Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[james bond]

This is merely new information that supports different hypothesis. Sorry nutball, but the study does not rule out the evolution of eukaryotic bacteria. In fact, it supports it

You lost already using ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but when one starts thinking viruses are living material, then their eukaryogenesis does not happen. I already pointed out the other failures.

Viral eukaryogenesis - Wikipedia

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You lost already using ad hominem attacks

Haha.....right....I lost, and you won. Yet here you are, a fringe nutball, pulling your taffy with no science to support your magical Jaysus nonsense and nobody even trying to produce any. Boy, I think the scoreboard is broken...

You have repeatedly and shamelessly lied about scientific knowledge and the results of papers, Iike the one you are regurgitating right now.

For everyone else:

Bond regurgitates all of his talking points fron this website: Creation | Creation Ministries International

 

[james bond]

Now you're saying empirical, i.e. using voodoo, when it's statistics.

Wrong. We have decoded entire genomes now. So..oops...there goes failed creationist talking point number 2,483,904. Time to change lanes again...

How does the entire human genome relate to eukyrogenesis ha ha? i come up with arguments, not weak voodoo science. You should've brought it up, but it was a fail wasn't it. Again, you have no evidence of life from single cell. Instead, they found irreducible complexity. Like I said, the smart ones knew the handwriting was on the wall when they found a thrid cell. .

 

[james bond]

Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.

Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more

Sorry, you are wrong again.

One has to start the tree of life or common ancestor thery somewhere. I've pointed out the failures that have been rendered pseudoscience such as spontaneous generation, abiongenesis, chilarity of protein molecules, how amino acids exist in space, but does not form protein outside the cell and today eukaryogenesis. Just the fact that it considers a virus to be a living organism wrong. Don't you agree?

 

[james bond]

You lost already using ad hominem attacks

Haha.....right....I lost, and you won. Yet here you are, a fringe nutball, pulling your taffy with no science to support your magical Jaysus nonsense and nobody even trying to produce any. Boy, I think the scoreboard is broken...

You have repeatedly and shamelessly lied about scientific knowledge and the results of papers, Iike the one you are regurgitating right now.

For everyone else:

Bond regurgitates all of his talking points fron this website: Creation | Creation Ministries International

I don't use CMI usually. Prefer to read AIG and ICR. However, in today's case I found it from the questions that came up when discussing your voodoo science. It's really try to answer how does life spring up from nothing? My questions led to learning about and third single-cell archaea being found. That meant how do the evos explain it within the tree of life concept. They did in that article I posted, but I didn't explain about eukaryogenesis. It gave you a chance to jump in, but you've gone off in the creationist direction. How can secular science fail so miserably. Another path down pseudoscience lane.

If I was agnostic, then I'd seriously question evolutionary thinking and start reading those publications. Certainly, I'd follow Pascal's Wager. Maybe you should start with creation.com or CMI. How do they explain eukaryogenesis (since you found it)?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

We didn't. We evolved from a common ancestor.

Sometimes it creaps into my mine that we may have do to the actions of the people at protest rallys and the way they act. The monkeys protest like Democrats when they don't get their ways, and throw stuff when mad, scream like a crazed parrot. Well just watch the Democrats and you will get the picture.

 

[james bond]

You lost already using ad hominem attacks

Haha.....right....I lost, and you won. Yet here you are, a fringe nutball, pulling your taffy with no science to support your magical Jaysus nonsense and nobody even trying to produce any. Boy, I think the scoreboard is broken...

You have repeatedly and shamelessly lied about scientific knowledge and the results of papers, Iike the one you are regurgitating right now.

For everyone else:

Bond regurgitates all of his talking points fron this website: Creation | Creation Ministries International

And sure enough, when I searched for eukaryogenesis and creation, this is what I found. It points out the link I posted earlier was wrong. There were bacteria cells called prokaryotes

"One of the biggest problems for evolution is how animal and plant cells, eukaryotes, could have been derived from precursor bacteria-like cells called prokaryotes. Unlike prokaryotes, eukaryotic cells are highly compartmentalized and contain membrane-bound organelles such as the nucleus, mitochondria, and (in plants) chloroplasts that are not found in bacteria or archaea (non-bacterial single-celled prokaryotes). Along with numerous other genetic and molecular differences, these complex cellular organelles not found in prokaryotes, form an unbridgeable gap for evolution to somehow accomplish."

Archaea which I discovered today was found around 2000. It caused a stir back then. The eukaryotes were formed from bacteria and archaea according to these microbiologists who followed up on it (mentioned in the ICR article). I guess others accepted irreducible complexity by Micheal Behe's flagellum and started following ID ha ha.

Endosymbiosis: A Theory in Crisis

 

[zaangalewa]

Darwinism in context with human beings (=social Darwinism) is indeed nothing else than only a pseudo-scientific form of racism.

I don't care what your mangled definition of Darwinism is. Neither do scientists, nor does it have any bearing on the theory of evolution.

I say: When I tell you as a German not to do such a nonsense ('social Darwinism'),]

Social Darwinism was invented by others who abused Darwin's theories of evolution much like how the Creationists abuse Darwin's theories.

And why - for example - learn students of economics in universities they should use their "killer instinct"? Because they are idiots on a high a level of idiocy and everyone is able to tell them nonsense?

I seldom found by the way a statement in the endless public English debate "Darwinists vs Creationists" where anything what anyone of both groups of people said made a big sense; as well in direction "natural science" nor in direction "spiritual belief".



PS: Favorite song of Stephen Hawking: Rod Stewart „Have I Told You Lately“ [Original from Van Morrison].

… There's a love that's divine
And it's yours and it's mine
Like the sun
And at the end of the day ...

 

[zaangalewa]

This is merely new information that supports different hypothesis. Sorry nutball, but the study does not rule out the evolution of eukaryotic bacteria. In fact, it supports it

You lost already using ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but when one starts thinking viruses are living material, then their eukaryogenesis does not happen. I already pointed out the other failures.

Viral eukaryogenesis - Wikipedia

Viruses modify cells for reproduction (perhaps also on other reasons, what I don't know now) . They are parasites (but perhaps some are symbionts too, this I don't know too in the moment). They are without any doubt lifeforms with a metabolism. The modified cell is their metabolic body.

 

[Kosh]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Sorry it is politically incorrect to compare anyone to monkeys..

 

[zaangalewa]

Besides: rabbits, rodents, raccoons, skunks, and more.

And besides plenty of species in the fossil record.

Perhaps I made a wrong translation of the German word "Sohlengänger". Only human beings and bears are "Sohlengänger". All others run practically on their "Zehen oder Zehenspitzen" (toes or tip toes). What we see as a "knee" (which goes in the wrong direction) is normally the heel. Example: A rabbit runs not by touching the ground with the heel. Bears and human beings are doing so.

Rabbits do, indeed, walk and stand on the heels of their feet. As do the other animals listed. That is why they are catagorized as plantigrade

It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.

The sentence "the monkeys are our ancestors" has the same quality as to say "the bears are our ancestors" or "the bananas are our ancestors".

And the problem of Darwin was by the way that he was not only a supporter of the idea of a natural "cultivation" of animals and plants (not an idea which was really new) - the problem of Darwin was that he was a typical English racist of his time too.]

Pretty sure that Darwin was a typical racist European racist of his time.

But that doesn't change the power and essential correctness of his ideas on biological evolution.

I'm not sure whether it is "essential" what he said. For sure he gave wrong racial examples. And it's for sure nonsense what lots of people say about the theory of evolution today. What the people in the English world are often "discussing" is whether haphazard accidents or inevitable coincidences ("causality vs teleonomy") hammers biological matter into the form "crocodile" for example. But if there is a form and a hammer (flow and energy) then the way how to hammer is only a question of mastership and not a question of plan or no plan of the more than 350 million years lifespan of this ¿perfect? form - with lots and lots and lots of individual realizations.

 

[RWS]

Just saying, that those who preach, usually have some hidden skeletons that they're trying to hide.

God knows what is true, if it's true.

If there's a God..

Most likely there isn't, and your sins are absolved by going to church until someone comes back and fixes it.

 

[RWS]

Your sins are not forgiven, just because a hymn or a priest says that you are.

You need to be forgiven by "God" himself.

Anyone else that "forgives you", is a liar or false "god".

 

[james bond]

Your sins are not forgiven, just because a hymn or a priest says that you are.

You need to be forgiven by "God" himself.

Anyone else that "forgives you", is a liar or false "god".

It's laughable you trying to use Scripture. Christians' past, present and future sins were forgiven by Christ Jesus' atonement (read Hebrews and Leviticus). Thus, asking to be forgiven for one's sins is granted by God. While not a easy subject to understand, it's "once saved, always saved." But it doesn't mean you have the green light to commit sins. "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" Hebrews 10:26-27

It is OSAS, but it means one is changed to follow Jesus and to repent for one's sins. One will always be willful sinners for we are sinful beings. To be forgiven for one's sins, then one has to have faith and start to believe.

 

[RWS]

Sorry dude, that sounds like a cop-out, so you can be an asshole to people, and then make yourself feel good about it later by thinking you will be forgiven... if you pray...

You shouldn't need religion to be a good person. If you do, then you're a bad person trying to get away with it...

 

[james bond]

Sorry dude, that sounds like a cop-out, so you can be an asshole to people, and then make yourself feel good about it later by thinking you will be forgiven... if you pray...

You shouldn't need religion to be a good person. If you do, then you're a bad person trying to get away with it...

Obviously, I am a sinner, so can be an a-hole, but in this case God's thinking and way out provided us with a way back to heaven. It was a MAJOR prophecy.

The believers learned this in the OT of Jesus' atonement for our past, present and future sins. The different chapters in the OT helps explain the OT and leads us into the NT. This is how great Jesus is. He had to shed blood and this took away the need for any other blood sacrifices.

You continue to see the Bible as religion when it's God's actual word. The Creator's TRUTH. If you have faith to accept it as such, then everything that we've discussed becomes crystal. It will change your life and realize what I say is the truth and science backs it up. I had trouble with the people parts in the Bible, so started with the science parts. For example, the section where all the ages are listed. WTF does that mean? How can I believe this? It doesn't make sense. Or the stuff in Matthew NT? Dam, I have to live this kind of life? What Jesus teaches is too hard and painful.

My little anecdote is when I was going to Cal, I used to see a bearded street person who held a sign "John 3:16. Repent! The END IS NEAR." Many people just ignore the words thinking they know what it means. Yet, if one has faith, then these words come alive and it becomes a journey to the truth. John 3:16 wasn't about the end for me. It was just the beginning of a long journey. Suddenly, life held meaning no matter how successful I became. Life had a purpose.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Seriously? God created Adam and took a rib and made a woman? Do you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and that Donald Trump is a leader?

 

[RWS]

Lemme say it agin...

You shouldn't need religion to be a good person. If you do, then you're a bad person trying to get away with it...

 

[RWS]

I should add that to my tagline....

 

[james bond]

Lemme say it agin...

You shouldn't need religion to be a good person. If you do, then you're a bad person trying to get away with it...

You just revealed yourself. "You're a bad person trying to get away with it." You reap what you sow.