
Sure, and Santa hand delivered your presents to you.
Quote:
And such claims are untenable, even if we conceded that they were correctly framed, since you cannot know what is or in not possible, and gutsy attempts (1) to make the evolution of DNA impossible - using the scientific methods you dismiss as an atheist - funded conspiracy of lies when it doesn't suit you - have been shown to be based on statistical parameters pulled out of the Creationist ass.
Thanks for the good laugh. No, really. I enjoyed it. You made my day.
I appreciate your posts mostly because you take the high road rather than some of the others in this thread who, due to bankruptcy of factual, scientific information, must resort to tossing dust in the air and using put-downs ad nauseam like some immature grade schooler.
Sure, and Santa hand delivered your presents to you.
That from a God -believer! This is just too easy.
Quote:
Thanks for the good laugh. No, really. I enjoyed it. You made my day.
I appreciate your posts mostly because you take the high road rather than some of the others in this thread who, due to bankruptcy of factual, scientific information, must resort to tossing dust in the air and using put-downs ad nauseam like some immature grade schooler.
Thanks old mate I would like to say the same about you. I only wish I could. In fact their arguments are often better than mine, but I don't ..well I just write differently. You know the worst thing about debunking Creation? I get to enjoy it too much!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Amalekite 1Sam15
Not looking good for you Eusebi.
The only person you could sell the crud you are trying to sell is a person who desires to believe more then he/she has the desire for the truth.
You are wrong. Eusebius is shooting all his opponents down one after the other, reducing Evolution theory to a mere fairy -tale without a shred of credible evidence and solidly expounding his scientific grounding of Genesis and the historical accounts of Eden, the walking snake and the creation of woman from a rib, because God had run out of dust, and explaining it in terms of Geologically sound science like the Gap theory (1).You just ask him and he'll tell you so.
(1) the gap between Genesis 1.1 and Genesis 1.2 , that is. You fit all the world's history before the Cambrian into 1.1
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-28-2016 at 06:43 AM..
06-28-2016, 06:50 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Of course I can claim neither luck nor chance programmed every cell in the human body to function copacetically. Just as I can claim neither luck nor chance programmed the computer you used. The cell us much more complex than the computer you use with all the communication structures in place for all the varied nano machines. Surely you don't think I am as stupid as an evolutionist who believes it coded itself!
Your analogies fail!
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.
it has been demonstrated repeatedly that you don't read, let alone comprehend, the stuff you post in support of Creationism, let alone the stuff we post to rebut it.
I would like to say the same about you. I only wish I could. In fact their arguments are often better than mine, but I don't ..well I just write differently. You know the worst thing about debunking Creation? I get to enjoy it too much! 
You are wrong. Eusebius is shooting all his opponents down one after the other, reducing Evolution theory to a mere fairy -tale without a shred of credible evidence and solidly expounding his scientific grounding of Genesis and the historical accounts of Eden, the walking snake and the creation of woman from a rib, because God had run out of dust, and explaining it in terms of Geologically sound science like the Gap theory (1).You just ask him and he'll tell you so.
