Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

that was not your point -

it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it.

in Biology.

our friend the caterpillar is a little more dramatic - than the cicada ?


.

Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:

This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.

You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.

Well, IF that ever happened, at some point, something HAD to give birth or lay an egg with a different offspring. You can't get from point A to point B without ever arriving at point B.

 

[BreezeWood]

that was not your point -

it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it.

in Biology.

our friend the caterpillar is a little more dramatic - than the cicada ?


.

Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:

This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.

You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution -- ScienceDaily

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.

Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.

The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.

The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens ... These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.


stem from a single group of Homo sapiens ...


the statement "It completely defies all we know about biology" by Boss is erroneous and without merit - biology that converts from one to another is well established and documented and that process on an evolutionary plane being established for a programed change from a generational compilation to a single event is the advent for the above article - not that all humans evolved from a single source as is but also that the single source evolved at a specific location copulated over time that generated in a single event an irreversible change, the same as metamorphosis.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:

This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.

You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.

Well, IF that ever happened, at some point, something HAD to give birth or lay an egg with a different offspring. You can't get from point A to point B without ever arriving at point B.

You can't get from point A to point B without ever arriving at point B.


- that makes a lot of sense, Blade ????

ok, we'll include the cocoon ....

metamorphosis obviously is not your friend ...


(Hint) - think again how evolutionary change occurs - as in a developed program thart is executed once after compilation.


*your fetus example is not what is being discussed.

.

 

[BillyP]

If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.

That's total bullshit. Statistically, men are slightly taller today than in 1750, but men also live much longer so they tend to grow taller. Doorways were smaller back then for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with how tall people were. Doors were made of solid wood, it was expensive, so shorter doors cost less to make. There were no standard sizes, doors were built custom by the builder. The smaller the door, the more heat was retained inside the dwelling. Also, a heftier archway above the door lends better architectural integrity to the structure.

Washington and Jefferson were both over 6 feet in height.

But still... you are talking about microevolution here. Slight changes in a species over a long period of time. I have not ever refuted or rejected that theory. There are thousands of much better examples than the one you presented for microevolution. The "debate" is MACRO-evolution.... where one kind of thing spawns some other kind of thing. There is NO EVIDENCE for that. We've never observed it happen, we can't replicate it in a lab, there is no fossil proving it happened... nothing. It simply defies biology as we know it.

Those who believe in macroevolution have a purely faith-based belief in something with no evidence.

Humans overall are getting taller over time. Just wait a long time, that'll be macro, and humans will be even taller.
I used to eat meat but over time my thinking evolved and now I eat a lot healthier and spawned vegetarian children. More evolution at work.

 

[Montrovant]

Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:

This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.

You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.

Well, IF that ever happened, at some point, something HAD to give birth or lay an egg with a different offspring. You can't get from point A to point B without ever arriving at point B.

No, you can't get from point A to point B without ever arriving at point B.....but there's no reason to assume that point A and point B are directly connected. You are proposing AB, when evolutionary theory, so far as I'm aware, proposes something more like A-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->B.

The idea is not that a lizard gave birth to a rat, or a fish laid eggs which hatched as frogs. Instead, it is the culmination of many smaller changes which eventually lead to the larger changes in genus. Even the idea of punctuated equilibrium, which often is made to sound like the immediate change you imply, is actually supposed to take place over 10s or 100s of thousands of years.

So yes, point A must lead to point B, but ignoring the journey between the points is disingenuous at best.

 

[Montrovant]

If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.

That's total bullshit. Statistically, men are slightly taller today than in 1750, but men also live much longer so they tend to grow taller. Doorways were smaller back then for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with how tall people were. Doors were made of solid wood, it was expensive, so shorter doors cost less to make. There were no standard sizes, doors were built custom by the builder. The smaller the door, the more heat was retained inside the dwelling. Also, a heftier archway above the door lends better architectural integrity to the structure.

Washington and Jefferson were both over 6 feet in height.

But still... you are talking about microevolution here. Slight changes in a species over a long period of time. I have not ever refuted or rejected that theory. There are thousands of much better examples than the one you presented for microevolution. The "debate" is MACRO-evolution.... where one kind of thing spawns some other kind of thing. There is NO EVIDENCE for that. We've never observed it happen, we can't replicate it in a lab, there is no fossil proving it happened... nothing. It simply defies biology as we know it.

Those who believe in macroevolution have a purely faith-based belief in something with no evidence.

Humans overall are getting taller over time. Just wait a long time, that'll be macro, and humans will be even taller.
I used to eat meat but over time my thinking evolved and now I eat a lot healthier and spawned vegetarian children. More evolution at work.

Time is the issue.

There should be no expectation of observing the kind of changes Boss is talking about because evolutionary theory does not propose those changes occur in short periods of time. Humans haven't be paying close enough attention or keeping especially accurate records for that long, so direct observation of changes in genus would be unexpected based on current thought. Unfortunately, that also makes falsification a problem. Hence the whole micro- and macro-evolution debate.

 

[Carla_Danger]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

This thread is amusing.

 

[PostmodernProph]

If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.

of course....because the folks who built the houses in 1750 were all single celled organisms......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Time is the issue.

tissue is the issue.....if there is no expectation of observing, there should be no expectation of convincing.....isn't that the argument of those who deny God?.....

 

[BillyP]

If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.

of course....because the folks who built the houses in 1750 were all single celled organisms......

Wtf are you talking about?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:

This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.

You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution -- ScienceDaily

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.

Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.

The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.

The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens ... These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.


stem from a single group of Homo sapiens ...


the statement "It completely defies all we know about biology" by Boss is erroneous and without merit - biology that converts from one to another is well established and documented and that process on an evolutionary plane being established for a programed change from a generational compilation to a single event is the advent for the above article - not that all humans evolved from a single source as is but also that the single source evolved at a specific location copulated over time that generated in a single event an irreversible change, the same as metamorphosis.

.

sweet.....now we know when Adam and Eve left the garden.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.

of course....because the folks who built the houses in 1750 were all single celled organisms......

Wtf are you talking about?

pointing out your claim does not prove macro-evolution......

I had to point it out because when you said this....

Humans overall are getting taller over time. Just wait a long time, that'll be macro, and humans will be even taller.

.....it became painfully obvious you didn't know what the fuck macro-evolution even means......

 

[BillyP]

of course....because the folks who built the houses in 1750 were all single celled organisms......

Wtf are you talking about?

pointing out your claim does not prove macro-evolution......

I had to point it out because when you said this....

Humans overall are getting taller over time. Just wait a long time, that'll be macro, and humans will be even taller.

.....it became painfully obvious you didn't know what the fuck macro-evolution even means......

So evolution is bullshit because a single cell organism can't turn into a human?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Wtf are you talking about?

pointing out your claim does not prove macro-evolution......

I had to point it out because when you said this....

Humans overall are getting taller over time. Just wait a long time, that'll be macro, and humans will be even taller.

.....it became painfully obvious you didn't know what the fuck macro-evolution even means......

So evolution is bullshit because a single cell organism can't turn into a human?

no....the claim that single celled organisms evolved into humans is bullshit because single celled organisms can't even evolve into multi celled organisms.........and if you weren't bright enough to figure that one out without help you shouldn't be involved in the argument.....its over your head......

 

[Slyhunter]

pointing out your claim does not prove macro-evolution......

I had to point it out because when you said this....

.....it became painfully obvious you didn't know what the fuck macro-evolution even means......

So evolution is bullshit because a single cell organism can't turn into a human?

no....the claim that single celled organisms evolved into humans is bullshit because single celled organisms can't even evolve into multi celled organisms.........and if you weren't bright enough to figure that one out without help you shouldn't be involved in the argument.....its over your head......

Apparently it's over your head.

The transition from one-celled microbes to multicellularity was a huge step in the evolution of life on this planet, but as daunting as this evolutionary step seems, it didn't happen just once. Today's plants, fungi, animals, and various types of algae are all descendants of separate transitions to multicellular life.

All of these transitions from a single-cell lifestyle to multicellularity occurred in the very distant past, so how can we learn anything about them? It turns out that it is not hard to find living, modern examples that closely parallel the momentous evolutionary transitions that led to animals, plants, and fungi. Right now on earth there are primitive multicellular organisms that, in many ways, resemble the first multicellular creatures that existed a billion years ago. Researchers are using these organisms to understand what kinds of genetic changes are needed to turn a single-celled organism into a multicellular one.

A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.
How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones

So now apologize.

 

[PostmodernProph]

So evolution is bullshit because a single cell organism can't turn into a human?

no....the claim that single celled organisms evolved into humans is bullshit because single celled organisms can't even evolve into multi celled organisms.........and if you weren't bright enough to figure that one out without help you shouldn't be involved in the argument.....its over your head......

Apparently it's over your head.

The transition from one-celled microbes to multicellularity was a huge step in the evolution of life on this planet, but as daunting as this evolutionary step seems, it didn't happen just once. Today's plants, fungi, animals, and various types of algae are all descendants of separate transitions to multicellular life.

All of these transitions from a single-cell lifestyle to multicellularity occurred in the very distant past, so how can we learn anything about them? It turns out that it is not hard to find living, modern examples that closely parallel the momentous evolutionary transitions that led to animals, plants, and fungi. Right now on earth there are primitive multicellular organisms that, in many ways, resemble the first multicellular creatures that existed a billion years ago. Researchers are using these organisms to understand what kinds of genetic changes are needed to turn a single-celled organism into a multicellular one.

A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.
How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones

So now apologize.

why would I apologize just because you were able to recite your catechism......prove it happens and I will apologize......of course, I will be dead first so you may not hear it......I will whisper it to you from heaven......

 

[Slyhunter]

no....the claim that single celled organisms evolved into humans is bullshit because single celled organisms can't even evolve into multi celled organisms.........and if you weren't bright enough to figure that one out without help you shouldn't be involved in the argument.....its over your head......

Apparently it's over your head.

The transition from one-celled microbes to multicellularity was a huge step in the evolution of life on this planet, but as daunting as this evolutionary step seems, it didn't happen just once. Today's plants, fungi, animals, and various types of algae are all descendants of separate transitions to multicellular life.

All of these transitions from a single-cell lifestyle to multicellularity occurred in the very distant past, so how can we learn anything about them? It turns out that it is not hard to find living, modern examples that closely parallel the momentous evolutionary transitions that led to animals, plants, and fungi. Right now on earth there are primitive multicellular organisms that, in many ways, resemble the first multicellular creatures that existed a billion years ago. Researchers are using these organisms to understand what kinds of genetic changes are needed to turn a single-celled organism into a multicellular one.

A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.
How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones

So now apologize.

why would I apologize just because you were able to recite your catechism......prove it happens and I will apologize......of course, I will be dead first so you may not hear it......I will whisper it to you from heaven......

From my link.

The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.

stop being so dense.

If you had clicked on the link you would've read

1) ~223 million years ago, a species of single-celled green algae began forming aggregates of cells stuck together by a glue of secreted proteins and sugars (and we can see species which do this today).

2) Also ~200 million years ago, the rate of cell division began to be controlled genetically. Unlike single-celled organisms, which reproduce whenever the surrounding environment is right, the new multicellular algae began controlling exactly how many daughter cells they produce. This is a critical step towards establishing a multi-cellular body-plan with genetically controlled dimensions.

3) Roughly 10 million years later, the cells of some multicellular algae species began to orient their whip-like flagella in the same direction, so that all of the flagella would work together to control the swimming direction of the organism.

4) By ~100 million years ago, some of the algae species had established separate reproductive germ cells, and ever since then, various volvocine algae species have developed more cells with highly specialized functions.

 

[Boss]

Your link doesn't show a singe to multi cell evolution, it shows single cells reproducing and grouping themselves into a bunch of single-cell organisms. They have not changed from single to multi cellular.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Apparently it's over your head.

So now apologize.

why would I apologize just because you were able to recite your catechism......prove it happens and I will apologize......of course, I will be dead first so you may not hear it......I will whisper it to you from heaven......

From my link.

The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.

stop being so dense.

unfortunately, that is a false statement.....it has never been observed, manipulated or tested in a lab, as you well know.....if it had, you could provide lab results.....

 

[BreezeWood]

all multicelular organisms originate from a single cell, there is no evolutionary gap between the two types, they are physiologically the same -

otherwise prove a multicellular organism originates from more than a single cell at its inception ... no such organism exist.

.