Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That was quite the usual flaming that fails to address the salient point.Which gawds does science and those Evilutionists negate?Idiot, I've watched Cosmos. I have a degree in a field of science and science has always been my strongest subject. I've watched many science documentaries and have probably watched the ones in question. None of them have ever shown evidence of cross-genus evolution. All you have are wild speculations and conjecture.
The reason is simple. Seculars approach everything from the view that "God didn't do it!" Therefore, it must be that we evolved from a simpler life form which evolved from a simpler life form, ultimately evolving from the same single living cell. Because that negates God... that explains things without having to acknowledge God. But the more you go back in simplicity, the more ridiculous your argument gets and the more impossible it becomes to support with known science.
I stress again, you have absolutely no evidence of any cross-genus evolution ever happening at any time, anywhere. You can't produce this result in a controlled lab environment with all the technology available to modern man... but somehow, some way... this was supposed to have magically happened naturally at some point. .....And we're still only talking about the evolution of already-existing living things. The origin of life is still unaddressed.
Any and all of them.
And let's be clear... Evolution happens on a micro level. There is no question of this and science can support it. The theory of MACRO evolution is without basis in science. It is a pure conjecture pulled from the ass of seculars and conflated with actual science in order to push an anti-God agenda. There is no evidence for it, no science experiment which proves it, no test that has been done to confirm it... nothing. That is why you never present anything and your tactic is always to attack and denigrate.
What is your theory on how all the different animals got here? Is there any science to go with your God planted a million different seeds.Which gawds does science and those Evilutionists negate?Idiot, I've watched Cosmos. I have a degree in a field of science and science has always been my strongest subject. I've watched many science documentaries and have probably watched the ones in question. None of them have ever shown evidence of cross-genus evolution. All you have are wild speculations and conjecture.
The reason is simple. Seculars approach everything from the view that "God didn't do it!" Therefore, it must be that we evolved from a simpler life form which evolved from a simpler life form, ultimately evolving from the same single living cell. Because that negates God... that explains things without having to acknowledge God. But the more you go back in simplicity, the more ridiculous your argument gets and the more impossible it becomes to support with known science.
I stress again, you have absolutely no evidence of any cross-genus evolution ever happening at any time, anywhere. You can't produce this result in a controlled lab environment with all the technology available to modern man... but somehow, some way... this was supposed to have magically happened naturally at some point. .....And we're still only talking about the evolution of already-existing living things. The origin of life is still unaddressed.
Any and all of them.
And let's be clear... Evolution happens on a micro level. There is no question of this and science can support it. The theory of MACRO evolution is without basis in science. It is a pure conjecture pulled from the ass of seculars and conflated with actual science in order to push an anti-God agenda. There is no evidence for it, no science experiment which proves it, no test that has been done to confirm it... nothing. That is why you never present anything and your tactic is always to attack and denigrate.
And what is his theory on how multi cell orgs got here if not from single cells?.you are misconstruing what a multicellular life represents to make a fallacious claim.
No.. that's what you are doing with single-cellular life. The male sperm is not single cell life. Not in context of an organism, which is what we're talking about. It is living organic material. A reproductive gamete.... not a living organism... single or multi-cell. You're fallaciously trying to claim it is.. and this is your evidence for single to multi cell life. You're an idiot.
which is what we're talking about.
what we are talking about is your claim there is no evidence of a single celled organism becoming multicellular - the reproductive process of multisuddivided singlecelled organisms is the process over the melinia of how it was accomplished, it is as simple as that bossy ...
all organisms are single celled - one cell or one cell subdivided into many functional assemblies by unification of two nuclei.
.
.you are misconstruing what a multicellular life represents to make a fallacious claim.
No.. that's what you are doing with single-cellular life. The male sperm is not single cell life. Not in context of an organism, which is what we're talking about. It is living organic material. A reproductive gamete.... not a living organism... single or multi-cell. You're fallaciously trying to claim it is.. and this is your evidence for single to multi cell life. You're an idiot.
which is what we're talking about.
what we are talking about is your claim there is no evidence of a single celled organism becoming multicellular - the reproductive process of multisuddivided singlecelled organisms is the process over the melinia of how it was accomplished, it is as simple as that bossy ...
all organisms are single celled - one cell or one cell subdivided into many functional assemblies by unification of two nuclei.
.
Why do you think your partisan versions of gawds would want to play such a cruel joke on those Evilutionists by magically *poofing* single and multicellular life?.you are misconstruing what a multicellular life represents to make a fallacious claim.
No.. that's what you are doing with single-cellular life. The male sperm is not single cell life. Not in context of an organism, which is what we're talking about. It is living organic material. A reproductive gamete.... not a living organism... single or multi-cell. You're fallaciously trying to claim it is.. and this is your evidence for single to multi cell life. You're an idiot.
which is what we're talking about.
what we are talking about is your claim there is no evidence of a single celled organism becoming multicellular - the reproductive process of multisuddivided singlecelled organisms is the process over the melinia of how it was accomplished, it is as simple as that bossy ...
all organisms are single celled - one cell or one cell subdivided into many functional assemblies by unification of two nuclei.
.
No. In biology there are organisms defined as single-cell and multi-cellular. Humans are multi-cellular organisms. Their reproductive gametes are not single-cell organisms. Showing how multi-cellular life reproduces other multi-cellular life is not evidence of single-to-multi-cellular evolution. You must begin with a single-cell organism. You cannot use a multi-cellular organism (which did not exist) to explain how a single-cell organism evolved into a multi-cellular organism.
It's like you are trying to explain how Columbus discovered America by using Google Maps!
What is your theory on how all the different animals got here? Is there any science to go with your God planted a million different seeds.
Do you believe a chicken started out as a chicken? Chicken or egg?
Why do you think your partisan versions of gawds would want to play such a cruel joke on those Evilutionists by magically *poofing* single and multicellular life?.you are misconstruing what a multicellular life represents to make a fallacious claim.
No.. that's what you are doing with single-cellular life. The male sperm is not single cell life. Not in context of an organism, which is what we're talking about. It is living organic material. A reproductive gamete.... not a living organism... single or multi-cell. You're fallaciously trying to claim it is.. and this is your evidence for single to multi cell life. You're an idiot.
which is what we're talking about.
what we are talking about is your claim there is no evidence of a single celled organism becoming multicellular - the reproductive process of multisuddivided singlecelled organisms is the process over the melinia of how it was accomplished, it is as simple as that bossy ...
all organisms are single celled - one cell or one cell subdivided into many functional assemblies by unification of two nuclei.
.
No. In biology there are organisms defined as single-cell and multi-cellular. Humans are multi-cellular organisms. Their reproductive gametes are not single-cell organisms. Showing how multi-cellular life reproduces other multi-cellular life is not evidence of single-to-multi-cellular evolution. You must begin with a single-cell organism. You cannot use a multi-cellular organism (which did not exist) to explain how a single-cell organism evolved into a multi-cellular organism.
It's like you are trying to explain how Columbus discovered America by using Google Maps!
What evidence do you have that indicates your gawds, as opposed to various other gawds, were the primary *poofers*?Why do you think your partisan versions of gawds would want to play such a cruel joke on those Evilutionists by magically *poofing* single and multicellular life?.you are misconstruing what a multicellular life represents to make a fallacious claim.
No.. that's what you are doing with single-cellular life. The male sperm is not single cell life. Not in context of an organism, which is what we're talking about. It is living organic material. A reproductive gamete.... not a living organism... single or multi-cell. You're fallaciously trying to claim it is.. and this is your evidence for single to multi cell life. You're an idiot.
which is what we're talking about.
what we are talking about is your claim there is no evidence of a single celled organism becoming multicellular - the reproductive process of multisuddivided singlecelled organisms is the process over the melinia of how it was accomplished, it is as simple as that bossy ...
all organisms are single celled - one cell or one cell subdivided into many functional assemblies by unification of two nuclei.
.
No. In biology there are organisms defined as single-cell and multi-cellular. Humans are multi-cellular organisms. Their reproductive gametes are not single-cell organisms. Showing how multi-cellular life reproduces other multi-cellular life is not evidence of single-to-multi-cellular evolution. You must begin with a single-cell organism. You cannot use a multi-cellular organism (which did not exist) to explain how a single-cell organism evolved into a multi-cellular organism.
It's like you are trying to explain how Columbus discovered America by using Google Maps!
Probably just to fuck with you?
And what is his theory on how multi cell orgs got here if not from single cells?
What evidence do you have that indicates your gawds, as opposed to various other gawds, were the primary *poofers*?
Didn't think so.What evidence do you have that indicates your gawds, as opposed to various other gawds, were the primary *poofers*?
I have none.
Didn't think so.What evidence do you have that indicates your gawds, as opposed to various other gawds, were the primary *poofers*?
I have none.
What evidence do you have that indicates your gawds or any of the other gawds were required to magically *poof* life into existence?
There is no "system of design" in organic life. You're relying on slogans from the Christian creationists that have no relevance in science.And what is his theory on how multi cell orgs got here if not from single cells?
I think I have been clear from the start what my beliefs are. I think a Spiritual Force unbeknownst to us, acted upon forces of nature to enable a variety of life forms to emerge. I don't know how, I don't think we'll ever be able to explain how. I do believe that life had to emerge in harmony and unison together because it only works together... the Circle of Life...
Let's examine closely what we are talking about when we talk about a living organism. An "organism" is a system of design. It has functional parts that work together to convert matter to energy and respirate. Now, what in nature or physics necessitates it's coming into existence? Why does any life have to exist in our universe? The simple answer is, it doesn't. So why does it exist?
You cannot answer that question and neither can I. You wish to speculate that it happened "just because" and you really have no other explanation. I think something more profound happened. Simply because it defies our understanding of logic or physics that things "just happen" without any rational reason or purpose. Science tells us that everything happens for a reason and there IS an answer to this question, we just don't know what it is at this time... we may never know.
There is no "system of design" in organic life. You're relying on slogans from the Christian creationists that have no relevance in science.
That's so silly. The very word "organ" tells you that you're wrong.There is no "system of design" in organic life. You're relying on slogans from the Christian creationists that have no relevance in science.
The very word "oraganism" tells you that you're wrong. Organized, organization, a system of order. Every organism is a system of parts working together in organization, in a system of order. Random chance cannot predictably produce system of order.
That's so silly. The very word "organ" tells you that you're wrong.There is no "system of design" in organic life. You're relying on slogans from the Christian creationists that have no relevance in science.
The very word "oraganism" tells you that you're wrong. Organized, organization, a system of order. Every organism is a system of parts working together in organization, in a system of order. Random chance cannot predictably produce system of order.
Organ. a large musical instrument having rows of tuned pipes sounded by compressed air, and played using one or more keyboards to produce a wide range of musical effects. The pipes are generally arranged in ranks of a particular type, each controlled by a stop, and often into larger sets linked to separate keyboards.
If you're done being pointless, we'll move on.
In connection with your "random chance" comment, you make mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries.. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of a "system of order". Mass extinctions have little to do with natural selection. Natural selection can not act in the context of a catastrophic event like an asteroid impact. Survival through these events is based on luck, not adaptation.
Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that an intelligent designer would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, intelligent design is not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.
i've yet to see your argument. You haven't offered an argument to refute. You have offered references to gawds as suddenly *poofing* life yet you have not made a case for those gawds as extant in any demonstrable way.That's so silly. The very word "organ" tells you that you're wrong.There is no "system of design" in organic life. You're relying on slogans from the Christian creationists that have no relevance in science.
The very word "oraganism" tells you that you're wrong. Organized, organization, a system of order. Every organism is a system of parts working together in organization, in a system of order. Random chance cannot predictably produce system of order.
Organ. a large musical instrument having rows of tuned pipes sounded by compressed air, and played using one or more keyboards to produce a wide range of musical effects. The pipes are generally arranged in ranks of a particular type, each controlled by a stop, and often into larger sets linked to separate keyboards.
If you're done being pointless, we'll move on.
In connection with your "random chance" comment, you make mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries.. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of a "system of order". Mass extinctions have little to do with natural selection. Natural selection can not act in the context of a catastrophic event like an asteroid impact. Survival through these events is based on luck, not adaptation.
Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that an intelligent designer would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, intelligent design is not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.
Well.. the word we are discussing is organism and I highlighted the root of the word which is "organ" and presented organize and organization as other examples of words using the same root.
Word Origin and History for organ
n.
fusion of late Old English organe, and Old French orgene(12c.), both meaning "musical instrument," both from Latin organa, plural of organum "a musical instrument," from Greek organon "implement, tool for making or doing; musical instrument; organ of sense, organ of the body," literally "that with which one works," from PIE*werg-ano-, from root *werg- "to do," related to Greekergon "work" and Old English weorc (see urge (v.)).
Applied vaguely in late Old English to musical instruments; sense narrowed by late 14c. to the musical instrument now known by that name (involving pipes supplied with wind by a bellows and worked by means of keys), though Augustine (c.400) knew this as a specific sense of Latin organa. The meaning "body part adapted to a certain function" is attested from late 14c., from a Medieval Latin sense of Latin organum.
But of course, you need to be as obtuse and myopic as possible here because you're failing to support your argument or refute mine.
Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.
You're jumping back to an argument for microevolutionary change again, which we both have agreed happens in nature. We WERE discussing the origin of life. Why does life exist in our universe? What part of physics or nature dictates that life must come into existence? Keep in mind, nothing in physics ever happens "just because" and there is always some reason or explanation for why. For instance, the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun "just because it does" ...there is a reason it does, an explanation for why it does. When you drop something, it falls to the ground for a reason... not "just because it does." Everything that happens in a physical universe, happens for a reason. Nothing ever happens "just because."
So knowing that there is a logical reason for everything in physics... what is your explanatory reason for life coming into existence?
.And what is his theory on how multi cell orgs got here if not from single cells?.you are misconstruing what a multicellular life represents to make a fallacious claim.
No.. that's what you are doing with single-cellular life. The male sperm is not single cell life. Not in context of an organism, which is what we're talking about. It is living organic material. A reproductive gamete.... not a living organism... single or multi-cell. You're fallaciously trying to claim it is.. and this is your evidence for single to multi cell life. You're an idiot.
which is what we're talking about.
what we are talking about is your claim there is no evidence of a single celled organism becoming multicellular - the reproductive process of multisuddivided singlecelled organisms is the process over the melinia of how it was accomplished, it is as simple as that bossy ...
all organisms are single celled - one cell or one cell subdivided into many functional assemblies by unification of two nuclei.
.
No. In biology there are organisms defined as single-cell and multi-cellular.
