Why I don't believe in God

[Boss]

If you look at the DNA of a tree or frog or human or fish you see we are all related

You want to re create it? What are you doing the next million years. Just watch.

Nonsense, I see that we are NOT related. You are making the simple-minded assumption that because DNA is similar, it must mean relationship. 95% of our DNA is the same as a chimp... but that 5% is significant. 50% of our DNA is the same as a banana, we're obviously not half bananas... (although, you might be a strong argument to contradict that.) Furthermore, your DNA is 99.99999999999% the same as the DNA of Jeffrey Dahmer.

If you take ANY computer software... go into the code... remove 4~5% of it and replace it with code from some other program... will the software still function as it did before? Would it be improved? Or would you destroy the software's capability entirely?

Yes you are even related to a banana. All life started in one place. Your explanation is not plausible. Explain it again? How did the first zebras start? You say God plopped down a herd of full grown zebra? An entire flock of seaguls? Adult humans? You're saying God made the chicken before the egg? I'm saying the chicken wasn't always a chicken and humans weren't always humans. At least not the same as they were 1 million years ago or 1 million years from now we won't be the same creatures.

Go back far enough your relatives were fish.

You can be related to a banana, I am not.

I don't believe anything "plopped down fully grown" anything. That is simply YOU attempting to mock my beliefs because you have no evidence to support your own. I could be equally as insulting... you believe a banana just up and one day decided to be all that it could be and *poof* out popped a human from the banana tree! Little fishes swam around in the ocean for years until one day, a defiant little liberal fish said... fuck this noise, I'm leaving the ocean! Who's with me? ...And the whale says... I always dreamed of being a dog... I'll go!

The problem is, what you believe is a FANTASY. There is no basis for it in Science.. period!

 

[sealybobo]

So boss believes a spiritual being put down two giraffe fully grown and they had the first baby giraffe. The first giraffe was never a baby? Who was their mother?

I don't know what you mean by "spiritual being" ...sounds spooky to me. A being is something in the physical state of being... that's what the word means. Spiritual Nature is not physical, it can't be a "being" and doesn't have attributes associated with physical beings.

And no, I did not say that anything "put down" two fully grown anything... that's another wild imaginative misunderstanding you're having, probably based on what some religious folk have said. I'm not a religious person, I don't believe a human-like God patiently created all living things in pairs... etc. etc. I guess that COULD be the way it happened, but that's not MY belief.

So what's your theory and don't ramble be vague or change the subject. Think it out. How did it all start? How do you think tiger alligators dogs fish all started? They all had to have either started out as adults or they all evolved from things that didn't need parenting.

Explain how you think lions got started. It has to be evolution.

 

[sealybobo]

If you look at the DNA of a tree or frog or human or fish you see we are all related

You want to re create it? What are you doing the next million years. Just watch.

Nonsense, I see that we are NOT related. You are making the simple-minded assumption that because DNA is similar, it must mean relationship. 95% of our DNA is the same as a chimp... but that 5% is significant. 50% of our DNA is the same as a banana, we're obviously not half bananas... (although, you might be a strong argument to contradict that.) Furthermore, your DNA is 99.99999999999% the same as the DNA of Jeffrey Dahmer.

If you take ANY computer software... go into the code... remove 4~5% of it and replace it with code from some other program... will the software still function as it did before? Would it be improved? Or would you destroy the software's capability entirely?

Yes you are even related to a banana. All life started in one place. Your explanation is not plausible. Explain it again? How did the first zebras start? You say God plopped down a herd of full grown zebra? An entire flock of seaguls? Adult humans? You're saying God made the chicken before the egg? I'm saying the chicken wasn't always a chicken and humans weren't always humans. At least not the same as they were 1 million years ago or 1 million years from now we won't be the same creatures.

Go back far enough your relatives were fish.

You can be related to a banana, I am not.

I don't believe anything "plopped down fully grown" anything. That is simply YOU attempting to mock my beliefs because you have no evidence to support your own. I could be equally as insulting... you believe a banana just up and one day decided to be all that it could be and *poof* out popped a human from the banana tree! Little fishes swam around in the ocean for years until one day, a defiant little liberal fish said... fuck this noise, I'm leaving the ocean! Who's with me? ...And the whale says... I always dreamed of being a dog... I'll go!

The problem is, what you believe is a FANTASY. There is no basis for it in Science.. period!

Explain how you think it happened.

You're mocking my belief but I just explained evolution to you. You can't explain your theory. If men didn't come from fish, where did we come from.

I'm putting words in your mouth because this is what I'm hearing you say. If I'm wrong explain what you believe

 

[Boss]

So what's your theory and don't ramble be vague or change the subject. Think it out. How did it all start? How do you think tiger alligators dogs fish all started? They all had to have either started out as adults or they all evolved from things that didn't need parenting.

Explain how you think lions got started. It has to be evolution.

My theory is clear. Spiritual Nature, not confined to space and time, literally has all the time it needs to create whatever is needed to establish a interdependent system of living physical things. If I could explain exactly how Spiritual Nature did this, I would probably be up for the Nobel Prize... don't you imagine?

 

[Boss]

Explain how you think it happened.

You're mocking my belief but I just explained evolution to you. You can't explain your theory. If men didn't come from fish, where did we come from.

I'm putting words in your mouth because this is what I'm hearing you say. If I'm wrong explain what you believe

No, I was mocking you the same way you were mocking me. I never said anything you claim you heard me say. I've tried to explain what I believe but you want to distort that and mock me. I've also said that I don't have all the answers and can't give you what I don't know.

 

[sealybobo]

So what's your theory and don't ramble be vague or change the subject. Think it out. How did it all start? How do you think tiger alligators dogs fish all started? They all had to have either started out as adults or they all evolved from things that didn't need parenting.

Explain how you think lions got started. It has to be evolution.

My theory is clear. Spiritual Nature, not confined to space and time, literally has all the time it needs to create whatever is needed to establish a interdependent system of living physical things. If I could explain exactly how Spiritual Nature did this, I would probably be up for the Nobel Prize... don't you imagine?

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

 

[Boss]

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

Well... BELIEF is FAITH and SCIENCE does not BELIEVE things. It can only evaluate things, test things, observe things and make predictions of probabilities. IF you had ANY science to support your nonsensical theory, you would be parading it around for everyone to see.

I believe "humans" started when the timeless Spiritual Nature bestowed spiritual awareness on homo erectus and they became homo sapiens.

 

[Boss]

We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents.

That sounds an awful lot like YOUR explanation.

 

[sealybobo]

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

Well... BELIEF is FAITH and SCIENCE does not BELIEVE things. It can only evaluate things, test things, observe things and make predictions of probabilities. IF you had ANY science to support your nonsensical theory, you would be parading it around for everyone to see.

I believe "humans" started when the timeless Spiritual Nature bestowed spiritual awareness on homo erectus and they became homo sapiens.

How did they start as homo erectus? Was there first adult homos or did they start out as babies?

I'm trying to show you your theory doesn't make sense.

You see there wasn't a "first" homo erectus either. They evolved from something else too. Go back far enough and our first ancestors must not have needed parents. Because all homos need parents.

Same with chicken and eggs. There wasn't a first chicken or egg. That animal evolved from something else too. Originally it didn't take parents or an egg to make that creature either. If I'm wrong, who laid the first egg?

Maybe you just can't understand. I know its amazing. More amazing than your fairytale of how it all started.

 

[sealybobo]

We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents.

That sounds an awful lot like YOUR explanation.

So the first dogs were adult dogs? They were just poofed into existence by a God? That's your theory?

 

[Hollie]

then just refer to the other eight planets placed in the hospitable zone as satellites and everything will be just fine - idiot ...

No... because their MASS would have created a gravitational problem and they would have collided together. The moon is considerably smaller than any planet.

It is an impossibility of physics for more than two planets to be in the same habitable zone revolving around it's sun. Two are only possible if the offset is geosynchronous. Now, I can't explain why God made physics behave as it does in our universe... perhaps he was still learning and in later universes he was able to achieve a more perfect nature?

it was your mother who gave you life ? - she gets around, there are a few other people on Earth and I for one have never met her .... where did your life come from, Idiot II

Well... MY life came from a living human egg cell and a living human sperm cell. Has no one ever explained reproduction to you? Life comes from other life. During the time of Darwin, people believed life could spontaneously generate from inorganic material... We discovered it can't. Louis Pasteur established the Law of Biogenesis. Life comes from life.

You need to consult with your pals at the Watchtower bible thumping meeting to review their silly "biogenesis" claims.

CB000: Law of Biogenesis

Claim CB000:
Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
Response:

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Dear, if you want to believe in spontaneous generation, you are free to do do. I assure you, most biologists would say you're living in the dark ages. There is NO evidence life ever formed from increasingly complex molecules. It is a theory that is not supported by ANY science.

Well dear, I'm glad you have decided to abandon your silly "biogenesis" slogan. At your next Watchtower bible tract meeting, pass on what you have learned.

I'm sure you don't speak for "most biologists" so I think we can take your limited exposure to science as evidence of..... limited exposure to science,

One of the science principles you mighht want to familiarize yourself with are principles such as genetic drift.

 

[Boss]

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

Well... BELIEF is FAITH and SCIENCE does not BELIEVE things. It can only evaluate things, test things, observe things and make predictions of probabilities. IF you had ANY science to support your nonsensical theory, you would be parading it around for everyone to see.

I believe "humans" started when the timeless Spiritual Nature bestowed spiritual awareness on homo erectus and they became homo sapiens.

How did they start as homo erectus? Was there first adult homos or did they start out as babies?

I'm trying to show you your theory doesn't make sense.

You see there wasn't a "first" homo erectus either. They evolved from something else too. Go back far enough and our first ancestors must not have needed parents. Because all homos need parents.

Same with chicken and eggs. There wasn't a first chicken or egg. That animal evolved from something else too. Originally it didn't take parents or an egg to make that creature either. If I'm wrong, who laid the first egg?

Maybe you just can't understand. I know its amazing. More amazing than your fairytale of how it all started.

Again, you keep asking me questions that, if I could answer them, I would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous man to ever live. I don't know what happened or how it happened... and you don't either, that is my main point. Your theory makes no more rational sense than mine.

There has to be a "first" something if that thing exists. It's not like two different types of ape had a baby together and named him homo erectus. If he came from ape DNA he was an ape baby. And ape babies is all he could ever produce because all he could breed with was other apes. Again.... there is NO EVIDENCE of ANY cross-genus evolution. Nowhere, at no time. Yet we have millions of genus taxa and 95% of the ones that did exist have gone extinct.

The fossil record is even more mysterious because we find no evidence of this transformation happening between various genera. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record, as if they had already evolved. We don't have fossils of plants turning into reptiles... we don't have fossils of reptiles turning into mammals... IF this theory of your were valid, we should see millions and millions of these examples abundant in the fossil record and we don't.

If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment. As of now, that test eludes us. We simply cannot make it happen. When we break down DNA and study it's mitochondrial components, enzymes and amino acids, we see why our experiments are in vain. Life simply refuses to conform to our preconceptions.

 

[Mudda]

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

Well... BELIEF is FAITH and SCIENCE does not BELIEVE things. It can only evaluate things, test things, observe things and make predictions of probabilities. IF you had ANY science to support your nonsensical theory, you would be parading it around for everyone to see.

I believe "humans" started when the timeless Spiritual Nature bestowed spiritual awareness on homo erectus and they became homo sapiens.

How did they start as homo erectus? Was there first adult homos or did they start out as babies?

I'm trying to show you your theory doesn't make sense.

You see there wasn't a "first" homo erectus either. They evolved from something else too. Go back far enough and our first ancestors must not have needed parents. Because all homos need parents.

Same with chicken and eggs. There wasn't a first chicken or egg. That animal evolved from something else too. Originally it didn't take parents or an egg to make that creature either. If I'm wrong, who laid the first egg?

Maybe you just can't understand. I know its amazing. More amazing than your fairytale of how it all started.

Again, you keep asking me questions that, if I could answer them, I would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous man to ever live. I don't know what happened or how it happened... and you don't either, that is my main point. Your theory makes no more rational sense than mine.

There has to be a "first" something if that thing exists. It's not like two different types of ape had a baby together and named him homo erectus. If he came from ape DNA he was an ape baby. And ape babies is all he could ever produce because all he could breed with was other apes. Again.... there is NO EVIDENCE of ANY cross-genus evolution. Nowhere, at no time. Yet we have millions of genus taxa and 95% of the ones that did exist have gone extinct.

The fossil record is even more mysterious because we find no evidence of this transformation happening between various genera. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record, as if they had already evolved. We don't have fossils of plants turning into reptiles... we don't have fossils of reptiles turning into mammals... IF this theory of your were valid, we should see millions and millions of these examples abundant in the fossil record and we don't.

If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment. As of now, that test eludes us. We simply cannot make it happen. When we break down DNA and study it's mitochondrial components, enzymes and amino acids, we see why our experiments are in vain. Life simply refuses to conform to our preconceptions.

Bossy showing us how ignorant he is again. Dude, you have no clue about anything you discuss, so my question is: is it hard for thou to stay alive day to day?

 

[sealybobo]

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

Well... BELIEF is FAITH and SCIENCE does not BELIEVE things. It can only evaluate things, test things, observe things and make predictions of probabilities. IF you had ANY science to support your nonsensical theory, you would be parading it around for everyone to see.

I believe "humans" started when the timeless Spiritual Nature bestowed spiritual awareness on homo erectus and they became homo sapiens.

How did they start as homo erectus? Was there first adult homos or did they start out as babies?

I'm trying to show you your theory doesn't make sense.

You see there wasn't a "first" homo erectus either. They evolved from something else too. Go back far enough and our first ancestors must not have needed parents. Because all homos need parents.

Same with chicken and eggs. There wasn't a first chicken or egg. That animal evolved from something else too. Originally it didn't take parents or an egg to make that creature either. If I'm wrong, who laid the first egg?

Maybe you just can't understand. I know its amazing. More amazing than your fairytale of how it all started.

Again, you keep asking me questions that, if I could answer them, I would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous man to ever live. I don't know what happened or how it happened... and you don't either, that is my main point. Your theory makes no more rational sense than mine.

There has to be a "first" something if that thing exists. It's not like two different types of ape had a baby together and named him homo erectus. If he came from ape DNA he was an ape baby. And ape babies is all he could ever produce because all he could breed with was other apes. Again.... there is NO EVIDENCE of ANY cross-genus evolution. Nowhere, at no time. Yet we have millions of genus taxa and 95% of the ones that did exist have gone extinct.

The fossil record is even more mysterious because we find no evidence of this transformation happening between various genera. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record, as if they had already evolved. We don't have fossils of plants turning into reptiles... we don't have fossils of reptiles turning into mammals... IF this theory of your were valid, we should see millions and millions of these examples abundant in the fossil record and we don't.

If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment. As of now, that test eludes us. We simply cannot make it happen. When we break down DNA and study it's mitochondrial components, enzymes and amino acids, we see why our experiments are in vain. Life simply refuses to conform to our preconceptions.

Bossy showing us how ignorant he is again. Dude, you have no clue about anything you discuss, so my question is: is it hard for thou to stay alive day to day?

If he denies evolution then his theory is that God went poof and put fully functioning zebra and bison and wolves on earth ready to go.

This is why evolution makes sense because bosses answer "I don't know it must have been a God that did it" is no answer at all.

The first life on earth didn't need parents so we must have evolved from creatures that didn't need parents.

Either that or bosses God put human adults on earth ready to fuck.

 

[Hollie]

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

Well... BELIEF is FAITH and SCIENCE does not BELIEVE things. It can only evaluate things, test things, observe things and make predictions of probabilities. IF you had ANY science to support your nonsensical theory, you would be parading it around for everyone to see.

I believe "humans" started when the timeless Spiritual Nature bestowed spiritual awareness on homo erectus and they became homo sapiens.

How did they start as homo erectus? Was there first adult homos or did they start out as babies?

I'm trying to show you your theory doesn't make sense.

You see there wasn't a "first" homo erectus either. They evolved from something else too. Go back far enough and our first ancestors must not have needed parents. Because all homos need parents.

Same with chicken and eggs. There wasn't a first chicken or egg. That animal evolved from something else too. Originally it didn't take parents or an egg to make that creature either. If I'm wrong, who laid the first egg?

Maybe you just can't understand. I know its amazing. More amazing than your fairytale of how it all started.

Again, you keep asking me questions that, if I could answer them, I would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous man to ever live. I don't know what happened or how it happened... and you don't either, that is my main point. Your theory makes no more rational sense than mine.

There has to be a "first" something if that thing exists. It's not like two different types of ape had a baby together and named him homo erectus. If he came from ape DNA he was an ape baby. And ape babies is all he could ever produce because all he could breed with was other apes. Again.... there is NO EVIDENCE of ANY cross-genus evolution. Nowhere, at no time. Yet we have millions of genus taxa and 95% of the ones that did exist have gone extinct.

The fossil record is even more mysterious because we find no evidence of this transformation happening between various genera. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record, as if they had already evolved. We don't have fossils of plants turning into reptiles... we don't have fossils of reptiles turning into mammals... IF this theory of your were valid, we should see millions and millions of these examples abundant in the fossil record and we don't.

If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment. As of now, that test eludes us. We simply cannot make it happen. When we break down DNA and study it's mitochondrial components, enzymes and amino acids, we see why our experiments are in vain. Life simply refuses to conform to our preconceptions.

"The gawds did it". All your questions are answered.

Otherwise, in the relevant world:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[sealybobo]

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

Well... BELIEF is FAITH and SCIENCE does not BELIEVE things. It can only evaluate things, test things, observe things and make predictions of probabilities. IF you had ANY science to support your nonsensical theory, you would be parading it around for everyone to see.

I believe "humans" started when the timeless Spiritual Nature bestowed spiritual awareness on homo erectus and they became homo sapiens.

How did they start as homo erectus? Was there first adult homos or did they start out as babies?

I'm trying to show you your theory doesn't make sense.

You see there wasn't a "first" homo erectus either. They evolved from something else too. Go back far enough and our first ancestors must not have needed parents. Because all homos need parents.

Same with chicken and eggs. There wasn't a first chicken or egg. That animal evolved from something else too. Originally it didn't take parents or an egg to make that creature either. If I'm wrong, who laid the first egg?

Maybe you just can't understand. I know its amazing. More amazing than your fairytale of how it all started.

Again, you keep asking me questions that, if I could answer them, I would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous man to ever live. I don't know what happened or how it happened... and you don't either, that is my main point. Your theory makes no more rational sense than mine.

There has to be a "first" something if that thing exists. It's not like two different types of ape had a baby together and named him homo erectus. If he came from ape DNA he was an ape baby. And ape babies is all he could ever produce because all he could breed with was other apes. Again.... there is NO EVIDENCE of ANY cross-genus evolution. Nowhere, at no time. Yet we have millions of genus taxa and 95% of the ones that did exist have gone extinct.

The fossil record is even more mysterious because we find no evidence of this transformation happening between various genera. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record, as if they had already evolved. We don't have fossils of plants turning into reptiles... we don't have fossils of reptiles turning into mammals... IF this theory of your were valid, we should see millions and millions of these examples abundant in the fossil record and we don't.

If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment. As of now, that test eludes us. We simply cannot make it happen. When we break down DNA and study it's mitochondrial components, enzymes and amino acids, we see why our experiments are in vain. Life simply refuses to conform to our preconceptions.

"The gawds did it". All your questions are answered.

Otherwise, in the relevant world:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Boss is smarter than you and those scientists.

Those scientists are dealing in fantasy but bosses hunches are sound!

 

[BreezeWood]

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

Well... BELIEF is FAITH and SCIENCE does not BELIEVE things. It can only evaluate things, test things, observe things and make predictions of probabilities. IF you had ANY science to support your nonsensical theory, you would be parading it around for everyone to see.

I believe "humans" started when the timeless Spiritual Nature bestowed spiritual awareness on homo erectus and they became homo sapiens.

How did they start as homo erectus? Was there first adult homos or did they start out as babies?

I'm trying to show you your theory doesn't make sense.

You see there wasn't a "first" homo erectus either. They evolved from something else too. Go back far enough and our first ancestors must not have needed parents. Because all homos need parents.

Same with chicken and eggs. There wasn't a first chicken or egg. That animal evolved from something else too. Originally it didn't take parents or an egg to make that creature either. If I'm wrong, who laid the first egg?

Maybe you just can't understand. I know its amazing. More amazing than your fairytale of how it all started.

Again, you keep asking me questions that, if I could answer them, I would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous man to ever live. I don't know what happened or how it happened... and you don't either, that is my main point. Your theory makes no more rational sense than mine.

There has to be a "first" something if that thing exists. It's not like two different types of ape had a baby together and named him homo erectus. If he came from ape DNA he was an ape baby. And ape babies is all he could ever produce because all he could breed with was other apes. Again.... there is NO EVIDENCE of ANY cross-genus evolution. Nowhere, at no time. Yet we have millions of genus taxa and 95% of the ones that did exist have gone extinct.

The fossil record is even more mysterious because we find no evidence of this transformation happening between various genera. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record, as if they had already evolved. We don't have fossils of plants turning into reptiles... we don't have fossils of reptiles turning into mammals... IF this theory of your were valid, we should see millions and millions of these examples abundant in the fossil record and we don't.

If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment. As of now, that test eludes us. We simply cannot make it happen. When we break down DNA and study it's mitochondrial components, enzymes and amino acids, we see why our experiments are in vain. Life simply refuses to conform to our preconceptions.

.
bossy: If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment.


ALL REPRODUCTION OCCURES WITHIN THE SAME MEMBRANE ...

we've demonstrated this to you before - there is only one cell that subdivides within itself that generates all living beings on Earth, there are no examples of an exteriorly combined multicellular being in existence.

the example above demonstrates how singe cells evolved to divide themselves inside and maintaining the initial membrane to create multicelled "individuals".

.

 

[Boss]

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

Well... BELIEF is FAITH and SCIENCE does not BELIEVE things. It can only evaluate things, test things, observe things and make predictions of probabilities. IF you had ANY science to support your nonsensical theory, you would be parading it around for everyone to see.

I believe "humans" started when the timeless Spiritual Nature bestowed spiritual awareness on homo erectus and they became homo sapiens.

How did they start as homo erectus? Was there first adult homos or did they start out as babies?

I'm trying to show you your theory doesn't make sense.

You see there wasn't a "first" homo erectus either. They evolved from something else too. Go back far enough and our first ancestors must not have needed parents. Because all homos need parents.

Same with chicken and eggs. There wasn't a first chicken or egg. That animal evolved from something else too. Originally it didn't take parents or an egg to make that creature either. If I'm wrong, who laid the first egg?

Maybe you just can't understand. I know its amazing. More amazing than your fairytale of how it all started.

Again, you keep asking me questions that, if I could answer them, I would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous man to ever live. I don't know what happened or how it happened... and you don't either, that is my main point. Your theory makes no more rational sense than mine.

There has to be a "first" something if that thing exists. It's not like two different types of ape had a baby together and named him homo erectus. If he came from ape DNA he was an ape baby. And ape babies is all he could ever produce because all he could breed with was other apes. Again.... there is NO EVIDENCE of ANY cross-genus evolution. Nowhere, at no time. Yet we have millions of genus taxa and 95% of the ones that did exist have gone extinct.

The fossil record is even more mysterious because we find no evidence of this transformation happening between various genera. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record, as if they had already evolved. We don't have fossils of plants turning into reptiles... we don't have fossils of reptiles turning into mammals... IF this theory of your were valid, we should see millions and millions of these examples abundant in the fossil record and we don't.

If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment. As of now, that test eludes us. We simply cannot make it happen. When we break down DNA and study it's mitochondrial components, enzymes and amino acids, we see why our experiments are in vain. Life simply refuses to conform to our preconceptions.

.
bossy: If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment.


ALL REPRODUCTION OCCURES WITHIN THE SAME MEMBRANE ...

we've demonstrated this to you before - there is only one cell that subdivides within itself that generates all living beings on Earth, there are no examples of an exteriorly combined multicellular being in existence.

the example above demonstrates how singe cells evolved to divide themselves inside and maintaining the initial membrane to create multicelled "individuals".

.

That is an example of multi-cellular reproduction. We've gone over all this before.

 

[Boss]

If he denies evolution then his theory is that God went poof and put fully functioning zebra and bison and wolves on earth ready to go.

This is why evolution makes sense because bosses answer "I don't know it must have been a God that did it" is no answer at all.

The first life on earth didn't need parents so we must have evolved from creatures that didn't need parents.

Either that or bosses God put human adults on earth ready to fuck.

Well... Evolution simply is not an explanation for origin. Even if you can explain origin of life, evolution taking care of everything else is just as unbelievable and unsupportable as my theory. Listen to what you are claiming... the first life didn't need parents but it somehow produced something that from then on needed parents? How the fuck do you explain that happening? Isn't that just as much of a miracle?

How do you reconcile all the diversity of life emerging from the same single cell when we cannot make that happen even once no matter how hard we've tried and DNA won't allow it? That's much more of a fantastic story if it's true than anything I have suggested. And... whenever all this shit was evolving into being from that one lone cell... how did it manage to create the interdependent and symbiotic relationships at the same time? All the species that couldn't exist if not for another species... how did they both come to be evolved at the same time?

AND... EVEN IF... 100% of what you believe is true... Does it not strike you as a pretty amazing thing to have happened as the result of sheer random chance and fluke? All the millions and millions of examples of exquisite, majestic and beautiful living things... all just *poofed* into existence from the cosmic voids of space dust? Your fantasy is certainly no more believable than mine. At least my explanation contains a plausible source.

 

[BreezeWood]

Now that's a fantasy, not a scientific theory. Ill go with what science believes because its based on science facts logic and reason. It makes sense. Bossolicism does not. Not to me.

But I'm sure Christians will agree with you.

How do you think the first humans started? As babies or adults? We must have evolved from something that didn't need parents. That doesn't sound human to me.

Well... BELIEF is FAITH and SCIENCE does not BELIEVE things. It can only evaluate things, test things, observe things and make predictions of probabilities. IF you had ANY science to support your nonsensical theory, you would be parading it around for everyone to see.

I believe "humans" started when the timeless Spiritual Nature bestowed spiritual awareness on homo erectus and they became homo sapiens.

How did they start as homo erectus? Was there first adult homos or did they start out as babies?

I'm trying to show you your theory doesn't make sense.

You see there wasn't a "first" homo erectus either. They evolved from something else too. Go back far enough and our first ancestors must not have needed parents. Because all homos need parents.

Same with chicken and eggs. There wasn't a first chicken or egg. That animal evolved from something else too. Originally it didn't take parents or an egg to make that creature either. If I'm wrong, who laid the first egg?

Maybe you just can't understand. I know its amazing. More amazing than your fairytale of how it all started.

Again, you keep asking me questions that, if I could answer them, I would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous man to ever live. I don't know what happened or how it happened... and you don't either, that is my main point. Your theory makes no more rational sense than mine.

There has to be a "first" something if that thing exists. It's not like two different types of ape had a baby together and named him homo erectus. If he came from ape DNA he was an ape baby. And ape babies is all he could ever produce because all he could breed with was other apes. Again.... there is NO EVIDENCE of ANY cross-genus evolution. Nowhere, at no time. Yet we have millions of genus taxa and 95% of the ones that did exist have gone extinct.

The fossil record is even more mysterious because we find no evidence of this transformation happening between various genera. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record, as if they had already evolved. We don't have fossils of plants turning into reptiles... we don't have fossils of reptiles turning into mammals... IF this theory of your were valid, we should see millions and millions of these examples abundant in the fossil record and we don't.

If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment. As of now, that test eludes us. We simply cannot make it happen. When we break down DNA and study it's mitochondrial components, enzymes and amino acids, we see why our experiments are in vain. Life simply refuses to conform to our preconceptions.

.
bossy: If single-cell organisms could reproduce multi-cellular life, we would be able to demonstrate this in a lab environment.


ALL REPRODUCTION OCCURES WITHIN THE SAME MEMBRANE ...

we've demonstrated this to you before - there is only one cell that subdivides within itself that generates all living beings on Earth, there are no examples of an exteriorly combined multicellular being in existence.

the example above demonstrates how singe cells evolved to divide themselves inside and maintaining the initial membrane to create multicelled "individuals".

.

That is an example of multi-cellular reproduction. We've gone over all this before.

.
and you conveniently disregard the same evidence that is contrary to your inaccurate opinion that multicelled organism are not derived from a single cell as a simple transition from a single to multicelled organism.

.