Creationist - The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven

originally posted by: moosevernel
originally posted by: Isurrender73
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: Isurrender73


So it is shown that the chemicals needes for life actually can form and arrange themselves in a naturl way. Almost but not quite proving thatvery very simpleife forms. Such as single strand rna lifeforms that an emerge out of the environment given the right materials to do so. But no. It was god.

If this is true where are the simpler forms of life?

Why did they all die out, without leaving ANY trace?

If simpler life predated the cell than it should either still exist or have left some trace. We find neither so your imagination must be at work.

a reply to: mOjOm

Is mixing ingredients in a pan going to generate a living organism?

They have proven that nature can mix chemicals in a pan. That is far from Abiogenesis.

Hopefully this metaphor helps you understand the science.

originally posted by: moosevernel


All of those points are explained by the fact that humans did not 'evolvr' from apes but shared a common ancestor a long time ago. So of course genetics are going to be different.

Sure, but until we find that common ancestor it is imagination. We have to find it for it to be called science.

I don't think we will find it.

Why does my imagination have to be the same as yours?

I am being called ignorant because I don't imagine the same things. That is why I call scientists Theologians.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Of courze there are no simpler forms of life than humans. Such as prokaryotik cells. Amoeba. Baceriphages. Prions. Viruses.

Also lets not forget the extremophiles that live on hydrocarbon vents on ths ocean floor. Definately not a candidate for where life began. Also lets forget about all the undiscovered # in th ocean that might give us clues on how life started................or not

/Sarcasm off

originally posted by: moosevernel
a reply to: Isurrender73

Of courze there are no simpler forms of life than humans. Such as prokaryotik cells. Amoeba. Baceriphages. Prions. Viruses.

Also lets not forget the extremophiles that live on hydrocarbon vents on ths ocean floor. Definately not a candidate for where life began. Also lets forget about all the undiscovered # in th ocean that might give us clues on how life started................or not

/Sarcasm off

Their are no simpler forms of life than a single cell organism.

According to current science the cell is irruducibly complex, and we have no evidence of any form of life thay predates the cell.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: moosevernel


All of those points are explained by the fact that humans did not 'evolvr' from apes but shared a common ancestor a long time ago. So of course genetics are going to be different.

Sure, but until we find that common ancestor it is imagination. We have to find it for it to be called science.




I don't think we will find it.

Why does my imagination have to be the same as yours?

I am being called ignorant because I don't imagine the same things. That is why I call scientists Theologians.

But that the beaty of it. With geneticz. We can see how far we have to go back to that ancestor. No fossils or living specimens needed. We can compare the two sets of dna and roughly estimate when hey diverged

What causes evolution? What triggers it? Is it technically a law of Physics?
..in the sense that if you put any species in a controlled environment for long enough (X amount of years, millions, whatever), they'd evolve into something different, regardless?

Can we prove that, at least?

I've always wondered how Homo Sapiens evolved so much from our ape ancestors in a relatively short amount of time..

..considering none of a huge amount of species have made a noticeable evolution from one form to another, at least quickly enough that any Homo Sapiens have recorded such a concept via written language or oral tradition until recent times (if you consider how long "we've" been here). Beyond that, it goes without saying that no other species has come close intelligence wise, not even dolphins or whales. Their ancestors existed way before ours? Excuse me for being ignorant, but how does that work?

If monkeys can evolve into 6ft tall hairless Homo Sapiens that have vast intelligence in comparison, why didn't any other species at least take even a basic leap forward in the same manner?

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: moosevernel


All of those points are explained by the fact that humans did not 'evolvr' from apes but shared a common ancestor a long time ago. So of course genetics are going to be different.

Sure, but until we find that common ancestor it is imagination. We have to find it for it to be called science.

I don't think we will find it.

Why does my imagination have to be the same as yours?

I am being called ignorant because I don't imagine the same things. That is why I call scientists Theologians.

Also whilst sceince does somewhat require imgination...so us scientists can ask the right questions. Imaginatiom itself isnt enough to form a correct scientific theory

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: mOjOm

Is mixing ingredients in a pan going to generate a living organism?

They have proven that nature can mix chemicals in a pan. That is far from Abiogenesis.

Hopefully this metaphor helps you understand the science.

Is the fantasy story of an invisible all powerful being written about in a book full of contradictions and incorrect historical references going to prove anything at all???

If they have proven that nature has done even one tiny thing at all, that is still one more thing than creationism has proven.

Hopefully this straight forward logic helps you understand that your position provides proof of absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

a reply to: moosevernel

The real beauty is being able to debate without caring who's right.

I don't care who's right, I want science to present what they can prove.

I will imagine the rest for myself.

Well they did. It was the mammalliam ape kind of species that developed thess traits and homo sapiens where not the only ones. We fought and mated with th and became.what we are today

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: moosevernel

The real beauty is being able to debate without caring who's right.

I don't care who's right, I want science to present what they can prove.

I will imagine the rest for myself.

Well if you read the peer reviewed scientific papers on thd subject you might learn something. Right or wrong. Its effing interesting

originally posted by: moosevernel
Well they did. It was the mammalliam ape kind of species that developed thess traits and homo sapiens where not the only ones. We fought and mated with th and became.what we are today

That theory violates many known scientific principles. I don't think any scientists actually support that one.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: moosevernel

The real beauty is being able to debate without caring who's right.

I don't care who's right, I want science to present what they can prove.

I will imagine the rest for myself.

Then why do you spend all your time trying to prove Evolution Wrong??? Shouldn't you be trying to prove Creationism Right???

Like I said at the start of all this. Even if you could prove Evolution Wrong that still does not prove or provide even one shred of evidence for Creationism being Right. Creationism isn't some default position of truth that you can just fall back to.

I'm not here to argue in favor of Evolution as I'm not qualified to do so and wouldn't be able to argue that position in it's current state. But I do know the creationist approach that you are using and I know it's a false assumption to think that by disproving one theory constitutes proving another. You must have evidence to support your theory or you don't have proof of anything.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I am fascinated by you.

This forum is a lab and you're a specimen in it.

That's what my mind is imagining at the moment.

You and people like you who promote these anti-evolution arguments blow my mind. I must admit, I find it highly insightful to browse these threads and observe the psychology of these people. That isn't to necessarily say I think they're all stupid. Just ignorant to many things. Some by will, some genuine.

A pattern arises. The same, bad arguments. The same rebuttals. The same contradictory nature of OPs and their arguments. You can tell much about a person by observing how they react to information and choose to filter it. My favorite is when it isn't filtered through but outright ignored. It's certainly telling..

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: moosevernel
Well they did. It was the mammalliam ape kind of species that developed thess traits and homo sapiens where not the only ones. We fought and mated with th and became.what we are today

That theory violates many known scientific principles. I don't think any scientists actually support that one.

I think you will find that they do. Many europeans share neanderthol dna.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

What have I ignored?

a reply to: Isurrender73

I was just speaking generally for the most part.

I have no negative feelings towards you or anyone here at ATS.

While I disagree with your stance on this subject, and your approach.. At least you think about these things and ask questions, and form ideas.

Ugh.. sorry if I was offensive in anyway.

originally posted by: moosevernel

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: moosevernel
Well they did. It was the mammalliam ape kind of species that developed thess traits and homo sapiens where not the only ones. We fought and mated with th and became.what we are today

That theory violates many known scientific principles. I don't think any scientists actually support that one.

I think you will find that they do. Many europeans share neanderthol dna.

Current science suggest that Neanderthal and Homosapian had common ancestors, we were separated, at the Tower of Babel :-), and we came back together and maintained the ability to mate.

Not quite what you are presenting.

I actually believe the scientists on this one.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Isurrender73

I was just speaking generally for the most part.

I have no negative feelings towards you or anyone here at ATS.

While I disagree with your stance on this subject, and your approach.. At least you think about these things and ask questions, and form ideas.

Ugh.. sorry if I was offensive in anyway.

If I was worried about being offended I would have never created this thread.

Thank you for your peace offering, I accept and humbly return the offer of peace.