what a waste!

[alang1216]

not a young earther....but I do question this......if human beings and sequoias both evolved from a single celled organism, why is it science has never been able to reproduce a single celled organism evolving into something simple, like a multicelled organism?.......

So you believe the earth to be billions of years old yet expect science to compress those billions of years into a matter of months? My guess is that we'll develop ever-more sophisticated theories of how it MAY have happened (we already have some of those) but to expect science ot duplicate the process? Ain't gonna happen.

I agree, it ain't gonna happen....not that it ever did.....I'm curious though....why did it only happen once?......I mean if shit happening can result in life if there are billions of years in which shit happens, why don't we have evidence of it happening five or even six times in those billions of years?.......

Truth be told we don't know how often it happened in the beginning. It appears that cells are amalgames of previously independant life. The DNA they share probably originated once. The RNA and the myriad proteins that compose those cells may have had many originations.

 

[alang1216]

nope....I'm saying there may be a perfectly good reason for cells to have the capacity to divide in non uniform ways.....such as adapting to changing environments.....not to mention saying that you've done a jack shit poor job so far of coming up with a more satisfactory method of reproduction......

So you believe in evolution and an old earth. Now I don't understand your objections.

why not?.....my objections are not overcome by a belief in evolution.....perhaps you don't understand evolution.....two weeks ago someone here claimed that evolution explained the origin of life.......are you one of those with a gross misunderstanding of evolution?.......

I understand that evolution begins once life has begun, not the other way around.

If I understand your position, it's that once life came into existance, billions of years ago, evolution produced all the living forms we see today. BUT life could not have come into existance without some sort of divine assistance. Is that accurate?

 

[alang1216]

TRY TO THINK!!! ONE LIVING HUMAN CELL IS FAR MORE COMPLEX AND WELL DESIGNED THAN THE BEST SUPER COMPUTER little man has built!! no accident of time and chance could evolve into a living human cell in any amount of time.===========http://www.awmi.net/tv/2014/week29 ==2014 TV Broadcasts - Week 29 Observing All Things

You may be right about the cell but what you fail to appreciated is that the cell was not the first life but the end product of billions of years of evolution.

????....ohoh....I sense a problem.....do you believe the first living cell was the end product of evolution?.....

The problem may be your understanding of evolution. There is no end product or ultimate goal of evolution. The process doesn't prefer any type of life, not multi-cellular over single celled, not mammals over dinosaurs, and certainly not intelligent life. It only operates on life that already exists.

Every organism around us today is the end product of billions of years of evolution. That includes ameoba, sequoias, chimps and us.

 

[GISMYS]

You may be right about the cell but what you fail to appreciated is that the cell was not the first life but the end product of billions of years of evolution.

????....ohoh....I sense a problem.....do you believe the first living cell was the end product of evolution?.....

The problem may be your understanding of evolution. There is no end product or ultimate goal of evolution. The process doesn't prefer any type of life, not multi-cellular over single celled, not mammals over dinosaurs, and certainly not intelligent life. It only operates on life that already exists.

Every organism around us today is the end product of billions of years of evolution. That includes ameoba, sequoias, chimps and us.

ROFLMAO!!!! NO NEED TO WONDER WHY GOD SAYS HE LAUGHS at the "wisdom" of little man!!!

 

[Smilebong]

I am 75 years old. I woke up this morning and began thinking of all the time I have spent sleeping. If I have averaged the prescribed 8 hours a day that is 25 years spent in oblivion.

If we are the product of a superior being, designed by a do any thing kind of guy, that design is incredibly bad. What first year engineering student would even consider designing a machine that would be totally useless for a third of its existence.

Intelligent design? Hardly.

It is a daily reminder that you are not God and that you rely on him for your very existence.

 

[alang1216]

ROFLMAO!!!! NO NEED TO WONDER WHY GOD SAYS HE LAUGHS at the "wisdom" of little man!!!

Man has stuggled to increase his knowledge and make his life longer and safer. God has not helped. There is no "wisdom" in the Bible that man didn't already have.

 

[onecut39]

I am 75 years old. I woke up this morning and began thinking of all the time I have spent sleeping. If I have averaged the prescribed 8 hours a day that is 25 years spent in oblivion.

If we are the product of a superior being, designed by a do any thing kind of guy, that design is incredibly bad. What first year engineering student would even consider designing a machine that would be totally useless for a third of its existence.

Intelligent design? Hardly.

It is a daily reminder that you are not God and that you rely on him for your very existence.

Maybe you do. I don't.

 

[onecut39]

Most of man's greatest ideas come to him in sleep!!! WISE UP AND GET SOME SLEEP!!!

Maybe so but the question is simply, WHY? There appears to be no good answer and it is certainly less than grade A engineering.

There appears to be no good answer ...


non you are willing to accept, Live Oaks live hundreds of years, four seasons per year - and a wink for sleep ?

.

I am not a live oak. However it would seem that live oaks also are severely limited in what they can do.

 

[onecut39]

Most of man's greatest ideas come to him in sleep!!! WISE UP AND GET SOME SLEEP!!!

Maybe so but the question is simply, WHY? There appears to be no good answer and it is certainly less than grade A engineering.

There appears to be no good answer ...


non you are willing to accept, Live Oaks live hundreds of years, four seasons per year - and a wink for sleep ?

.

I am not a live oak. However it would seem that live oaks also are severely limited in what they can do.

 

[PostmodernProph]

It appears that cells are amalgames of previously independant life.

....no.....there was no life before the first life....

 

[PostmodernProph]

So you believe in evolution and an old earth. Now I don't understand your objections.

why not?.....my objections are not overcome by a belief in evolution.....perhaps you don't understand evolution.....two weeks ago someone here claimed that evolution explained the origin of life.......are you one of those with a gross misunderstanding of evolution?.......

I understand that evolution begins once life has begun, not the other way around.

If I understand your position, it's that once life came into existance, billions of years ago, evolution produced all the living forms we see today. BUT life could not have come into existance without some sort of divine assistance. Is that accurate?

no....evolution explains why we have yellow butterflies and blue butterflies.....it explains why we have tigers and lions......it explains why we have 37k different kinds of beetles....it has nothing to do with the origin of life....

 

[PostmodernProph]

You may be right about the cell but what you fail to appreciated is that the cell was not the first life but the end product of billions of years of evolution.

????....ohoh....I sense a problem.....do you believe the first living cell was the end product of evolution?.....

The problem may be your understanding of evolution. There is no end product or ultimate goal of evolution.

???....I just quoted you as saying the cell WAS the end product of evolution....and, as science will tell you, the cell WAS the first life....

 

[alang1216]

????....ohoh....I sense a problem.....do you believe the first living cell was the end product of evolution?.....

The problem may be your understanding of evolution. There is no end product or ultimate goal of evolution.

???....I just quoted you as saying the cell WAS the end product of evolution....and, as science will tell you, the cell WAS the first life....

No! Science will tell you the cell was NOT the first life, not even close. The first life was many, many times simpler than a cell. The first life was almost certainly a single molecule that was capable of self-replication. No RNA, no DNA, no nucleous, no cell wall. Just a single molecule that began to self-replicate and became subject to the selective forces of evolution.

 

[GISMYS]

LOL!!! Wonder why "smart" science cannot create even one living cell??NOT EVEN ONE " single molecule that was capable of self-replication. No RNA, no DNA, no nucleous, no cell wall. Just a single molecule.even with perfect lab conditions and the aid of super computers BUT THEN BUNK EVOLUTION SAYS time and chance has created trillions of trillions of trillions of living cells that then evolve by MORE TIME AND CHANCE!!!!! DREAM ON!!!

 

[PostmodernProph]

The problem may be your understanding of evolution. There is no end product or ultimate goal of evolution.

???....I just quoted you as saying the cell WAS the end product of evolution....and, as science will tell you, the cell WAS the first life....

No! Science will tell you the cell was NOT the first life, not even close. The first life was many, many times simpler than a cell. The first life was almost certainly a single molecule that was capable of self-replication. No RNA, no DNA, no nucleous, no cell wall. Just a single molecule that began to self-replicate and became subject to the selective forces of evolution.

sorry....the first thing that could replicate itself was a single celled organism......to this day no single molecule can replicate itself......now that doesn't mean that within the field of organic chemistry simpler molecules can't combine to form the same single molecule.....but, once that molecule is formed, its just going to sit there and be a molecule.....its not going to reproduce.....

now, be that as it may, you are still stuck with the fact that you have said both that the cell was the end product of evolution and that evolution has no end product......

 

[onecut39]

not a young earther....but I do question this......if human beings and sequoias both evolved from a single celled organism, why is it science has never been able to reproduce a single celled organism evolving into something simple, like a multicelled organism?.......

you know perfectly well all multicelled organisms originate from a single cell and as you have been informed before, there is no fundamental distinction between single and multicellular organisms in their evolution.

.

???...no one has ever been able to demonstrate that a multicelled organism evolved from a single celled organism.......why on earth would anyone "know that perfectly well"?......because they shared your mythology?......

Really?

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

 

[BreezeWood]

Maybe so but the question is simply, WHY? There appears to be no good answer and it is certainly less than grade A engineering.

There appears to be no good answer ...


non you are willing to accept, Live Oaks live hundreds of years, four seasons per year - and a wink for sleep ?

.

I am not a live oak. However it would seem that live oaks also are severely limited in what they can do.

OP: If we are the product of a superior being, designed by a do any thing kind of guy, that design is incredibly bad. What first year engineering student would even consider designing a machine that would be totally useless for a third of its existence.

Intelligent design? Hardly.

the mighty Live Oak - "design is incredibly bad" ... Hardly, and with a comparison to other trees a monumental feat.


Evolution from life's origin is a determining factor for what present model is being discussed per the engineering that model is responsible for itself and not from the original Creation.

onecut39 may just not have the patience to evaluate the end product yet to be accomplished - certainly to the single and multicelluar organisms is itself worthy of dynamic engineering in progress.
.

 

[PostmodernProph]

you know perfectly well all multicelled organisms originate from a single cell and as you have been informed before, there is no fundamental distinction between single and multicellular organisms in their evolution.

.

???...no one has ever been able to demonstrate that a multicelled organism evolved from a single celled organism.......why on earth would anyone "know that perfectly well"?......because they shared your mythology?......

Really?

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

yes really....similarities does not prove common source.....there are other explanations for similarities....there has never, ever been an experiment in which a multicelled organism evolved from a single celled organism.....

 

[alang1216]

LOL!!! Wonder why "smart" science cannot create even one living cell??NOT EVEN ONE "

The earth is VERY old and that living cell took billions of years to evolve.

???....I just quoted you as saying the cell WAS the end product of evolution....and, as science will tell you, the cell WAS the first life....

No! Science will tell you the cell was NOT the first life, not even close. The first life was many, many times simpler than a cell. The first life was almost certainly a single molecule that was capable of self-replication. No RNA, no DNA, no nucleous, no cell wall. Just a single molecule that began to self-replicate and became subject to the selective forces of evolution.

sorry....the first thing that could replicate itself was a single celled organism......to this day no single molecule can replicate itself......now that doesn't mean that within the field of organic chemistry simpler molecules can't combine to form the same single molecule.....but, once that molecule is formed, its just going to sit there and be a molecule.....its not going to reproduce.....

now, be that as it may, you are still stuck with the fact that you have said both that the cell was the end product of evolution and that evolution has no end product......

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

You say the first thing that could replicate itself was a single celled organism. How do you know that is true? Look up "strawman".

You say to this day no single molecule can replicate itself. Untrue. Prions are an example of non-living, molecular reproduction.

Allow me to clarify what I meant, sorry if I was unclear. The complex cells we see today are the product of evolution, they are at the end of a continuous chain of evolution going back billions of years. They are not an "end product" because evolution has not stopped, it will continue so long as there is life so the chain will continue to grow.

 

[GISMYS]

LOL!!! Wonder why "smart" science cannot create even one living cell??NOT EVEN ONE "

The earth is VERY old and that living cell took billions of years to evolve.

No! Science will tell you the cell was NOT the first life, not even close. The first life was many, many times simpler than a cell. The first life was almost certainly a single molecule that was capable of self-replication. No RNA, no DNA, no nucleous, no cell wall. Just a single molecule that began to self-replicate and became subject to the selective forces of evolution.

sorry....the first thing that could replicate itself was a single celled organism......to this day no single molecule can replicate itself......now that doesn't mean that within the field of organic chemistry simpler molecules can't combine to form the same single molecule.....but, once that molecule is formed, its just going to sit there and be a molecule.....its not going to reproduce.....

now, be that as it may, you are still stuck with the fact that you have said both that the cell was the end product of evolution and that evolution has no end product......

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

You say the first thing that could replicate itself was a single celled organism. How do you know that is true? Look up "strawman".

You say to this day no single molecule can replicate itself. Untrue. Prions are an example of non-living, molecular reproduction.

Allow me to clarify what I meant, sorry if I was unclear. The complex cells we see today are the product of evolution, they are at the end of a continuous chain of evolution going back billions of years. They are not an "end product" because evolution has not stopped, it will continue so long as there is life so the chain will continue to grow.

ALL CREATION IS DEVOLVING!!! EVERYTHING IS WEARING OUT. ==And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END."… Hebrews 1:11