Holes in the theory of evolution

[alpine]

There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.

No, starting merely as a light sensitive patch. Very simple at the beginning. I think his assumption of your grasp of genetics is spot on.

In that case you don't understand the eye.

What a coincidences, we came to the same conclusion, about you...

Eye, in fact, if was a design, is a very bad bad design to begin with...

Either it was not designed,
or the designer was drunk while designing...

If the eye is a result of intelligent design....why do I need glasses?

You want to know why you need glasses?

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…

That makes sense to me...

 

[sealybobo]

No, starting merely as a light sensitive patch. Very simple at the beginning. I think his assumption of your grasp of genetics is spot on.

In that case you don't understand the eye.

What a coincidences, we came to the same conclusion, about you...

Eye, in fact, if was a design, is a very bad bad design to begin with...

Either it was not designed,
or the designer was drunk while designing...

If the eye is a result of intelligent design....why do I need glasses?

You want to know why you need glasses?

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…

That makes sense to me...

Well if Zeus ever strikes another person with a lightening bolt, don't feel bad for them. Clearly they had it coming.

And all those people in Texas being throttled by mother nature? They deserve it.

We shouldn't insure homes from being burned in fires because if it happens it's god's punishment for something they did.

Don't give you medicine because god made you sick. No Chemotherapy for you. I wouldn't want to go against gods will.

 

[The Irish Ram]

We've gone from evolution, to Mosaic Law, to the Law making sense, to weather, to healthcare. wth?

 

[sealybobo]

We've gone from evolution, to Mosaic Law, to the Law making sense, to weather, to healthcare. wth?

Many scientists have described evolution as fact and theory. Not absolute certainty but confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to think otherwise. A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Each of the words "evolution," "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts.Evolution means change over time. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time. It can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution.

To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a scientific community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition.

To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation." Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested.

 

[The Irish Ram]

No scientific theory proposes that homo neandertalis evolved into homo sapiens sapiens. There is, however, significant genetic evidence that the two interbred. Red heads have neanderthal genes.

That is incorrect. The first theory contended, and was taught as truth in school rooms, that Neanderthal slowly evolved into Modern Man. They had to come up with a new theory when archeologists proved that man was already modern while Neanderthals were still un-evolved Neanderthals. That the two mated on occasion was proof the old theory was simply wrong. And while there may be Neanderthal DNA in redheads, it can also be found in those with blond, brown and black hair...

 

[The Irish Ram]

Scientific theory becomes fact when it can be duplicated in separate testing. Evolution remains a theory because it can't be proven. Even though it is taught as fact. The same is true for relativity and thermodynamics.
Science wants evolution to be true. God throws a monkey wrench in the theory. Einstein called his theory the bane of his existence, because he realized it all had a beginning, and he wanted the universe to be static.
Do you realize how long man went without understanding that time was a dimension? Do you realize that until Einstein, science believed in a three dimensional universe? Do you understand the magnitude of science now realizing that there are more than 4?

 

[alpine]

No scientific theory proposes that homo neandertalis evolved into homo sapiens sapiens. There is, however, significant genetic evidence that the two interbred. Red heads have neanderthal genes.

That is incorrect. The first theory contended, and was taught as truth in school rooms, that Neanderthal slowly evolved into Modern Man. They had to come up with a new theory when archeologists proved that man was already modern while Neanderthals were still un-evolved Neanderthals. That the two mated on occasion was proof the old theory was simply wrong. And while there may be Neanderthal DNA in redheads, it can also be found in those with blond, brown and black hair...

So, instead of teaching children what we think we know so far, we should have taught them, well; that man dropped from the skies on top of neanderthals head and killed it by accident... I guess....

 

[The Irish Ram]

No, teach them that there is a difference between theory and fact for a reason. One is ever changing, the other is constant.
Not believing that Man evolved from Neanderthal made it very easy to accept the truth when science realized they were wrong. You can see the problem evolutionists are having accepting the fact that DNA has codes and codes are programed instructions and there must have been an instructor to program.... DNA has always been complex. There is no simple DNA. Single celled amoebas have always had complex DNA. That's an evolutionary problem.
For Einstein, it was that the universe is expanding. Which meant it could contract back to a beginning. And a beginner.

 

[rdean]

There is the eye, extremely complex from the beginning.

No, starting merely as a light sensitive patch. Very simple at the beginning. I think his assumption of your grasp of genetics is spot on.

In that case you don't understand the eye.

What a coincidences, we came to the same conclusion, about you...

Eye, in fact, if was a design, is a very bad bad design to begin with...

Either it was not designed,
or the designer was drunk while designing...

I go with drunk. And he was kinky when he designed hermaphrodites.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Go for it.

 

[alpine]

No, teach them that there is a difference between theory and fact for a reason. One is ever changing, the other is constant.
Not believing that Man evolved from Neanderthal made it very easy to accept the truth when science realized they were wrong. You can see the problem evolutionists are having accepting the fact that DNA has codes and codes are programed instructions and there must have been an instructor to program.... DNA has always been complex. There is no simple DNA. Single celled amoebas have always had complex DNA. That's an evolutionary problem.
For Einstein, it was that the universe is expanding. Which meant it could contract back to a beginning. And a beginner.

"No, teach them that there is a difference between theory and fact for a reason. One is ever changing, the other is constant."

Evolution is a fact of life... Thats how it will be taught...

Humans evolving from neanderthals was a theory, and taught as one...

 

[The Irish Ram]

No it was not. It was taught as the true evolutionary progress to Modern Man. You are referring to the new improved truth.
And while evolution has us ever upwardly mobile, you now have another problem. According to science you are now devolving. Pretty soon you are all going to be monkeys again.

 

[alpine]

No it was not. It was taught as the true evolutionary progress to Modern Man. You are referring to the new improved truth.
And while evolution has us ever upwardly mobile, you now have another problem. According to science you are now devolving. Pretty soon you are all going to be monkeys again.

No wonder why you refuse evolutionary biology, because you have no knowledge of it....

 

[rightwinger]

No, teach them that there is a difference between theory and fact for a reason. One is ever changing, the other is constant.
Not believing that Man evolved from Neanderthal made it very easy to accept the truth when science realized they were wrong. You can see the problem evolutionists are having accepting the fact that DNA has codes and codes are programed instructions and there must have been an instructor to program.... DNA has always been complex. There is no simple DNA. Single celled amoebas have always had complex DNA. That's an evolutionary problem.
For Einstein, it was that the universe is expanding. Which meant it could contract back to a beginning. And a beginner.

Evolution is a fact.....it occurs and has been verified by fossil, geologic, biological and DNA evidence

The how's and whys of it are still theories

 

[The Irish Ram]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

 

[rightwinger]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

 

[The Irish Ram]

No it was not. It was taught as the true evolutionary progress to Modern Man. You are referring to the new improved truth.
And while evolution has us ever upwardly mobile, you now have another problem. According to science you are now devolving. Pretty soon you are all going to be monkeys again.

No wonder why you refuse evolutionary biology, because you have no knowledge of it....

And your personal attacks reveal you know even less....
If you count the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes necessary to create life, the probability of their discovering one another by random shuffling or chance is less than 1 in 10 to the 400000th degree. A number science considers an impossibility. DNA is a design not an accident.

 

[The Irish Ram]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

 

[rightwinger]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

Trial and error, filling a void

What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when

That is PROOF of evolution

 

[alpine]

No it was not. It was taught as the true evolutionary progress to Modern Man. You are referring to the new improved truth.
And while evolution has us ever upwardly mobile, you now have another problem. According to science you are now devolving. Pretty soon you are all going to be monkeys again.

No wonder why you refuse evolutionary biology, because you have no knowledge of it....

And your personal attacks reveal you know even less....
If you count the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes necessary to create life, the probability of their discovering one another by random shuffling or chance is less than 1 in 10 to the 400000th degree. A number science considers an impossibility. DNA is a design not an accident.

Did you just copy and paste from New Scientist

"Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000"
(1991, 91:415, emp. added).


That shows your knowledge, in computer sciences(CTRL+C/CTRL+V), not in biology....