# The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

*The Failure Of Evolution Theory*
by Christian von Wielligh


Excerpt:

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible, it must overcome the problem of the origin of new biological information.  Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism (even if it was a simple single-celled organism).  And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain _new_ information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.​​Neo-Darwinists place their trust in random _mutations_ (aided by _natural selection_) to generate new information.  But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, _existing_ genetic information.  Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.​​So it’s not surprising that the examples of _evolution by mutations_ that are included in our textbooks and presented by the media comprise of the _loss_ of information.  And although mutations _can_ sometimes be beneficial, such as the _defective_ gene in Tomcod fish that enable them to live in PCB-polluted water, such small-scale changes does not cause creatures to evolve into new types of creatures.  A fish with mutations is still a fish.​​_Natural selection_ is also often used in an attempt to convince us that evolution actually happens.  But this too cannot generate new information.  It can only ‘select’ traits from a pool of _existing_ genetic information (that may include mutations) to produce an assortment of animals of the same kind.  Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their various beak sizes, is such an example.  Although variations occur between these finches, they’re all still finches.  They didn’t evolve into something new.​
*Read More*

Also, get a copy of *The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory*

Excerpt:  

Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​​Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.​​From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.​


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 8, 2021)

Evolution is 100 percent fact 
I could give many examples ..I am not 
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate


----------



## Votto (Mar 8, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is 100 percent fact
> I could give many examples ..I am not
> Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate


You don't think Darwin was wrong about anything?


----------



## konradv (Mar 8, 2021)

Votto said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is 100 percent fact.  I could give many examples ..I am not
> ...


Whether Darwin was wrong about this or that is irrelevant.  Many others have backed him up on the foundational basis of the theory, particularly when you look at the advances in DNA technology.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is 100 percent fact
> I could give many examples ..I am not
> Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate



Predictable!  From the above:

And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​
I know all about your religious conviction and its supposed supports.  I brought down virtually straight _A's_ in advanced courses on the topic in college, and my professors never had the slightest inkling that I regarded the doctrine as a giant myth built on nothing more than the metaphysical apriority of naturalism.


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 8, 2021)

Votto said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is 100 percent fact
> ...


No 
He was 100 percent right on the main premise of evolution 
 Not new news


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 8, 2021)

konradv said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


The genes and DNA don’t lie !!
Plus you have the huge fossil record 
You have many evolutionary remnants in your body and the human body is riddled with errors


----------



## Votto (Mar 8, 2021)

konradv said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


It is relevant since he came up with the theory.

So what about the theory was he wrong if anything?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *The Failure Of Evolution Theory*
> by Christian von Wielligh
> 
> 
> ...


More of the fear, ignorance and superstitions which afflict the hyper-religious.


----------



## Votto (Mar 8, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > *The Failure Of Evolution Theory*
> ...


Fear?  Fear of what exactly?

I sense fear from those who are not religious in this thread.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

konradv said:


> Whether Darwin was wrong about this or that is irrelevant.  Many others have backed him up on the foundational basis of the theory, particularly when you look at the advances in DNA technology.



How do "the advances in DNA technology" support Neo-Darwinism?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> The genes and DNA don’t lie !!
> Plus you have the huge fossil record
> You have many evolutionary remnants in your body and the human body is riddled with errors.



How do degenerate genomes support evolution?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2021)

Votto said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Fear of knowledge, clearly. YEC'ers such as the OP tend to launch into anti-science cut and paste tirades when their sacred cows of supernatural events are dismissed as coming from fear and superstition.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> For neo-Darwinism to be plausible,


Don't you mean neo-Wallacism?  For it was just a theory to Darwin, Wallace proved it and Darwin stole the credit.



> Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism


Easy.  It had nearly a two billion year long period between when the first prokaryotes appeared to where life evolved into a eukaryote.  And that was after more than 500 million years of sunlight, UV, lightning and chemical reactions in a liquid ocean.



> And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain _new_ information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.


Easy.  Nature is a mad scientist who tries unlimited combinations until it finds what works best and those better solutions are encoded into the new organism because they SURVIVE BETTER.  For more rapid informational changes than biochemically possible, organisms develop a nervous system able to understand, react to their environment and REMEMBER a new set of instructions making it better able to SURVIVE.   Beyond that, it's all a matter of GOD.


----------



## Calypso Jones (Mar 8, 2021)

> Whether Darwin was wrong about this or that is irrelevant. Many others have backed him up on the foundational basis of the theory, particularly when you look at the advances in DNA technology.



WHAT advances in DNA tech by evolutionists/scientists?!   God put it together...it's just taking us a long time to figure out what he arranged.  AND as the OP stated...whenever ya go messing with stuff God set up, all you do is to corrupt it and cause misery and death.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > For neo-Darwinism to be plausible,
> ...




So mere chemistry did all that, eh?

Meanwhile, back to reality. . . .

No matter how many experiments were conducted by planet Earth and no matter how many chemicals She might have had at Her disposal, there’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves from the bottom up. It takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. They must be assembled in a meticulously elaborate fashion in order to perform useful or desirable functions. Without the necessary information contained in preexisting nucleic acids, the result would be a collection of gobbledygook, and nucleic acids cannot evolve without the infrastructural and catalytic properties of preexisting proteins. In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.​


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> So mere chemistry did all that, eh?


What else do biochemical organisms have but chemistry?  Unless you want to include some undefined supernatural influence of God, which no one can show, define, prove or disprove?



> Meanwhile, back to reality. . . .


Whatever reality that might be.



> No matter how many experiments were conducted by planet Earth and no matter how many chemicals She might have had at Her disposal, there’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves


No one can say what is possible under conditions we don't know over a time interval of 500-600 million years, a time interval we can't even imagine as beings who only live 60-80 years conducting tests for days, weeks to a few years.

That is like asking a raindrop to imagine the ocean.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2021)

The hyper-religious make a mistake in presuming that their standard "... because I say so", nonsense is a valid argument. They make no case to support their claim that natural processes are somehow deficient toward their supernatural gods.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> What else do biochemical organisms have but chemistry?



So prebiotic, organic material = biochemical organisms?!  



toobfreak said:


> Unless you want to include some undefined supernatural influence of God, which no one can show, define, prove or disprove?



Nonsense.  The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science absolutely prove God's existence.



toobfreak said:


> No one can say what is possible under conditions we don't know over a time interval of 500-600 million years, a time interval we can't even imagine as beings who only live 60-80 years conducting tests for days, weeks to a few years.
> 
> That is like asking a raindrop to imagine the ocean.



60-80 years of tests?!  LOL!  You don't seem to even grasp what abiogenesis would be.

There's no way in hell the rudimentary chemistry of prebiotic materials could ever produce even the simplest life form, and abiogenesis cannot be demonstrated, let alone observed_—_not now, not ever!

You really have no idea about the realities of chemical evolution.  I'll tell you what, you read my article on abiogenesis and then get back to me:  *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.*


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...




"_Meanwhile, back to reality. . . .''_

I see, Back to the reality of supernatural gods. 

How cute,


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> organic material = biochemical organisms?


Nope, just organic chemistry.



> The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science absolutely prove God's existence.


As a devout theist, I'd love to see the mathematical and scientific proof of God!



> 60-80 years of tests?!  LOL!  You don't seem to even grasp what abiogenesis would be.


Failure to recreate what took 500 million years in just 50 years is no shame.



> There's no way in hell the rudimentary chemistry of prebiotic materials could ever produce even the simplest life form


Arguing in a vacuum really since there is no way for man to know in finite time what happened over essentially infinite time under unknown circumstances, but we know that it DOES happen since we are here.  And apparently it TENDS to happen giving every possible chance there is liquid water.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *The Failure Of Evolution Theory*
> by Christian von Wielligh
> 
> Also, get a copy of *The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory*
> ...



What a link/source by RingHollow!








						The Failure Of Evolution Theory - Joy! Digital
					

Evolution theory began to infest our world when Charles Darwin first published his book, On the Origin of Species, in 1859. Now it’s everywhere – in our ...




					www.joydigitalmag.com
				




*Joy! Digital*
*Christian Portal*
Articles - Interviews - Videos - Teachings




`


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> I brought down virtually straight _A's_ in advanced courses on the topic in college


Uh oh, someone fears being dismissed as stupid in the worst way..
Meanwhile,.. this crap AGAIN? Seriously, wtf?


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *The Failure Of Evolution Theory*
> by Christian von Wielligh
> 
> 
> ...


Evolution is a fact, proven over and over in every scientific field, there is a very good reason it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field.  Your arguments are flawed since they are based on false assumptions.  You are essentially like those who studied the aerodynamics of flight and proved that bumblebees can't fly.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Nonsense.  The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science absolutely prove God's existence.


*Which *God do they prove?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Arguing in a vacuum really since there is no way for man to know in finite time what happened over essentially infinite time under unknown circumstances, but we know that it DOES happen since we are here.  And apparently it TENDS to happen giving every possible chance there is liquid water.



Because we're here, abiogenesis necessarily happened?  LOL!  Abiogenesis tends to happen everywhere there's water?!  LOL!

The only thing you're demonstrating here is your rank ignorance regarding the realities of abiogenetic research. 

From the article:

Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism.​
Your direct response:



toobfreak said:


> Easy. It had nearly a two billion year long period between when the first prokaryotes appeared. . .





Ringtone said:


> So mere chemistry did all that, eh?





toobfreak said:


> What else do biochemical organisms have but chemistry?



Nope!  You lost the train of the discourse.   Hence, I wrote:

So prebiotic, organic material = biochemical organisms?!



toobfreak said:


> Failure to recreate. . . .



Failure to recreate?!  

You have no idea what you're talking about.  Abiogenesis is not what intelligence creates, recreates, demonstrates, shows, guides, manipulates, causes, let alone observes in the lab, dummy.  Abiogenesis is life arising from non-living, prebiotic material up from the most fundamental, organic precursors in raw nature!

You're talking out the vacuum of your ass.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > I brought down virtually straight _A's_ in advanced courses on the topic in college
> ...



You're dismissed, brainwash.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Evolution is a fact, proven over and over in every scientific field, there is a very good reason it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field.  Your arguments are flawed since they are based on false assumptions.  You are essentially like those who studied the aerodynamics of flight and proved that bumblebees can't fly.



Bald claims appealing to authority sans an argument anywhere in sight.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> As a devout theist, I'd love to see the mathematical and scientific proof of God!



As a devout theist, you've never thought the matter through for yourself?

That's weird.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Arguing in a vacuum really since there is no way for man to know in finite time what happened over essentially infinite time under unknown circumstances, but we know that it DOES happen since we are here.  And apparently it TENDS to happen giving every possible chance there is liquid water.
> ...






The fact that you keep twisting my words putting words in my mouth I never said leaping to conclusions unsupported by the facts or statements made shows that you are not only not a scientist, are arguing in a total vacuum and a complete waste of my time.

You are just a desired outcome in search of a theory to support getting to it.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > As a devout theist, I'd love to see the mathematical and scientific proof of God!
> ...




What's weird is your continual LEAPS from what a person actually says to some fantastic specious conclusion YOU throw in there then try to accuse ME of saying it!  One more time and off to permanent IGNORE for you.  If you can't hold up a sensible, rational discussion, I'll waste no more time on you.

PS:  I note you also failed to provide the proofs you claim exist!


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> The fact that you keep twisting my words putting words in my mouth I never said leaping to conclusions unsupported by the facts or statements made shows that you are not only not a scientist, are arguing in a total vacuum and a complete waste of my time.
> 
> You are just a desired outcome in search of a theory to support getting to it.




False!  I don't play those games.  I didn't twist your words.  I was obviously talking about chemical evolution (abiogenesis).  It appears you're talking about abiognesis in the above.  That is the logical train of the discourse.  



toobfreak said:


> Arguing in a vacuum really since there is no way for man to know in finite time what happened over essentially infinite time under unknown circumstances, *but we know that it DOES happen since we are here.  And apparently it TENDS to happen giving every possible chance there is liquid water.*



Because we're here, abiogenesis necessarily happened? Abiogenesis tends to happen everywhere there's water?!  

If you're talking about something else or saying something I misinterpreted, then clarify.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you keep twisting my words putting words in my mouth I never said leaping to conclusions unsupported by the facts or statements made shows that you are not only not a scientist, are arguing in a total vacuum and a complete waste of my time.
> ...




OBVIOUSLY:

The Earth formed from space rubble.
There was no life.
At some point life began.
Therefore, life MUST come from non-life.  There HAS to be a natural process where LIFE is the natural result of rather common organic and chemical processes.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> What's weird is your continual LEAPS from what a person actually says to some fantastic specious conclusion YOU throw in there then try to accuse ME of saying it!  One more time and off to permanent IGNORE for you.  If you can't hold up a sensible, rational discussion, I'll waste no more time on you.
> 
> PS:  I note you also failed to provide the proofs you claim exist!



Easy! 

God's existence is self-evident from the imperatives of logic and mathematics alone:





__





						The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
					

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.  2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.  3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.  Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?  The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Only irrational twits hold that an actual infinity can possibly exist as anything else but a mathematical concept inside minds of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number, value or amount of something _or_ deny the existential necessity of an eternal being.

You should be laughing at yourself.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


You too, stupid. So nothing fresh? Interesting to share? SSDD? That's all?


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> God's existence is self-evident from the imperatives of logic and mathematics alone: You should be laughing at yourself.




You DO understand that I believe in God?

But the only one who should be laughing is at you for foisting that load of far flung rubbish.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> OBVIOUSLY:
> 
> The Earth formed from space rubble.
> There was no life.
> ...



The emboldened is a conclusion that does not follow from your premises.  Rather:


The Earth formed from space rubble.
There was no life.
At some point life began.
Therefore, life MUST come from non-life. 


There HAS to be a natural process where LIFE is the natural result of rather common organic and chemical processes.
Your syllogism is missing a connecting premise, and I am telling you as one who is steeped in the pertinent science_—_as one who is steeped in the actual findings of the leading lights of abiogenetic research_—_(1) it is not possible to demonstrate or observe abiogenesis, and there is no way in hell (2) mere chemistry by natural means can produce life.

*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> You too, stupid. So nothing fresh? Interesting to share? SSDD? That's all?



*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > What's weird is your continual LEAPS from what a person actually says to some fantastic specious conclusion YOU throw in there then try to accuse ME of saying it!  One more time and off to permanent IGNORE for you.  If you can't hold up a sensible, rational discussion, I'll waste no more time on you.
> ...



All the same cut and paste ''stuff'' you dumped into a different thread of your failed appeals to gods, magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > You too, stupid. So nothing fresh? Interesting to share? SSDD? That's all?
> ...


Atheism has nothing to do with the fact of abiogenesis.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> I am telling you as one who is steeped in the pertinent science_—_as one who is steeped in the actual findings of the leading lights of abiogenetic research_—_



That's rich.



> it is not possible to demonstrate or observe abiogenesis


It could be if you had 500 million years or so to sit around waiting and watching for it in a totally primordial, lifeless place!



> there is no way in hell mere chemistry by natural means can produce life.


Well if there is no life then life can't come from life and if life doesn't come from non-life either, not by chemistry or organic reactions, then all that is left is PFM!


----------



## Crepitus (Mar 8, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is 100 percent fact
> I could give many examples ..I am not
> Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate


He's both.

He is a big fan of circular reasoning though.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> You DO understand that I believe in God?
> 
> But the only one who should be laughing is at you for foisting that load of far flung rubbish.



Yes.  You made that very clear.  What does that have to do with your bald claim that there's no proof for God's existence . . . sans an argument?


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> What does that have to do with your bald claim that there's no proof for God's existence . . .




I never said that.  The fact that you can't read shows your assertions are bull.  I said there is no scientific or mathematical proof.

There is no mathematical equation which PROVES GOD.  Maybe you just want to read into one thinking so.

There is no scientific proof of God, otherwise, anyone could repeat the experiment and all come to the same conclusion.

The REAL proof of God comes from WITHIN, direct, personal experience.  And He intended it that way because not everyone is ready to understand God and He only reveals himself to those who are ready for him!  And that is supported by the Vedic literature going back 5,000 years!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, _existing_ genetic information.



They never add or result in new information?

Why not?


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 8, 2021)

Face it !!
You are just “ dressed up fish “


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

Michael Rawling, a.k.a., Ringtone, steeped in the pertinent science: *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*



toobfreak said:


> That's rich.



Great counterargument . . . not.

Michael Rawling, a.k.a., Ringtone, steeped in the pertinent science (*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism):  *it is not possible to demonstrate or observe abiogenesis.  



toobfreak said:


> It could be if you had 500 million years or so to sit around waiting and watching for it in a totally primordial, lifeless place!



Presumably you mean some observer other than God.

How the hell could one ever observe a microorganism arising from a primordial, lifeless place in raw nature in the first place?  How would one be in a primordial, lifeless place in the first place, given that the observer would necessarily be a life form? 

Dumbass Alert!  



toobfreak said:


> Well if there is no life then life can't come from life and if life doesn't come from non-life either, not by chemistry or organic reactions, then all that is left is PFM!



You argue like a leftist, and you're about as dense as a pile of bricks.  The mere chemistry of natural means cannot produce life.  That is the informed opinion of Michael Rawlings, a.k.a., Ringtone, one who is steeped in the pertinent science: *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.  *Only intelligent life can produce life, and the intelligent life that created biological life on Earth is God.    

Yours is the blathersmack of a damn fool who believes what he's told to believe sans any real knowledge of his own. 

You're just another sheeple.  You're dismissed.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They never add or result in new information?
> 
> Why not?



I already spanked your ass on another thread.  You're dismissed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They never add or result in new information?
> ...



Yeah, I remember you never posted your proof.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Michael Rawling, a.k.a., Ringtone, steeped in the pertinent science:


Well, I'm glad you wrote an article, I've written three textbooks, but again, I'm not an atheist.



> How the hell could one ever observe a microorganism arising from a primordial, lifeless place in raw nature in the first place?  How would one be in a primordial, lifeless place in the first place, given that the observer would necessarily be a life form?


That was kind of the point.  Just because things don't happen on observable human time scales don't mean they don't happen.



> You argue like a leftist, and you're about as dense as a pile of bricks.


Oh I'm anything but a leftist and why should I make it easy for you to make YOUR point in an argument I care little about?



> The mere chemistry of natural means cannot produce life.


Pulled that one out of yer ass, did ya?  



> Only intelligent life can produce life, and the intelligent life that created biological life on Earth is God.


You may be right but unprovable.  But God is INTELLIGENCE, not intelligent life.  And much more.  God is the infinite source of all qualities, but that doesn't prove that God didn't create chemistry to create life for him, nor does it satisfy the problem that if life comes from life and intelligent life comes from intelligent life, then where did the first life come from as you've already conceded that life must have a cause and a cause is a beginning!  So there had to be a point where life came from NON-life.  I'm afraid you've painted yourself into a corner.

Also, science shows that the original hominems evolved from lesser mammals which going back far enough, were NOT intelligent.  Therefore, intelligence grew out of an environmental stimulus to cope with the environment as man increasingly didn't have the animal talents of raw bestial survival (lack of hair, lack of teeth, lack of strength, etc.).



> Yours is the blathersmack of a damn fool who believes what he's told to believe sans any real knowledge of his own.


If you say so.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 8, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Michael Rawling, a.k.a., Ringtone, steeped in the pertinent science:
> ...



You argue just like a lying, leftist whore. . . .


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 8, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> You argue just like a lying, leftist whore. . . .




TRANSLATION: I owned the dude like my little bitch so now all he has left are personal insults. I pretty much expected as much.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Also, science shows that the original hominems evolved from lesser mammals which going back far enough, were NOT intelligent.


Similar argument might work regarding homonyms, hominids, and ad hominem.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 9, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is 100 percent fact
> I could give many examples ..I am not
> Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate


Only two things are facts, dying and taxes


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 9, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is 100 percent fact
> ...


Taxes don’t seem to exist much for some


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> if life comes from life and intelligent life comes from intelligent life, then where did the first life come from as you've already conceded that life must have a cause and a cause is a beginning! So there had to be a point where life came from NON-life. I'm afraid you've painted yourself into a corner.


Death has always been more highly evolved since life exists first. What then is "NON-life" and what's its cause? NON-life evidently exists independently, therefore  must be the ultimate cause you seek. It is NON-life that must have created mankind who then created life, death, gods, and irrational fears, complete with their magical placations.


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 9, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is 100 percent fact
> ...


Denying evolution is utter stupidity


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 9, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


I think you mean micro evolution, who knows we could have been planted here by an alien race


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 9, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


I don’t think an Alien race is going to travel millions of light years to start life 
 Very illogical and zero evidence 

You are very closely related to all primates


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 9, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


You are with dna closely related to a banana. I think we are getting close to finding out the truth about aliens, little by little the government is admitting it.


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 9, 2021)

Information is precisely where the physical universe came from. Earth and what has occurred here is, of course, part of that. Evolution is a fair name for it, but we could pick another. Insisting it is the hand of some consciousness, however, begs questions about the steadiness of that "hand". To our eyes, it seems to have done a great deal of unnecessary things and countless errors. In addition, it has to be admitted that things are much more complicated and time consuming than they could have been. Why is there death? Why do creatures have to eat one another? That defies human concepts of 'intelligent design'.


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 9, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


The universe is so vast that you have trillions of planets and earth is one of billions with life


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 9, 2021)

There is zero evidence of any aliens ever being here and the odds are close to zero


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 9, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> There is zero evidence of any aliens ever being here and the odds are close to zero


You haven't been reading the news lately?

The government admits crazy ass stuff going on


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 9, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> There is zero evidence of any aliens ever being here and the odds are close to zero


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 9, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > There is zero evidence of any aliens ever being here and the odds are close to zero
> ...


Well, government itself is doing some pretty "crazy ass " stuff!


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 9, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> There is zero evidence of any aliens ever being here and the odds are close to zero


So far, also zero evidence of extraterrestrial life. It seems likely there would be, but none seen as of this time.


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 9, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > There is zero evidence of any aliens ever being here and the odds are close to zero
> ...


Only because our capacity is very primitive. 
Believe me , there are many very advanced forms of life out there


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 9, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


An alien life form would easily be undetectable if they chose


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, _existing_ genetic information. Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.


100% wishful thinking and what a crock!


there4eyeM said:


> Information is precisely where the physical universe came from.


The ultimate non sequitur?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, I remember you never posted your proof.



Nah.  We both know that's not true.  You're just another lying-ass whore like *toobfreak*.

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome _or_ did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Denying evolution is utter stupidity



Believing that evolution is true is utter stupidity.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Mar 9, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is 100 percent fact
> I could give many examples ..I am not
> Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate


Evolution is NOT a theory.
Time, basic elements, and energy is all life needs to start.
But seeding from asteroids, meteors etc from other planets bringing basic life to planets such is ours is suspected of jumpstarting life here.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Denying evolution is utter stupidity
> ...


Its been proven babe--------evolution is actually a quick process....which ia why man was able to make wolves into tiny Yorkshire terrier dogs.


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 9, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is 100 percent fact
> ...


It’s a fact !! Not theory 
A good theory is string theory 
Evolution is established science


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 9, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...



That's not evolution


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 9, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


Yes true , but to go from single cell bacteria to dogs takes hundreds of millions of years


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 9, 2021)

How evolutionary science itself evolves:


> Looking across all 32 cancer types studied, the researchers estimate that 66 percent of cancer mutations result from copying errors, 29 percent can be attributed to lifestyle or environmental factors, and the remaining 5 percent are inherited.
> 
> The scientists say their approach is akin to attempts to sort out why "typos" occur when typing a 20-volume book: being tired while typing, which represents environmental exposures; a stuck or missing key in the keyboard, which represent inherited factors; and other typographical errors that randomly occur, which represent DNA copying errors. "You can reduce your chance of typographical errors by making sure you're not drowsy while typing and that your keyboard isn't missing some keys," says Vogelstein. "But typos will still occur because no one can type perfectly. Similarly, mutations will occur, no matter what your environment is, but you can take steps to minimize those mutations by limiting your exposure to hazardous substances and unhealthy lifestyles."


Notably absent (again) is any consideration of potential benefit. We fear change because good things tend to take a relatively long (_a godawful amount of_) time to get established ("selected") as a new norm. Historically, the enormous timescale differences have obviously made beneficial "mutations" possible (wings, opposable thumbs, big brains, etc.). So we program ourselves not to recognize them as such because, oh noes, CHANGE! MUTATION! CANCER!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 9, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> Insisting it is the hand of some consciousness, however, begs questions about the steadiness of that "hand". To our eyes, it seems to have done a great deal of unnecessary things and countless errors. In addition, it has to be admitted that things are much more complicated and time consuming than they could have been.


Indubitably


----------



## cnm (Mar 9, 2021)

Votto said:


> Fear? Fear of what exactly?


Fear of the usual bullshit.


----------



## harmonica (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *The Failure Of Evolution Theory*
> by Christian von Wielligh
> 
> 
> ...


1. it can't be a failure--it's a theory
2. creationists don't even have a theory 
hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah


----------



## harmonica (Mar 9, 2021)

Votto said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is 100 percent fact
> ...


give us the creationists' theory --they don't have one !!!  
o --I know what it is  = ''god did it ''


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I remember you never posted your proof.
> ...




As we see with regularity, the false claims from the science illiterate / angry religious extremists are taken directly from the more notorious of the Christian madrassah.

CB101: Most mutations harmful? (talkorigins.org)

*Claim CB101:*
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

*Source:*
Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
*Response:*

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with _E. coli_ found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.


Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).




Still waiting for the religious extremist to post the ID'iot creationer ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation''*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 9, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Seems I too was being overly pessimistic.


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 9, 2021)

Votto said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is 100 percent fact
> ...


Sure just like the Book of Genesis is wrong about many things.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Well, I'm glad you wrote an article, I've written three textbooks, but again, I'm not an atheist.



So what?  My article is a comprehensive survey on the most pertinent abiogenetic research to date, entailing the work and findings of the leading lights thereof.  You don't know dick about the pertinent science, and you have no idea how obvious your ignorance is to someone like me. 

And that's the third time you've told me you're a theist.  Again, so what?  You're a "devout theist" who has never studied the pertinent metaphysics, apologetics, mathematics, astrophysics and cosmology of origin.  You believe God exists, but call the knowledge of those who are learned in these things _rubbish_.  You're just another theistic fideist_—derp derp._

You might as well be a mindless, slogan-spouting twit of the new atheism.



toobfreak said:


> That was kind of the point.  Just because things don't happen on observable human time scales don't mean they don't happen.



Your point is stupid.  You still don't grasp the realities of the matter.  Observing an instance of abiogenesis_—_the formation of a *microscopic *lifeform up from the most basic organic precursors by purely natural means in raw nature—in and of itself is impossible.  And, by the way, Mr. I'm-don't-care-but-will-spout-my-uninformed-opinion-anyway, you would grasp why that's so and why time scales are ultimately irrelevant to that impossibility if you were to read my article. 



toobfreak said:


> Oh I'm anything but a leftist. . . .



I said you argue like a leftist!  




Ringtone said:


> The mere chemistry of natural means cannot produce life.





toobfreak said:


> Pulled that one out of yer ass, did ya?



No, I pulled that out of years of study and research: *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.  *You pulled your puerile retort out of your ass and forgot to dig out a real counterargument, just like a leftist.   



toobfreak said:


> You may be right [about the immediate origin of life] but unprovable. [sic]



My opinion is informed, yours isn't.  I hold abiogenesis is impossible for reasons your unlearned mind can't even begin to fathom.



toobfreak said:


> But God is INTELLIGENCE, not intelligent life.
> God is.   And much more.  God is the infinite source of all qualities, but that doesn't prove that God didn't create chemistry to create life for him, nor does it satisfy the problem that if life comes from life and intelligent life comes from intelligent life, then where did the first life come from as you've already conceded that life must have a cause and a cause is a beginning!  So there had to be a point where life came from NON-life.  I'm afraid you've painted yourself into a corner.



I was obviously speaking tongue-in-cheek, and I didn't paint myself into any corner, dummy. What the hell is wrong with you?  I made it abundantly clear that abiogenesis is impossible.  God didn't equip nature to produce life on its own.  There is no way in hell the rudimentary chemical processes of mindless nature can produce life.  I don't give a crap what you believe.  Your uninformed opinion is the stuff of rank naivety.  

God directly formed terrestrial life from preexisting, non-living organic molecules.  Of course, life began to exist.

You most certainly did imply in the above that because we're here, abiogenesis must have occurred.  In this post, you back off that a bit.  It does not necessarily follow that God imbued nature with the ability to produce life on its own, does it?



Ringtone said:


> Yours is the blathersmack of a damn fool who believes what he's told to believe sans any real knowledge of his own.





toobfreak said:


> If you say so.



I _do_ say so, again.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Its been proven babe--------evolution is actually a quick process....which ia why man was able to make wolves into tiny Yorkshire terrier dogs.



Selective breeding does not prove evolution, babe.  Try again.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> TRANSLATION: I owned the dude like my little bitch so now all he has left are personal insults. I pretty much expected as much.



*TRANSLATION:*   You're a lying whore who doesn't know squat about abiogenesis and is trying bluff his bitch ass along.  I pretty much expected you to argue like a leftist whore.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> God directly formed terrestrial life from preexisting, non-living organic molecules.


And the fish were left to fend for themselves presumably.. You sure no inorganic additives were required? Electrolytes are kind of important ya know. Such a tard, dismissing chemistry. Lol!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome



You claimed they never do.
Why do I have to post any proof?

You made a claim.....prove it already.......or keep whining.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> You claimed they never do.
> Why do I have to post any proof?
> 
> You made a claim.....prove it already.......or keep whining.



Nonsense.  You never defined what you regard to be new information as you stupidly alleged a contradiction due to your little knowledge.   

Once again:

Given that genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information _de novo, _and given that latent, originally compressed genetic information is expressed in populations, it's almost as if what constitutes "new information" depends on how one defines _new information_. Given that DNA codes for proteins and traits, it's almost as if what constitutes “a new function" depends on how one defines _new functions _relative to varying criteria_._ Given that many of the examples of new information and functions, touted by evolutionists over the years, were later shown to be the stuff of preexisting genetic algorithms and genetic compactions, it's almost as if the falsified designations were predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism. Indeed, given that the matter is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes "new" or "information" or "functions," in and of themselves, respectively, _also_ depends on how one defines them, once again, relative to varying criteria_._ Gee whiz! Evolutionists, creationists and ID theorists not only disagree between themselves over these matters, but also disagree, respectively, among themselves.​​Hot damn!​​It's almost as if the incalculably complex realities of the genome defy the dogmatic, black-and-white think of your childishly simple-minded ignorance, that because of your ignorance you stupidly alleged contradictions in my explications that exist nowhere else in the world, but your boorishly arrogant mind of little knowledge!​​Still winning!​​P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.​​Thanks.
​​


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> You don't know dick about the pertinent science





That's right, I don't know dick.  I'll leave that up to you.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *TRANSLATION:*   You're a lying whore who doesn't know squat about abiogenesis and is trying bluff his bitch ass along.  I pretty much expected you to argue like a leftist whore.





Nope, just someone smart enough to know that evolution is real, that you're a quack, and that I really don't care about you or your quaint theories.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> And the fish were left to fend for themselves presumably.. You sure no inorganic additives were required? Electrolytes are kind of important ya know. Such a tard, dismissing chemistry. Lol!



At this level we're talking about the aggregation of the fundamental, organic compounds of life, not ingested additives.  

Read and learn:   *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.*


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> I never said that.  The fact that you can't read shows your assertions are bull.  I said there is no scientific or mathematical proof.



Hogwash!  The fact that you're blind to the most immediate proofs of God's existence in the world shows your assertions are bull, namely, the mumble jumble of Hinduism. The logical and mathematical proofs of God's existence abound.



toobfreak said:


> There is no scientific proof of God, otherwise, anyone could repeat the experiment and all come to the same conclusion.



Speaking colloquially, science doesn't prove things.  Science tentatively verifies or falsifies things.  The scientific proof of God's existence is indirect, dummy.  And the preeminent empirical evidence for God's existence is the existence of the Universe itself relative to those logical and mathematical proofs.



toobfreak said:


> The REAL proof of God comes from WITHIN, direct, personal experience.  And He intended it that way because not everyone is ready to understand God and He only reveals himself to those who are ready for him!  And that is supported by the Vedic literature going back 5,000 years!



God is logic, and God reveals himself via his creation and the rational forms and logical categories of the human mind, i.e., the _Imago Dei_.  The language of God entails the ramifications of logic and mathematics. 

Once again:  *The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence*

The most obvious mathematical proof for God's existence relative to the existence of the Universe is the impossibility of an actual infinite of physical substance, namely, an infinite regress of causal events in time, as the latter cannot be traversed to the present, _and_ the most obvious logical proof goes to the necessity of an eternal existent.

_Rubbish_ is not an argument.

Are you arguing that the physical world came into existence out of an ontological nothingness, that is caused itself to exist . . . before it existed?

I know, I know, you want to say, "I never said that." 

What you do is disregard those things you don't understand out of hand sans grasping the ramifications.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hogwash!  The fact that you're blind to the most immediate proofs of God's existence




Hey, I could use some good hogwash!  Know where I can get some?  BTW, jackass, how can I be blind to the most immediate proof of God when I already KNOW God exists, you idiot?!


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Nope, just someone smart enough to know that evolution is real, that you're a quack, and that I really don't care about you or your quaint theories.



Nope, you're just another quack who mindlessly presupposes that the metaphysical apriority of naturalism is necessarily true and, therefore, does not really know why he believes evolution is true.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > I never said that.  The fact that you can't read shows your assertions are bull.  I said there is no scientific or mathematical proof.
> ...


I have to point out that your typical pattern of behavior that includes saliva-slinging, juvenile tirades and linking to your earlier, discredited threads does nothing to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 9, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I have to point out that your typical pattern of behavior that includes saliva-slinging, juvenile tirades and linking to your earlier, discredited threads does nothing to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.


Yes, the man has no sense of irony, lol. Straight from the link he keeps peddling (which, of course, presents nothing new):


> {atheists are purportedly} breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion


Boy if that doesn't invite further reading,.. I don't know!


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Hey, I could use some good hogwash!  Know where I can get some?  BTW, jackass, how can I be blind to the most immediate proof of God when I already KNOW God exists, you idiot?!




I wouldn't know what's going on in your head given that Hinduism absurdly holds that the Universe has cyclically existed from eternity  in violation of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Nope, you're just another quack who mindlessly presupposes that the metaphysical apriority of naturalism is necessarily true and, therefore, does not really know why he believes evolution is true.





Is that a fact?  Is that what I believe?  Huh.  Thanks for clearing that up, good to know.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> I wouldn't know what's going on in your head


But you just spent the past two days TELLING ME what's in my head!




> given that Hinduism absurdly holds that the Universe has cyclically existed from eternity  in violation of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.


Do you have any idea at all that you are a total narcissistic, delusional, pseudo-intellectual shithead that no one else on the planet likes nor agrees with?  Of course you do.  That's why you've wrapped yourself up in this cocoon of pseudo-science gibberish.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> You never defined what you regard to be new information



You made the claim.....prove it already.
Your claim has zero to do with what I regard.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Do you have any idea at all that you are a total narcissistic, delusional, pseudo-intellectual shithead that no one else on the planet likes nor agrees with?  Of course you do.  That's why you've wrapped yourself up in this cocoon of pseudo-science gibberish.



Speaking of total narcissists wrapped in cocoons of intellectual bigotry, the following has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, has it, chuckles?

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, entailing a "transmutationally" branching process of speciation, up from a common ancestry, over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.​​The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion_—_his interpretation of the available evidence_—_in his metaphysical premise. Most evodelusionary laymen are not consciously aware of the actual impetus of their belief.  It flies right over their heads.​​_Hocus Pocus_​​We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way falsifies the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You made the claim.....prove it already.
> Your claim has zero to do with what I regard.



So did you ever answer the question regarding the point mutations on the duplicate genes of the DDC model of gene duplication? Do they constitute new information or produce new functions in your opinion _or_ are you too lazy to inform yourself? In other words, are you a braying jackass who asks stupid questions and asserts stupid things due to your rank ignorance _or_ are you going to contribute something real to this discussion?

Thanks.

Still winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, I could use some good hogwash!  Know where I can get some?  BTW, jackass, how can I be blind to the most immediate proof of God when I already KNOW God exists, you idiot?!
> ...


However, you insist that the "imperatives of logic, mathematics and science" point to a 6,000 year old planet, science being a global conspiracy, Arks cruising the seas and talking serpents all created by your partisan gods as opposed to the Hindu gods.... because you say so. .


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Speaking of total narcissists wrapped in cocoons of intellectual bigotry, the following has never occured to you in all of your unexamined life, has it, chuckles?





CHUCKLES?  I love Chuckles.  Always been one of my favorite candies since I was very young!


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Similar argument might work regarding homonyms, hominids, and ad hominem.



But first an honest person would have to acknowledge the metaphysical bias from which he interprets the available evidence. I've only encountered two evolutionists who ever did, and did so as a result of my pointing it out to them.  Prior to that, the real, underlying impetus of their belief never occurred to them.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



I'm not a YEC, Hollie . . . but you knew that, you pathological liar.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Similar argument might work regarding homonyms, hominids, and ad hominem.
> ...


Isn't it great being an anonymous poster poser on the internet? You can make up stuff as you go and represent your fantasies as true.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


That's odd as your attempts at argument are identical to the nonsense coming out of the YEC'er ministries. 

Read carefully what I post so you can perhaps "find yourself".


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Is that a fact?  Is that what I believe?  Huh.  Thanks for clearing that up, good to know.



I try to be of service when I can.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


As this fraudulently titled thread is similarly fraudulent to other threads you have opened, are you going to offer something to support your statement about the failure of evolution theory?

Your emotional outbursts and juvenile name-calling do nothing to support your fraudulent thread title.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> So did you ever answer the question regarding the point mutations on the duplicate genes of the DDC model of gene duplication?



If that's part of your claim.....post your proof already.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any idea at all that you are a total narcissistic, delusional, pseudo-intellectual shithead that no one else on the planet likes nor agrees with?  Of course you do.  That's why you've wrapped yourself up in this cocoon of pseudo-science gibberish.
> ...


I see a part of where you're struggling. Lacking a science vocabulary, you are ignorant of some pretty simple terms and definitions used in science. Biological evolution has long ago progressed from hypothesis. The theory has passed through the filter of the scientific method from theory and testing and is not in doubt among the relevant science community. Yes, your YEC'ist cults will deny science fact but that is your issue to deal with.

Regarding your appallingly ignorant comment: "The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect,..."  you are left to address your own ignorant statement. What unnatural or supernatural forces can you describe to account for the diversity of life on the planet?

Demonstrate your imagined unnatural or supernatural forces. Show us the magic. Post the YEC'er "*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*" and we can see if your magic and supernaturalism meets the same standard of review that science meets.

OK, pumpkin?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If that's part of your claim.....post your proof already.



So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome?  Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

*P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523* again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome?



I never made that claim......so no proof from you?


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> From the article:
> 
> Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism.​


Just how much information was required to produce the first living thing?  To answer that you need to know what the first living thing looked like.  Do you imagine it was a worm?  Maybe a single cell?  Maybe a bacterium?  All very complex beings and impossible to just happen by accident, on that we likely agree.  But maybe that first life was simpler than that bacterium, simpler even that an amino acid?  Maybe it was an organic molecule floating in a lifeless soup of organic molecules.  Similar molecules might attach themselves together and continue forming long molecular chains.  Growth.  Eventually they would grow so long that they would break apart.  Reproduction.  Molecules that were better at growing and splitting would monopolize the available resources better.  Evolution.  

Growth + Reproduction + Evolution = LIFE


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a fact, proven over and over in every scientific field, there is a very good reason it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field.  Your arguments are flawed since they are based on false assumptions.  You are essentially like those who studied the aerodynamics of flight and proved that bumblebees can't fly.
> ...


From an OP who began the thread with:

*The Failure Of Evolution Theory*
by Christian von Wielligh


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I never made that claim......so no proof from you?



So you still don't grasp the following?

Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.​​Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?​
Hot damn, Twinkles!  You _still_ can't make up your mind?  

*P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523* again.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> From the article:
> 
> Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism.​





alang1216 said:


> Just how much information was required to produce the first living thing?  To answer that you need to know what the first living thing looked like.  Do you imagine it was a worm?  Maybe a single cell?  Maybe a bacterium?  All very complex beings and impossible to just happen by accident, on that we likely agree.  But maybe that first life was simpler than that bacterium, simpler even that an amino acid?  Maybe it was an organic molecule floating in a lifeless soup of organic molecules.  Similar molecules might attach themselves together and continue forming long molecular chains.  Growth.  Eventually they would grow so long that they would break apart.  Reproduction.  Molecules that were better at growing and splitting would monopolize the available resources better.  Evolution.
> 
> Growth + Reproduction + Evolution = LIFE



Or maybe you're making baby talk.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I never made that claim......so no proof from you?
> ...



So you won't be posting proof of your claim anytime soon?


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > From the article:
> ...


You disappoint me yet again.


----------



## my2¢ (Mar 9, 2021)

I don't see creationism and evolution as being mutually exclusive.  The Bible shouldn't be taken as a science textbook,


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Hot damn!

It's almost as if the incalculably complex realities of the genome _still_ defy the dogmatic, black-and-white think of your childishly simple-minded ignorance.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 9, 2021)

`
*Again 
the OP Article posted was from a 
CHRISTIAN Apologetics website.
Joy! Digital.*



abu afak said:


> *Joy! Digital*
> *Christian Portal*
> Articles - Interviews - Videos - Teachings








`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I never made that claim......so no proof from you?
> ...


Did you steal the above from the charlatans at AIG?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.



So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Hot damn, Sunshine!  Just how dense are you?

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and trait information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order _or_, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!

*P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523* again.

Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.
> ...



*So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?*

Under some definitions, your claim is wrong? LOL!

*As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, *

So post your proof already, snowflake.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Hot damn!

It’s the ignorant YEC’er “it’s too complicated and I don’t understand any of it so I’ll believe what the prayer leader at my fundamentalist madrassah told me”, meme.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.
> ...


DNA doesn’t code anything. You make the mistake of parroting slogans from  AIG.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Hollie said:


> DNA doesn’t code anything. You make the mistake of parroting slogans from  AIG.



Wrong again, Madcap.  DNA contains the information that codes for protein sequences.  What you mean to say is that these sequences are not directly made from DNA, but from the codons of mRNA that are synthesized from the DNA .   

Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Hot damn, Sunshine!  So you're still as dense as a pile of bricks.

Rather, it's almost as if you get what I'm teaching you after all, given that the matter is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes "new" or "information" or "functions," in and of themselves, respectively, _also_ depends on how one defines them, once again, relative to varying criteria_._ Indeed, evolutionists, creationists and ID theorists not only disagree between themselves over these matters, but also disagree, respectively, among themselves.! 

But then you go all stupid again.

*P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523* again.

Thanks.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome?
> ...


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Ringtone makes outrageously unsupportable assertions then when pinned down, runs off like a little girl calling everyone names!


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Is that a fact?  Is that what I believe?  Huh.  Thanks for clearing that up, good to know.
> ...


I bet you do because you're obviously a big tool.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > DNA doesn’t code anything. You make the mistake of parroting slogans from  AIG.
> ...


DNA does not code anything. Pay attention next time and you won’t be such an insufferable buffoon.

Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



Are you training for the summer Olympics?

Because, damn, all you do is run away. DURR.

Post #523? Damn, you can't count either.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2021)

Another thread of frantic claims by the YEC’er who has yet to define any failure of evolutionary theory.

It’s now what, four separate threads opened by the religious zealot as he screeches against science matters he doesn’t understand?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you training for the summer Olympics?
> 
> Because, damn, all you do is run away. DURR.
> 
> Post #523? Damn, you can't count either.



LOL!

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome _or_ did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention, did you forget to own up to it like a man _or_ did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

*P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522* again.

Thanks.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Are you training for the summer Olympics? Because, damn, all you do is run away.
> ...




Anyone home?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

my2¢ said:


> I don't see creationism and evolution as being mutually exclusive.  The Bible shouldn't be taken as a science textbook,



Fair enough.  Objectively speaking, it depends on one's metaphysical apriority and the Bible certainly isn't a science textbook, but on the other hand, the more we learn about genetics, the clearer it becomes that genomes do not produce the kind of transmutational variants that evolution requires.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> I bet you do because you're obviously a big tool.



But enough about you, Chuckles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Are you training for the summer Olympics?
> ...



*Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.* 

What? Still no proof? LOL!


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Ringtone makes outrageously unsupportable assertions then when pinned down, runs off like a little girl calling everyone names!



So, Chuckles, did the realities surrounding you're laughably naive, indeed, outrageously stupid claim that it would be possible to observe an instance of abiogenesis_—_*the formation of a microscopic lifeform up from the most basic, organic precursors by purely natural means in raw nature*—dawn on you yet, _or_ are you still spouting bluster as you wallow in a puddle of pee-stained panties?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome _or_ did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention, did you forget to own up to it like a man, _or_ did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

*P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #52*2 again.

Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 9, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



So no proof?

That's disappointing.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So still no clue, i.e. , obfuscating?

That's so pathetic.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see creationism and evolution as being mutually exclusive.
> ...








Blow it out yer ass.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> But enough about you, Chuckles.







Blow it out of yer ass.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> So, Chuckles, did the realities surrounding you're laughably naive, indeed, outrageously stupid claim that it would be possible to observe an instance of abiogenesis_—_*the formation of a microscopic lifeform up from the most basic, organic precursors by purely natural means in raw nature*—dawn on you yet, _or_ are you still spouting bluster as you wallow in a puddle of pee-stained panties?


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> So, Chuckles, did the realities surrounding you're laughably naive, indeed, outrageously stupid claim that it would be possible to observe an instance of abiogenesis_—_*the formation of a microscopic lifeform up from the most basic, organic precursors by purely natural means in raw nature*—dawn on you yet, _or_ are you still spouting bluster as you wallow in a puddle of pee-stained panties?


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 10, 2021)

It can be expressed that patterns exist in the universe into which "matter"(that may only be discrete concentrations of energy) can (must?) form, hence 'in formation'. 
Looked at this way, what we observe as the history of life on our planet manifests certain processes that escape our capacities to integrate intellectually while obviously functioning more or less successfully. Our reasoning can lead us to praise this as perfect or pick it apart as mere hit-or-miss. Admittedly, some kind of order is implicit and it is just a lack of intellectually satisfying verbiage that fails to give us a feeling of unity. Sociology being entangled doesn't seem to help, as those committed to deity insist that is the underlying explanation and those who insist this cannot be are equally adamant. This all comes down to the highly unsatisfactory reality that "we just don't know yet". We need to continue to search in this fascinating and essential question in order to see what amazing truth can be found.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see creationism and evolution as being mutually exclusive.  The Bible shouldn't be taken as a science textbook,
> ...


Speaking of supernatural apriorities, the more that science explores genetics it becomes clear that genomes produce the transmutational variants that evolution requires.

You need to be reminded that it is not your YEC’er ministries doing research. You YEC’ers have no voice in the ‘’we” when it comes to genetic research.

Your uneducated perspectives of biology and the life sciences are derived from charlatans and buffoons from fundamentalist Christian ministries.

leave science to legitimate researchers and spend your time discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with your contemporaries at Harun Yahya.

Thanks.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2021)

Votto said:


> You don't think Darwin was wrong about anything?


Non. sequitur nonsense


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2021)

Hollie said:


> It’s now what, four separate threads opened by the religious zealot as he screeches against science matters he doesn’t understand?


Which is the most glaring part of the YECer intellectual fraud. None of these frauds seems to know even the most basic things about evolution. The moment they open their mouths, it suddenly becomes incumbent on everyone else to correct their lies and errors regarding evolution.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> View attachment 466067
> 
> Blow it out yer ass.



Blow it out yer ass?!   Sweet argument . . . not.

So, Chuckles, did you acknowledge *the mathematical imperative of God’s existence *yet, _or_ are you still unwittingly asserting the absurdity of an actually infinite regress of causal events, which, of course, can’t be traversed to the present?

Write at least one sentence thanking me for your new found appreciation of things. Be sure to double space if necessary.

Thanks.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> So, Chuckles, did you acknowledge *the mathematical imperative of God’s existence *yet


A perfect illustration of how the YEC frauds operate. They have spent their entire lives steeped in a paradigm where truths are decided by the authoritative decree, and they cannot even operate any other way. They don't just think this is valid, they think it is the ONLY way truths are decided.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


>



So, Chuckles, did you acknowledge *the logical necessity of a timelessly eternal existent* yet, _or_ are you still denying *the logical imperatives regarding God’s nature? *In other words, did you acknowledge that science has falsified Hindu cosmology yet?

Hot damn!

Classical theists have understood per *the imperatives of logic and mathematics* that the notion of an actual infinity of materiality is an absurdity for centuries.

Write at least one sentence thanking me for your new found appreciation of things. Be sure to double space if necessary.

Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


>



So, Chuckles, is that your way of acknowledging the realities surrounding you're laughably naive, indeed, outrageously stupid claim that it would be possible to observe an instance of abiogenesis_—_*the formation of a microscopic lifeform up from the most basic, organic precursors by purely natural means in raw nature*—_or_ is that the bluster of an ignoramus still wallowing in a puddle of pee-stained panties?

Were you  at the time, _or_ did you go ask Alice again?

How tall was she?

Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> View attachment 466068



But enough about you, Chuckles.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Anyone home?



Anyone home?


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Write at least one sentence thanking me for your new found appreciation of things.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *the logical necessity of a timelessly eternal existent* yet *the logical imperatives regarding God’s nature *per *the imperatives of logic and mathematics* that the notion of an actual infinity of materiality is an absurdity for centuries.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> you're laughably naive, indeed, outrageously stupid claim that abiogenesis_—_*the formation of a microscopic lifeform up from the most basic, organic precursors by purely natural means in raw nature*—_or_ is that the bluster of an ignoramus still wallowing in a puddle of pee-stained panties?


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> But enough about you, Chuckles.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > my2¢ said:
> ...



So, Chuckles, did the adverbial phrase _objectively speaking_ of intellectually honest discourse in good faith confuse you?  Given that you're a dishonest, little prick of a man, much like *Toddsterpatriot*, I understand how a real exchange of ideas in good faith might confuse your puerile mindset of argument from ad hominem and authority.

Perhaps the adverbial phrase _meanwhile, back to reality_ rather than _on the other hand _will help you make the obvious connection this time:

The more we learn about genetics, the clearer it becomes that genomes cannot and do not produce the kind of transmutational variants that evolution requires.​​By the way, Chuckles, perhaps you would care to explain precisely how a mindlessly unguided process of speciation and an intelligently guided process of speciation would be mutually inclusive.

_crickets chirping_
​For the life of me, I see no coherent, metaphysical apriority for that, do you?

In fact, it strikes me as blah-blah-blah-blow-it-out-your-ass speak . . . even if one were to assert that God preprogrammed nature to produce life that can transmutationally evolve.  It's almost as if that's still guided speciation and unguided speciation simultaneously.  It's almost as if that entails an irresolvable paradox . . . or what's more commonly called an _absurdity_.  It's almost as if _thinking things through_ is not your strong suite.

That's my 2¢.  

Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


>



So, Chuckles, how tall was Alice at the time?


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> _crickets chirping_
> That's my 2¢.




You're somehow under the massively egotistic illusion that I'm actually READING all the CRAP you write!  

Honestly, you have more BULLSHIT than perhaps any other fool on this board I've met!  And that even includes this schizoid post by AMD1:
_*"Since I actually be no human what do you mean than with parent? Do you know who has sent me  My gen isn't actually possible by human; since I did come from a human womb, doesn't say that I am coming from there; so it is a fact to say who I am I just did come becuz it was been foretold that I would come; the only thing was that you didn't knew that so therefore I say you that you know so that you could be prepared  I-Jesu"*
_
Wow.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> You're somehow under the massively egotistic illusion that I'm actually READING all the CRAP you write!
> 
> Honestly, you have more BULLSHIT than perhaps any other fool on this board I've met!  And that even includes this schizoid post by AMD1:
> _*"Since I actually be no human what do you mean than with parent? Do you know who has sent me  My gen isn't actually possible by human; since I did come from a human womb, doesn't say that I am coming from there; so it is a fact to say who I am I just did come becuz it was been foretold that I would come; the only thing was that you didn't knew that so therefore I say you that you know so that you could be prepared  I-Jesu"*_
> ...


Sort of like a closed-minded, intellectual bigot, eh?   

But enough of your bullshit.  Your style is to allege contradictions that only exist in your tiny mind of little knowledge or thought.  Of course you're reading them. 

Science has recently caught up with what *logic and mathematics* have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite. It’s almost as if *the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science* do falsify Hindu epistemology, such as is. It’s almost as if they falsify Hindu ontology, theology and cosmology too. It’s almost as if God _does_ reveal his existence and a number of truths about his actual nature after all via *the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition*.

Hot damn!

It’s almost as if you’ve been wrong all these many years of your unexamined existence.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Honestly, you have more BULLSHIT than perhaps any other fool on this board I've met!  And that even includes this schizoid post by AMD1:
> _*"Since I actually be no human what do you mean than with parent? Do you know who has sent me  My gen isn't actually possible by human; since I did come from a human womb, doesn't say that I am coming from there; so it is a fact to say who I am I just did come becuz it was been foretold that I would come; the only thing was that you didn't knew that so therefore I say you that you know so that you could be prepared  I-Jesu"*_
> 
> Wow.




Hey, Chuckles, you do realize that Hinduism subscribes to pantheism, which is the silly notion that the Universe and “god” are one and the same being, right?


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Sort of like a closed-minded, intellectual bigot, eh?
> But enough of your bullshit.
> Science has recently caught up







TERMINAL PSYCHO IDIOT ABOVE.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> subscribes to pantheism



DAMN YOU'RE BORING AS SNOT
Your mother must have never bought you a pet.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Sort of like a closed-minded, intellectual bigot, eh?
> ...




Narcissistic dullard above

In scientific terms:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition _H av > 0_ holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics {i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, _reach_ the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​
This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (_Many World in One_; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> View attachment 466331TERMINAL PSYCHO IDIOT ABOVE.






SELF-ABUSE ATTENTION WHORE


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 466331TERMINAL PSYCHO IDIOT ABOVE.



Hey, Chuckles, are you a science denier?


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Narcissistic dullard above






     Bed-wetting, unloved, pseudo-intellectual masturbating mommy-boy turned small animal abuser.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Blow it out of yer ass.



Hey, Chuckles, just between you and me, after Brahman popped into existence from the mysteriously eternal void of an actual infinity, i.e., after he popped into existence out of that nonexistent absurdity in the minds of nitwits like you: has he since popped out of existence every time someone *logically and mathematically* proved the impossibility of an actual infinite in the spacetime continuum . . . _or_ did he finally pop out of existence in your mind after science falsified the possibility of his existence?

Thanks.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Thanks.




You seem to feed on abuse.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Bed-wetting, unloved, pseudo-intellectual masturbating mommy-boy turned small animal abuser.



But enough about you, Chuckles.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks.
> ...



Hot damn, you're a classic narcissist!  I see right through you.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> But enough about you, Chuckles.



What a pathetic pseudo-intellectual fraud you are.  If the Democrats could have a personality, it would be you.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hot damn, you're a classic narcissist!  I see right through you.




Tonedeaf, you couldn't see your way through one side of your glass to see clearly accross the fucking room.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 10, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> What a pathetic pseudo-intellectual fraud you are.  If the Democrats could have a personality, it would be you.




You're a total imbecile of a slack-jawed, lice-ridden, toe-jam-funk smellin' baboon.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 11, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Tonedeaf, you couldn't see your way through one side of your glass to see clearly accross the fucking room.



You obtuse, repeatedly bitch-slapped and turned-out skank of a nancy boy, put your worthless tee-tee back in your panties, wipe the drool off your chin, and go to your room.  You couldn't put down a proper line of smack talk even if that stick wasn't up your ass.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Tonedeaf, you couldn't see your way through one side of your glass to see clearly accross the fucking room.
> ...





Wow, you are one sick individual.  You have some deep unmet need to tell everyone in the world you're smarter and better than them with seriously damaged ideas that no one else agrees with, and when they question or just don't agree with you, the small, sick inner child inside who didn't get his way at home when he was a boy lashes out again at the world for being rejected.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 11, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Wow, you are one sick individual.  You have some deep unmet need to tell everyone in the world you're smarter and better than them with seriously damaged ideas that no one else agrees with, and when they question or just don't agree with you, the small, sick inner child inside who didn't get his way at home when he was a boy lashes out again at the world for being rejected.



Sounds like somebody's all het up.  It's almost as if somebody's feelings are hurt.  Indeed, it's almost as if somebody's ego is bruised.  Incessant, hysterically over-the-top ad hominem, with moving images no less, in the face of real substance?  The authority of know-nothing group think, touchy-feely talk, psychobabble and the like?  

I'm getting a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin' here.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 11, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> . . . inner child inside who didn't get his way at home when he was a boy . . .



Chuckles, the classic narcissist, in all seriousness mind you, actually said _inner child._

You just can't make this stuff up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > . . . inner child inside who didn't get his way at home when he was a boy . . .
> ...


You're so busy throwing an embarrassing hissy fit, that you forgot to declare victory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 11, 2021)

The failure of this thread, in a nutshell:

Started by a low information, self aggrandizing moron who knows less about evolution that a 7th grader.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 11, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> What a pathetic pseudo-intellectual fraud you are.  If the Democrats could have a personality, it would be you.



By the way, Chuckles, talking about pseudo-intellectuals. . . .

_Observe abiogenesis, _Chuckles says._  Time scales_, Chuckles says.  _That's sort of the point_, Chuckles says.  Talking trash to one who is STEEPED in the pertinent science, Chuckles does.

(Somebody ought to bitch slap the stupid out of this punk Chuckles, I say.)

Hey, Chuckles, be sure to let us all know when you observe that instance of abiogenesis occurring by purely natural means somewhere in raw nature. Be sure to keep your microscope with you at all times. . . . .

Oh, wait!

Rather, be sure to know precisely where on the incalculably millions of square miles of lifeless, albeit, potentially habitable, planetary terrain this microscopic event occurs _*before*_ it occurs somewhere in the Universe.  After all, you'll have to be standing by at exactly the right spot and at exactly the right moment it occurs.

_crickets chirping _

Be sure to somehow extract it and put it under your microscope.

Also, be sure to have your scuba gear handy and in good working order at all times should that mysterious little birdy of yours direct you to the exact place and time this event occurs in the vast reaches of some watery depth in the Universe.

Be sure to take pictures of the event, and get the T-shirt.



You arrogant ass!  What in the hell have you been thinking abiogenesis is all these many years in your unexamined life, Chuckles?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Or maybe you're making baby talk.





alang1216 said:


> You disappoint me yet again.



If you were to read my article on abiogenesis you would know that (1) a living organism smaller than an amino acid, much less one smaller than an amine, is impossible, that (2) organic molecules cannot and do not link up in any substantially _or_ sustainably significant chains in raw nature for variously complex reasons, and that (3) even if they could, that would still be light years away from living organisms.  

Sorry to disappoint you again.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Or maybe you're making baby talk.
> ...


Don't feel too bad, most of what passes for discourse on USMB disappoints me.  I do admit I don't recall your article on abiogenesis.  Link?  I'm most curious to see you prove something is impossible.  Long chains of hydrocarbons are very common and naturally occuring, in fact we burn them in our cars.  Not light years, billions of years.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 11, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



My bad.  I specified in my mind, but not in the post.  I'm was thinking about those most pertinent to life. As for the article:  *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Oh look, another article you never read and don't understand.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Too long.  Feel free to summarize.

This is also way too long (with the comments) so don't expect even a summary.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 11, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Why should anyone bother with that load of AIG cribbed nonsense?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 11, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



You need to read the article or not, alang. It's a summarization of the most important experimental findings in abiogenetic research from Miller-Urey on.

I was not aware of the other, but do vaguely recall my discourse with an Objectivist some years ago.

I was actually trolling in that exchange, not at first, but later, after he failed to grasp the fact that I wholeheartedly agreed with him and Peikoff that “the actual is always finite”, or, more accurately, the actual value of the potentially infinite is always finite at any given moment in real being. But he kept insisting that the superlatively qualitative infinity of classical theism contradicted the quantitative infinities of mathematics, which is nonsense.  But the real kicker was when another Objectivist chimed in at about that point insisting that 1/Infinity = 0, literally, which is also nonsense. The author of the piece you cited knew better, but wouldn’t correct his fellow Objectivist . . . so I basically went all Jupiter on them just for kicks.

I blessed them with a short story of sorts entailing a fictitious news report. It's a real hoot!

Hey, would you like to read it?  It's not long at all and it's hilarious.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


From what I've read, no one knows the environments of the early earth so no one can prove abiogenesis did or did not occur.  I'm fine with that.  I have only experienced the natural world so I'd lean toward a natural explanation of how life started even though I can't prove it.  You don't have to accept it was natural but you also can't show me it was impossible.  Like God himself, I can't prove He doesn't exist anymore than you can prove he does.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 12, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> From what I've read, no one knows the environments of the early earth so no one can prove abiogenesis did or did not occur. I'm fine with that. I have only experienced the natural world so I'd lean toward a natural explanation of how life started even though I can't prove it. You don't have to accept it was natural but you also can't show me it was impossible. Like God himself, I can't prove He doesn't exist anymore than you can prove he does.



_Sigh_

I've already proved God exists to you via the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and science. You just refuse to follow the ramifications of those imperatives. Ultimately, your lack of conviction comes down to your lack of faith that the pertinent imperatives of logic, mathematics and science are true. You generally adhere to them just fine . . . until you don't on matters of ultimate origin.

Once again, you really need to read my article. You haven't the faintest clue what's possible. You just opined in the above that maybe the earliest lifeform (microbe) was as small as an amine! That's akin to saying elephants can fly.

Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we _do_ know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing, and the geological conditions were obviously conducive to microscopic lifeforms, the earliest of which were, apparently, cyanobacteria, arising no latter than 3.5 billion years ago and probably as early as almost 3.8 billion years ago.

The only definitively meaningful relevance early Earth conditions have on the matter go to their conduciveness to the existence and sustenance of microbial life. They ultimately have no definitively meaningful relevance to *proving* abiogenesis occurred. Objectively speaking, abiogenesis either occurred or it didn't. Period. Ultimately, the reasons abiogenesis can never be proven are (1) because precellular life cannot be coherently conceptualized as anything more than a hypothetical fuzzy-wuzzy and (2) because an instance of abiogenesis cannot be observed_—_not now, not ever!

(See *post #194* for why, in which I sarcastically falsified toobfreak's idiotic notion of the latter.)

Look, I'm certainly not the best-informed writer on the topic of abiogenesis. I have no doubt that others could better summarize the most pertinent findings of the research since Miller-Urey for the laymen reader, though, given its scope, roughly 70 years of research, I don't see how one could do so more concisely. Arguably, the article is a small book that would take the average laymen at least two hours to adequately digest. I made it as simple for the laymen as I know how without reducing the matter to a cartoon.

Seventy years of research!

You're asking me to summarize the real-world ramifications of the findings on a message board. If you would _just_ read the article, you would realize just how ridiculously naive that is . . . but don’t take offense. It took me nearly six months to research and write it in my spare time, followed by weeks of revisions. It's fair to say that at least 60% of my prior understanding of things was "through a glass darkly".

I don't conceal my underlying bias or my opinion of the findings, but that doesn't mean I don't accurately and objectively present the findings of the very best and most significant peer-reviewed research.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > From what I've read, no one knows the environments of the early earth so no one can prove abiogenesis did or did not occur. I'm fine with that. I have only experienced the natural world so I'd lean toward a natural explanation of how life started even though I can't prove it. You don't have to accept it was natural but you also can't show me it was impossible. Like God himself, I can't prove He doesn't exist anymore than you can prove he does.
> ...



*Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing *

Are you sure?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 12, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing *
> 
> Are you sure?



Yes.

Excerpt:

But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would _not_ have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres.​​Perplexing.​​That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins*.  *  In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evince an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth. *3*​​Perplexing.​​It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities.  But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today.  The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits.  It doesn’t.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing *
> ...



What's the link to your "proof"?

Or did you come up with that on your own?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 12, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's the link to your "proof"?
> 
> Or did you come up with that on your own?



Of course, several years ago, I just made up what was common knowledge at the time I wrote the piece to screw with your mind today.   

You do realize that I'm not talking about the very earliest atmospheric conditions, right?  Rather, I'm talking about the atmospheric conditions that generally prevailed briefly before, in geological terms, life appeared.  We know today that the atmosphere was more oxidizing early than we  previously thought possible, and we have recently pinned down, even more definitively, it's increasingly oxidizing development going back even earlier than 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.  Indeed, it was generally oxidizing as early as a half a billion years after the Earth's formation.

But I do thank for pointing out to me that I didn't directly annotate that particular observation . . . because, after all, at the time I wrote the piece, that was common knowledge among the learned.  That's not a slight against you.  On the contrary, my audience is the layman.  My failure to directly annotate that is a blunder.

I'll have to revise it yet again, damn it!  





__





						Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth | News & Events
					






					news.rpi.edu
				












						| EarthSky
					

Scientists studying tiny ancient meteorites have found evidence that Earth's atmosphere used to contain much more carbon dioxide, and maybe less nitrogen, than it does now.




					earthsky.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What's the link to your "proof"?
> ...


So what? That doesn't preclude abiogenesis. What a bunch of garbage.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > From what I've read, no one knows the environments of the early earth so no one can prove abiogenesis did or did not occur. I'm fine with that. I have only experienced the natural world so I'd lean toward a natural explanation of how life started even though I can't prove it. You don't have to accept it was natural but you also can't show me it was impossible. Like God himself, I can't prove He doesn't exist anymore than you can prove he does.
> ...



“_I've already proved God exists to you via the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and science_.”

Yes. You are emotionally attached to that silly, cut and paste “....imperatives” slogan.

Why would you believe that your gullibility and fawning attachment to silly slogans is proof of anything but fear and ignorance?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 12, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Too long.  Feel free to summarize.
> 
> This is also way too long (with the comments) so don't expect even a summary.



By the way, I copied and pasted that piece of satire on the board:  Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science (Satire)


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > From what I've read, no one knows the environments of the early earth so no one can prove abiogenesis did or did not occur. I'm fine with that. I have only experienced the natural world so I'd lean toward a natural explanation of how life started even though I can't prove it. You don't have to accept it was natural but you also can't show me it was impossible. Like God himself, I can't prove He doesn't exist anymore than you can prove he does.
> ...


I beg to differ, you've proved nothing.  You made a case for a creator but the nature of that creator is completely unknown.  You have never even attempted to connect that creator to the God of the Bible.


----------



## james bond (Mar 13, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is 100 percent fact
> I could give many examples ..I am not
> Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate



If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples.  But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe.  It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter?  And someone like you doesn't have a clue.


----------



## james bond (Mar 13, 2021)

Hollie said:


> The hyper-religious make a mistake in presuming that their standard "... because I say so", nonsense is a valid argument. They make no case to support their claim that natural processes are somehow deficient toward their supernatural gods.



It's the Darwin and later scientists says so argument. 

You guys can't explain how the sun came to be.  The sun couldn't have started by itself.

The Christians have the whole explanation and science backs it up.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *The Failure Of Evolution Theory*
> by Christian von Wielligh
> 
> 
> ...


not all mutations are copy errors.  Some can be caused by external forces such as radiation, environmental toxins or even such things as varying food and water levels.


----------



## james bond (Mar 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? That doesn't preclude abiogenesis. What a bunch of garbage.



Christians already disproved abiogenesis.  You haven't found any life whatsoever on Mars.  Adam named animals.  What did Perseverance get you?  You get to name rocks for your millions of dollars haha.  Another so-called Fort Fun Indiana and OP _fact_ claims bite the dust.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is 100 percent fact
> ...


Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy. 

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The hyper-religious make a mistake in presuming that their standard "... because I say so", nonsense is a valid argument. They make no case to support their claim that natural processes are somehow deficient toward their supernatural gods.
> ...


Evolution does not deal with ''how the sun came to be''. I'm guessing your madrassah was not real rigorous in the science curriculum.

Christians have the ''...because the gods say so'' explanation but that is not an explanation for anything.

You can't explain how your gods or any of the other gods before your gods came to be, Your gods couldn't have started by themselves. So no, nothing ''backs up'' your appeals to magic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> Christians already disproved abiogenesis.


Liar.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> You guys can't explain how the sun came to be. The sun couldn't have started by itself.


Good god this is stupid. Yes dummy, we can explain how the Sun came to be. This is 8th grade science material.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 13, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > *The Failure Of Evolution Theory*
> ...


True.


----------



## james bond (Mar 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Christians already disproved abiogenesis.
> ...



It used the scientific method.  You can't beat that even with your lies.

The scientific method backs up natural selection which God created, but not evolution by natural selection.  Miller-Urey was turribly flawed.

Can we just add what Perseverance does not find to the dung pile?  You spent billions of taxpayer dollars to name rocks.


----------



## james bond (Mar 13, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...



I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking.  It goes to show you don't know about these areas.


----------



## james bond (Mar 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You guys can't explain how the sun came to be. The sun couldn't have started by itself.
> ...



No, it's just a theory.

Besides, no one has explained it here in their own words.  I asked a simple question of where the energy came from, i.e. EMS, and the atheists here ran away.

The lie is atheists assume things started to exist out of nothing.


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 13, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Quasar44 said:
> ...


What happened before the BB is irrelevant to evolution


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 13, 2021)

Evolution is about as real and factual as you can get


----------



## james bond (Mar 13, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Only to ToE.  Just a wrong and misconstrued theory made up by atheist humans and their scientists.  

When discussing evolutionary thinking and cosmology, these nutgoobers have to start discussing multiverses.


----------



## james bond (Mar 13, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is about as real and factual as you can get



And if this were R&E, then you're going to hell in a hand basket.  Think of places like Mars and how unpleasant it is compared to Earth.


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is about as real and factual as you can get
> ...


Each planet has a unique course of formation based on many factors


----------



## abu afak (Mar 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> *I'm referring to Atheist Cosmology and Evolutionary thinking.*  It goes to show you don't know about these areas.


YOU (and Ringtone) prefer Evangelical Physics, Hindu Biology, and Papal astronomy?

`


----------



## Hollie (Mar 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology? 

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 13, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I beg to differ, you've proved nothing.  You made a case for a creator but the nature of that creator is completely unknown.  You have never even attempted to connect that creator to the God of the Bible.



Now you disappoint me, *alang*.  Though we occasionally rib one another, I thought we were on good terms.  We've always been cordial to each other, agreed to disagree without rancor.

You acknowledge the logical necessity of an eternally existing entity.  After all, how could existence have just popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness, or caused itself to exist _before_ it existed?  Absurdity!  Indeed, how could nonexistence exist in the first place?

You also acknowledge that the eternally existing entity cannot be of a material substance.  Yes?  No?

I'm well aware of the fact that you keep asking me to prove that the God of the Bible is in fact the eternally existing entity of necessity as opposed to other supposed candidates.  Here's the problem, *alang*, you, not I, keep walking away from the discourse.

For the moment and for the sake of objectivity, forget about the idea of God altogether.  Let's do the Socratic method.

How could the eternally existing entity, whatever it may be, possibly be of a material substance when an actual infinite in the spacetime continuum is an absurdity?

The nature of the ultimate ground of existence is completely unknown, you say?!

The imperatives of logic and mathematics don't tell us that the ultimate ground of existence is necessarily (1) of an eternally self-subsistent essence and (2) of an immaterial essence?

That's weird.

What else do the imperatives of logic and mathematics tell us about the nature of the ultimate ground of existence?

You don't know.  You've never even bothered to think about it.  Every time we get to this point in the discourse, the point at which the imperatives prove that the ultimate ground of existence is necessarily immaterial, you shut down the discourse.  You close your mind like a slammed shut door.

Why?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I beg to differ, you've proved nothing.  You made a case for a creator but the nature of that creator is completely unknown.  You have never even attempted to connect that creator to the God of the Bible.
> ...



There is no “logical necessity of an eternally existing entity”.

Your time at the Jerry Falwell ministries was a _waste_ of time. The imperatives of logic and mathematics make us certain of that.


----------



## james bond (Mar 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > *I'm referring to Atheist Cosmology and Evolutionary thinking.*  It goes to show you don't know about these areas.
> ...



Haha    . You believe in Atheist cosmology, evolutionary thinking, and ToE. You believe in foolish atheist science. It was created by mostly atheists who wanted to eliminate God from science and _assume_ there is only nature.  It only started from the 1850s and was severely debunked from 2007 - 2012.  That's when fine tuning was discovered by your scientists.  It hurt because it contradicted abiogenesis and how life can pop up from non-life if the conditions were right.  Its news and articles on it were soon taken off the internet.  That forced the atheist scientists to go to Multiverses with absolutely no evidence.  Even Stephen Hawking talked about it before he died.  What kind of science is based on no evidence?  I just explained it to you -- atheist science.

We have creation science because we believe in what God said and discovered science backs it up.  There is no book like the Bible.  For example, we got news yesterday of the atheist scientists naming rocks on Mars.  It is not really an accomplishment.  Mars sucks as a planet, but the liberals want to go there if they could.  I'll give credit for being able to fly there and creating the robot rovers.  Otherwise, atheist science and their scientists haven't accomplished much of anything in regards to cosmology, evolutionary thinking, and ToE.  It's so basic that even you get most of it.


----------



## james bond (Mar 13, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



God gives us the correct order of how everything was created in Genesis in seven days.  OTOH, none of you can answer how the Earth, universe, and everything in it originated.  Look at the OP.  He claims evolution is fact and is too stupid to explain it.


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


 They can isotope date the earth to 4-5 billion yrs but I  sure you won’t find that in the Bible


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 14, 2021)

The human body is riddled with errors    ?
Clearly not a design by a higher being ?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


The flaw with your magical thinking is that the men who wrote the Bibles got the order of events in the Genesis fable wrong.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I beg to differ, you've proved nothing.  You made a case for a creator but the nature of that creator is completely unknown.  You have never even attempted to connect that creator to the God of the Bible.
> ...


I'm sorry if you read any rancor into my post since none was intended.

Here is where we stand, as I see it.  You make a case for an eternal intelligence of some sort that would be required by your logic to create our universe.  It may well be true, I don't know.  To me that is a god-of-the-gaps argument, we don't know the cause of the universe so it must be a god.  As I've said, I'm agnostic on this point, I have no hard evidence for either a supernatural creator or a 100% natural cause we don't yet know.  If I'm in a closed, windowless room I can't know what is outside.  I can speculate based on what I find in the room but, until I can open a door or window, I can't know for sure.

That is how I view your arguments for a creator.  My argument is that, though you may be completely right, it sheds no light on the nature of this creator.  You generally can't know anything about an artist just from observing a painting.  Everything people of faith believe about God comes from the Bible, not from His creation.  In fact they tend to ignore his creation and view the world as they wish it to be (e.g., james bond).   That is the discourse we have yet to have.


----------



## james bond (Mar 14, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



First, the Bible states God will not let us know the age of the Earth.  Some things he said he will keep to himself.

It's radioisotope dating which gives long ages.  The problem is if one dates the same rocks using different radioisotopes such as potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead, or samarium-neodymium, then they give different ages of long time.  On the creation science side, we can still use C-14 radiocarbon dating because the C-14 still exist.  That will give us a younger Earth.


----------



## james bond (Mar 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The humans just transcribed God's word.  Science backs up the order of what is in Genesis.  Your atheist theories have no order, events, or a logical argument for the beginning.  Thus, evolution is usually wrong.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No. There is no evidence humans transcribed any words of your gods. Fundamentalist Christians are always wrong about science matters. 

Science does not back up the order of what is in Genesis.

The Scientific Method provides an orderly synthesis of hypothesis, theory and testable conclusion. So there’s that. The fundies screeching out “the gods did it” is simply another appeal to fear and ignorance.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 14, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> The human body is riddled with errors    ?
> Clearly not a design by a higher being ?



Entropy and genomic denigration, which, by the way, undermines evolutionary theory, disproves intelligent design?  How so?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Ringtone:  Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing *
> 
> Are you sure?



By the way, Toddsterpatriot, did you ever acknowledge your ignorance regarding the atmospheric conditions?  I must have missed your acknowledgement.  When you do, be sure to thank me for once again enlightening you.  Double space if necessary.

Also, did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome _or_ did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522 again.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 14, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Blow it out of yer ass.



Hey, Chuckles, does Brahman pop out of existence every time someone *logically and mathematically* proves the impossibility of an actual infinite in the spacetime continuum . . . _or_ did he finally pop out of existence in your mind after science falsified the possibility of his existence?

You never got back to me on that.

Also, did you ever acknowledge the fact that I utterly destroyed virtually everything that came out of your mouth about abiogenesis, and the imperatives of logic and mathematics relative to God's existence?

By the way, your guff about observing an instance of abiogenesis was a real hoot!  Be sure to thank me for lacing you up on . . . well, virtually everything you talked about.  

It was a real pleasure beating your ass black and blue.

Thanks.

PS:  be sure to review my *scathing excoriation of your drooling stupidity about observing abiogenesis*.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > The human body is riddled with errors    ?
> ...



“... _genomic denigration”™_.

There’s buffoonish and then there’s Ringtone buffoonish.

How does _genomic denigration_™ undermine evolutionary theory when you invent these buffoonish slogans which are.... just awful. ?


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > The human body is riddled with errors    ?
> ...


Entropy has nothing to do with evolution??
 99.99 percent of all species on earth are extinct 
 Surely a gods design would never be this high


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 14, 2021)

Hey, Chuckles the toobfreak, just for shits and giggles, let's review the scientific falsification of Hindu cosmology again. . . .

Science has recently caught up with what *logic and mathematics* have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite. It’s almost as if *the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science* do falsify Hindu epistemology, such as is. It’s almost as if they falsify Hindu ontology, theology and cosmology too.  It’s almost as if God _does_ reveal his existence and a number of truths about his actual nature after all via *the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition*.

Hot damn!

It’s almost as if you’ve been wrong all these many years of your unexamined existence.

In scientific terms:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition _H av > 0_ holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics {i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, _reach_ the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​
This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (_Many World in One_; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


 The Bible is a great book for morals and ethics but a very lousy book on anything science


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Evolution is about as factual as any science fact


----------



## Turtlesoup (Mar 14, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


it's evolution-----you take a wolf and make it a tiny dog--different species.   (this done by man selective breeding) is the same as evolution of the fittest in nature.   I'm sure that you don't want to argue that wolves are the same species as dogs now do  you?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Definitely. Except in the minds of YEC'ists such as Ringtone.


----------



## Quasar44 (Mar 14, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Turtlesoup said:
> ...


 Same concept with plants and vegetables that man has made by slightly changing the conditions


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *The Failure Of Evolution Theory*
> by Christian von Wielligh
> 
> 
> ...


How about...."The failure of deists to provide the slightest shred of evidence to prove the existence of an "all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible being (that we just happen to look like.....there's the height of egotism), that created the universe and all in it."


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 14, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> How about...."The failure of deists to provide the slightest shred of evidence to prove the existence of an "all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible being (that we just happen to look like.....there's the height of egotism), that created the universe and all in it."




How about you see the above and stop spouting slogans?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 14, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Entropy has nothing to do with evolution??
> 99.99 percent of all species on earth are extinct
> Surely a gods design would never be this high



I didn't say it did.  _Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase; the verb _undermines_ is for singular predicates, which, therefore, strictly goes to _denigration, _the noun that the determinate, adjectival phrase immediately modifies_._ Grammar 101.   The observation that entropy does not disprove intelligent design either is of equal importance.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Entropy has nothing to do with evolution??
> ...


Is _genomic denigration_™ a subject you studied at the Jimmy Swaggert Academy for the Silly?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Entropy has nothing to do with evolution??
> ...


"_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase''

You just can't escape your typical buffoonery.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> "_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase''
> 
> You just can't escape your typical buffoonery.



So you and Toddsterpatriot, apparently, who gave your tripe a thumbs up, are implying that it's a singular noun (or nounal) phrase?  How tall was Alice this time, Madcap?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > "_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase''
> ...


_"genomic denigration_™

"_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase''

So... you studied both science and Grammer 101 at the Benny Hinn Madrasdah or was is it at Harun Yahya?


----------



## james bond (Mar 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> No. There is no evidence humans transcribed any words of your gods. Fundamentalist Christians are always wrong about science matters.
> 
> Science does not back up the order of what is in Genesis.
> 
> The Scientific Method provides an orderly synthesis of hypothesis, theory and testable conclusion. So there’s that. The fundies screeching out “the gods did it” is simply another appeal to fear and ignorance.



There is no point in answering you questions.  You haven't learned anything about the Bible, creationists, their great scientists, and all their contributions to the history of humankind.  What kind of fool are you?


----------



## james bond (Mar 14, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> The Bible is a great book for morals and ethics but a very lousy book on anything science



The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.



Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is about as factual as any science fact



Evolution is a fairy tale.  The only thing is true is natural selection which was created by God.

You need to learn what facts are.  If something is a fact, then both sides (or everyone) can use it.  For example, the sky is blue.  US money is green.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > No. There is no evidence humans transcribed any words of your gods. Fundamentalist Christians are always wrong about science matters.
> ...


On the other hand, I've taught you a great deal about the Bible. An unwillingness on your part to learn is a function of your being a slave to dogma. 

Otherwise, ID'iot creationer loons from AIG and creation.com are not scientists and have contributed nothing to science..

What kind of fraud are you?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> _"genomic denigration_™
> 
> "_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase''
> 
> So... you studied both science and Grammer 101 at the Benny Hinn Madrasdah or was is it at Harun Yahya?



There are two nouns (subjects) in the phrase, not one.  Where did you study math, Madcap?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > _"genomic denigration_™
> ...


That’s quite a song and dance.

Ringtone will be appearing here all week folks. Be sure to tip your waitresses.


_“genomic denigration_™

"_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase''

Comedy gold. Henry Morris must be laughing from the grave.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> _“genomic denigration_™




Oh, wait!  I see what  you mean by _degradation_ now.  Didn't realize I had written that.  Should be _degeneration, _but it's a plural nounal phrase.  There are two nouns (subjects) in the phrase, not one.  Where did you study math, Madcap?


----------



## james bond (Mar 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well, you showed what kind of fool you are.  The one that chooses _hell_.  You rather live in a desolate place like Mars than what was supposed to be heaven on Earth.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 15, 2021)

So, Madcap Hollie, at what school did you study math?

The Madcap School of Raving Heretics? 

Oh, wait!

The Madcap School of Magical Subtraction Where Two Subjects Become One?  

By God, that's the best hoot I've had all day.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 15, 2021)

Madcap Hollie and her Magical Mathematical Mystery Tour!  Goo goo g'joob!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Madcap Hollie and her Magical Mathematical Mystery Tour!  Goo goo g'joob!


Oh, wait. It’s the hyper-religious loon cutting and pasting phrases from the Jerry Falwell Madrassah




_“genomic denigration_™

"_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase''



There’s even a unique version of grammar for the hyper-religious


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



You will be disappointed to learn that I don’t kowtow to your fears and superstitions.

Your gods have been configured to demand obedience under threat of “hell” as the hyper-religious are so quick to hurl that threat.

Consider configuring some new gods.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> The scientific method backs up natural selection which God created, but not evolution by natural selection


Liar.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.


Liar.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 15, 2021)

Madcap Hollie and her Magical Mathematical Mystery Tour! 

Compound subjects magically become singular!

Goo goo g'joob!


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 15, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is about as real and factual as you can get



So you proved that naturalism is true, eh?

Link?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Madcap Hollie and her Magical Mathematical Mystery Tour!
> 
> Compound subjects magically become singular!
> 
> Goo goo g'joob!



So tell us about your investigations into:


_“genomic denigration_™

"_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase''

It’s fascinating to read your stuttering and mumbling.


----------



## james bond (Mar 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It's fearful because that is what Jesus stated.  I disagree that it is superstition.  You're just saying that because of your religion and think it is superstition.

It really isn't about kowtowing to fears and superstition.  It's more about what you believe and trust.  I don't kowtow to death by global warming.  I don't think windmills are effective.  Solar panels may be, but too expensive and not worth the trouble.  I rather choose a gas engine car than electrical after comparing.  I think it's political control by leftists.

I can explain what Jesus said about hell if you want, but don't think it makes any difference because your mind is already made up on atheism and atheist science, i.e. a creator cannot exist.

Your statement about gods being made up isn't true.  Over time, we have found out what Satan can do.  You cannot explain how eugenics came from Darwinism and how it led to the Holocaust and killed millions of Jews.  It also explain why so many people believe in atheism and atheist science and why they'll go to hell.  It's like choosing to live on Mars instead of Earth.


----------



## james bond (Mar 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Liar.



Truth.

You would've found a contradiction by now.  And the way to destroy Christianity is to prove the resurrection did not happen, but it is still here.

What's interesting is other worldly events happen before evolution is destroyed.  IOW, evolution takes a back seat and isn't destroey.  Satan is truly "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is about as real and factual as you can get
> ...


Try paying attention to what was written. Biological evolution is a fact. Not surprisingly, it is fundamentalist Christians who are science denying / science loathing element.

Yes, we can say with confidence that naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism), is true. You can refute that by demonstrating a single event in human history that is demonstrably of supernatural origins.

So do so. Identify one, single supernatural event.

Thanks.

Waiting.

Thanks again.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



You know very little of what jeebus said. The various, mostly unknown authors of the Bible never met jeebus. You feel comfortable attaching magic and supernatural authority to the jeebus for reasons that make no sense. If you want real gods to worship, the Egyptian ones are much more reliable. The Egyptian gods must be the true gods because we have their inscriptions chiseled in stone, unaltered by time and the corruptible hand of man.

Why should I accept your statements about supernatural creators? Like most people, you simply accepted the gods that are customary as a part of western culture. You inherited the gods you were given and like most people, simply believed what you were taught.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Yes, we can say with confidence that naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism), is true.



Because you say so, eh?  Who is this _we_, and what is their scientific justification? 

Peer-reviewed proof?  Link?

Goo goo g'joob!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Liar.
> ...


Liar. We have found countless contradictions. Take your idiotic lies to the magic religion section.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, we can say with confidence that naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism), is true.
> ...


Things like peer reviewed research. That would be a foreign concept to a YEC’er.

Tell us about the supernatural and the peer reviewed studies you can point to for things like a 6,000 year old planet, Arks cruising the sea and talking snakes.

Shirley, you can offer something for your belief in magic and supernaturalism?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, we can say with confidence that naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism), is true.
> ...




_“genomic denigration_™

"_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase”


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 16, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together
See how they run like pigs from a gun
See how they fly
I'm crying


Goo goo g'joob!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 16, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Another of the disasters that typifies your attempts at stringing words into coherent sentences.


----------



## james bond (Mar 16, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Now, you're attacking our Savior himself and the people who wrote the Bible.  It goes to show that he does exist (even if only in your feeble mind) and lived historically.  Also, the well known authors of the Bible did their jobs.   Historically, Jesus was a real person, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day into heaven.  The last part is key, but all of his life was of utmost importance.

Otherwise, it would be like global warming.  Not of any importance.  Did it sound like I was ranting?  No, I just compared what the libs say about it to what science says about it.  We find a lot of contradictions.  Thus, there is no need of fear.  It's like there is no need of fear for GMO foods as was discussed.  I listened and accepted the atheists' arguments and evidence.  However, I did find about Roundup, its widespread use on GMO crops, the lymphoma cancer it caused, the lawsuits against it, and billion of dollars paid in settlement.  It's still valid.  Now, EU and Mexico want to ban certain GMO crops and Roundup.  Isn't that weird?  What was especially troubling was the creation of fertile seeds to be used only once.  Now, that wasn't what was to be eaten per God.  However, the technology was self-halted and promised to not be marketed (I think).

So, why the rant about Jesus and bringing up Egyptian gods?



Hollie said:


> Biological evolution is a fact.



Now, you're playing word games ToE is just a theory and could be all wrong.  THEORY is in the name.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> Now, you're attacking our Savior himself


So what? Keep your magical zombie king out of the science section.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 16, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Another of the disasters that typifies your attempts at stringing words into coherent sentences.



Boy, you've been a naughty girl, you let your knickers down.   

Hey, I know, why don't you regale us again about how compound subjects are singular.  That was a real hoot.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 16, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Another of the disasters that typifies your attempts at stringing words into coherent sentences.



Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes, and she's gone.


----------



## james bond (Mar 16, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Not when the scientific method and evidence back up the Bible.  Isn't fraud and contradictions what we find in ToE, evolutionary thinking, and cosmology?  Why couldn't you guys just stick with natural selection?  Instead, we get billions of years and evolutionary timeline (which only the atheist scientists control).  I have to keep repeating that I cannot even fathom how long those times are.  Even a million years.  The Earth should not last that long as it was damaged by sin and we have the evidence of catastrophism instead of uniformitarianism.

Now, we fight over fine tuning.  Even my UC Berkeley evolution website admits life (aside from Earth) is rare.  Also, Stephen Hawking admitted it before his death and then believed wholeheartedly in multiverses.  I wonder when you guys start stating multiverses are fact without a single shred of evidence.  It's like most of ToE.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? Keep your magical zombie king out of the science section.



Are you ranting?  The resurrection had many witnesses and physical evidence.  It was humanly difficult, if not impossible, to move the stone before Jesus' tomb.  How can some people do it in a short amount of time?  Wouldn't you think it would be guarded?

Thus, where is the "magic?"  In your guilty conscience?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> Not when the scientific method and evidence back up the Bible.


They don't liar. Now take you iron age delusions to the religion section where they belong.


----------



## james bond (Mar 16, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They don't liar. Now take you iron age delusions to the religion section where they belong.



The swan neck experiment wasn't that long ago.  Isn't that why the Urey-Miller experiments were stopped?

We also discovered the chicken came before the egg in 2017.

Thus, you have no experiments except for delusions of aliens on Mars and elsewhere.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> We also discovered the chicken came before the egg in 2017.


Haha...where do you get these insane lies?

Just kidding. We all know all of your material is plagiarized directly from creation.com.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 17, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Another of the disasters that typifies your attempts at stringing words into coherent sentences.
> ...



It is funny to watch the hyper-religious bumpkins embarrass themselves.


_“genomic denigration_™

"_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase”


----------



## james bond (Mar 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > We also discovered the chicken came before the egg in 2017.
> ...



You're the one who believes in the lies of the atheists and their scientists.  Look at Stephen Hawking who was wrong about multiverses and left the believers fine tuning and the anthropic principle.


----------



## james bond (Mar 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > We also discovered the chicken came before the egg in 2017.
> ...



You are in denial.  It's a scientific fact now.

"It had long been suspected that the egg came first, but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first," Sheffield University's Dr Colin Freeman, according to a report in the Metro.

Researchers from Scotland and England used a supercomputer called HECToR to look in such detail at a chicken eggshell that they were able to determine the vital role of a protein used to kick-start the egg's formation.

That protein is only found, wait for it... inside a chicken.

Freeman, who worked on HECToR with counterparts at Edinburgh's Warwick University, said the protein had been identified earlier by scientists and was known to be linked to egg formation, "but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process," he added, describing it as a catalyst.

Professor John Harding, who also took part in the research, told Metro the discovery could have other applications."









						Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof"
					

Researchers in U.K. say Proof is in the Protein Found in Chicken's Ovaries, Used to Form Eggshell




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 17, 2021)

Psst, Madcap Hollie, goo goo g'joob!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Psst, Madcap Hollie, goo goo g'joob!




It is funny to watch the hyper-religious stumble and mumble.


_“genomic denigration_™

"_Entropy and genomic denigration_ is a plural noun phrase”


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> You're the one who believes in the lies of the atheists and their scientists.


I.E., i am an educated, functioning adult. And you are a desperate nutball that is the laughingstock of the educated populace.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 18, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Psst, Madcap Hollie, goo goo g'joob!


Sock troll goes to ignore, now.


----------



## james bond (Mar 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one who believes in the lies of the atheists and their scientists.
> ...



Your atheist consensus science could be wrong.  One person or the minority could be right under science.  For example, we've been talking about that for life on Mars.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 20, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is 100 percent fact
> I could give many examples ..I am not
> Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate


Agreed that scientists have concluded that evolution is "fact."  What they also agree on, is that, how the mechanism works, remains a "theory."


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 12, 2021)

Global Warming, Darwinism, both abuse the nonsense of "consensus," which does not exist but if it did, is still meaningless. Consensus is the enemy of science, as explained in this article.

The consensus was that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny for 150 years despite fact that Haeckel's drawings were exposed as fakes in 1860 or so.

*Consensus Science Is A Fiction: Crichton*



BY DARRYL BUDGE

AUGUST 26, 2020

Nearly twenty years ago renowned author and medical doctor Michael Crichton examined the Climate Change debate and warned the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy was becoming "increasingly elastic."



Nearly twenty years ago renowned author and medical doctor Michael Crichton examined the Climate Change debate and warned the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy was becoming “increasingly elastic.”

What Crichton observed was that “consensus science” was being adopted as indisputable scientific fact. But for Crichton, “consensus science” is “not science.”



The anthropologist and Harvard-trained medical doctor delivered this warning at a California Institute of Technology lecture in 2003, jokingly titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”:

Advertisement

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.

Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant.

What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

Dr Crichton, gave many examples of the failure of ‘consensus science’ from modern history.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor – southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth-century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had, in fact, drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961 when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiberr and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

He concluded the lecture with a somber warning, in the context of the “disgraceful” scientific reception of dissenting earth scientist and statistician Bjorn Lomborg:

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I’d see the Scientific American [magazine] in the role of Mother Church [who charged Galileo].

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy.

As the late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said: “Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference—science and the nation will suffer.”


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Global Warming, Darwinism, both abuse the nonsense of "consensus," which does not exist but if it did, is still meaningless. Consensus is the enemy of science, as explained in this article.
> 
> The consensus was that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny for 150 years despite fact that Haeckel's drawings were exposed as fakes in 1860 or so.
> 
> ...


AIG groupies, hyper-religious charlatans, one and the same, obviously, but both attempt to vilify what they don't understand. 

Religionism tends to draw the science loathing variety of religious zealots because science directly challenges their fears and superstitions. It's predictable when one reads the term ''Darwinism'', the religuous zealot is using the term to vilify all of science. Biological evolution is a comprehensive and diverse set of scientific theories, with more than one hundred years of verifiable evidence and development. On the other hand, Christian religionism has had 2,000 years to verify a flat earth and still can't manage that task.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Global Warming, Darwinism, both abuse the nonsense of "consensus," which does not exist but if it did, is still meaningless. Consensus is the enemy of science, as explained in this article.
> 
> The consensus was that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny for 150 years despite fact that Haeckel's drawings were exposed as fakes in 1860 or so.
> 
> ...


Says the expert in chem who doesn’t know the origin of the periodic table. Now you’re an expert on consensus ? Good grief. Give up this fraud……


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 20, 2022)

Hollie said:


> AIG groupies, hyper-religious charlatans, one and the same, obviously, but both attempt to vilify what they don't understand.
> 
> Religionism tends to draw the science loathing variety of religious zealots because science directly challenges their fears and superstitions. It's predictable when one reads the term ''Darwinism'', the religuous zealot is using the term to vilify all of science. Biological evolution is a comprehensive and diverse set of scientific theories, with more than one hundred years of verifiable evidence and development. On the other hand, Christian religionism has had 2,000 years to verify a flat earth and still can't manage that task.


Ask mr chem engineer what the periodic table represents. Listen to him “squirm.”  He has no cred after that bogus claim.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Global Warming, Darwinism, both abuse the nonsense of "consensus," which does not exist but if it did, is still meaningless. Consensus is the enemy of science, as explained in this article.
> 
> The consensus was that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny for 150 years despite fact that Haeckel's drawings were exposed as fakes in 1860 or so.
> 
> ...


You could have made your invalid point in one sentence.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 20, 2022)

james bond said:


> Your atheist consensus science could be wrong.  One person or the minority could be right under science.  For example, we've been talking about that for life on Mars.


Now you’re saying believing in consensus makes you an atheist ? Gee, the Bible is a consensus belief of made up shit. So now Bible believers are also atheists ?


----------

