The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LifeisGrand

Says the guy who is just dismissing a whole concept without actually attempting to understand the evidence that supports and identifies it as true. Like I said earlier. Better stop going to the doctors. Clearly none of that medicine should work.

I was waiting for you to respond. What you said matters little. Because it is false. And you know what you said is a lie. Because, while you claim to know I did not consider it, you KNOW I did.

Anyway, that isn't what this is about. Answer some of the OPs questions.

I wanted to say that. Because I know you can't. You can't answer a single one.

And yet you think you are smart.

Just like a Catholic when asked to defend his faith with the Bible.

Defend your faith. Answer his questions. Give him proof.

You can't.

Otherwise you would have. I already was waiting for your or anyone else to do so. And no one has. Only a militant zealotlike faith in something not provable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LifeisGrand

Says the guy who is just dismissing a whole concept without actually attempting to understand the evidence that supports and identifies it as true. Like I said earlier. Better stop going to the doctors. Clearly none of that medicine should work.

But then again it is easy to just say that evolution isn't true without taking the time to understand the aspects of modern life that you rely on that require evolution to be true in order for them to work. Go on and continue to lie to yourself and stick your head in the sand. Unlike the Bible, evolution doesn't care if you don't believe in it. It's going to happen regardless.

Your head sounds like it's buried next to him. Talk about being set in your ways.

Also, the Bible doesn't care if you believe in it. It's scripture for goodness sake, take it for what it is.

I personally don't believe Evolution is the complete story. I believe it has some truth to it, but It doesn't answer everything. So you being close minded, shouting praise from the rooftops about the evolution THEORY is just as harmful, if not more so, than those who believe in other theories... Be it "God" or otherwise.

Side note : From reading posts for many years it seems to me that those who don't 100% subscribe the evolution theory or those who maybe believe in intelligent design are a lot more willing to meet halfway. And being willing to understand and consider other people's theories is what gets you places. Being set on EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY WAY will get us NOWHERE.

a reply to: MrConspiracy

A rational reply.

I too have discerned this. This head might not be in the sand as much as you imagine. His is, there is no doubt about it.

If he is willing to answer 1 (ONE) single question of the OP I might change my mind.

No one else has. I don't think he will be able to. And he won't understand it, he will just, really I don't comprehend a mind that thinks like that. That is not able to answer a question and yet is so certain of itself.

When I am asked something either I know it, or I don't.

When I was a kid I thought I knew a lot, but then, now that I am not so young, I know more, but I know, I don't know so much.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: neoholographic

Can't watch the video at this time BUT

I'm sure this thread is going to be a fun one

Looking forward to hearing what folks have to say

Nothing that we haven't seen quite literally a hundred times already.

Where is ghost147? We could use that website of his. One-stop response to this malarkey.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I tend to disagree.


If you look, and I have, over the years, and many years. It is usually the same exact people who will argue with anyone that shows them logic evoltion isn't possible.

If you look at their posts, usually they are in the thousands or even tens of thousands.

It is the same people over and over. And you can explain things so simply and elegantly to them, and they will never ever ever answer you. They will always say the same things over and over and over. Much like a Catholic defending his faith.

You know Catholics are taught not to read the Holy Bible. And in the dark ages, if they even had a page their clergy would murder them for reading it.

Do you not see a pattern?

a reply to: LifeisGrand

Lol. What questions in the OP have I not answered? I've just reread the OP twice and don't see a single question mark or even a question without a question mark at the end.

As far as giving him proof. There is no need. He doesn't care about proof. Only to stand on his soapbox and say he is right. If he wanted proof, he'd go out and look for it. He'd attempt to read what the scientists are saying and identify actual flaws in the theory which he could then turn around and use as his position to debunk it. Instead he posts other people's work who don't even do a good job of trying to debunk evolution.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Your head sounds like it's buried next to him. Talk about being set in your ways.

If you say so.

Also, the Bible doesn't care if you believe in it. It's scripture for goodness sake, take it for what it is.

Not what I've heard from tons of Christians telling me I'm going to go to hell if I don't believe it.

I personally don't believe Evolution is the complete story. I believe it has some truth to it, but It doesn't answer everything. So you being close minded, shouting praise from the rooftops about the evolution THEORY is just as harmful, if not more so, than those who believe in other theories... Be it "God" or otherwise.

Evolution isn't a story. It is a process for how life develops. No # it doesn't answer everything. It doesn't attempt to answer everything. It just sets out to identify the process for how life develops and changes over time.

PS: Don't equate the layman's definition for theory with the scientific definition. That is a SUPER quick way to completely disregard every future thing you say on this subject because of you wilful ignorance. I saw you trying to do it with the enunciation of the word "theory", so I'm warning you now. You are treading down a path of extreme ignorance here.

Side note : From reading posts for many years it seems to me that those who don't 100% subscribe the evolution theory or those who maybe believe in intelligent design are a lot more willing to meet halfway. And being willing to understand and consider other people's theories is what gets you places. Being set on EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY WAY will get us NOWHERE.

I'm open to anything that has proof to substantiate it. I won't blindly believe in an idea just because someone said it is true. Which is the case for the ID argument. If you want me to believe it, produce scientific evidence of it being true. Trust me. I'll change my tune.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is not true, I have read thru this thread since it began and I saw many questions he gave that no one has answered. Many of them. Why are you asking me. They are already here. You didn't even see them did you? That does not surprise me.

Well here are a few of them:

How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

Why does the repressor attach itself to the operator and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why does the repressor attach to the operator when lactose isn't present and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why do you have promoter, operator then genes and how did this sequence evolve?

What stops the RNA Polymerase when the repressor is attached to the operator? Why can't it express the lac genes and how did this mechanism evolve?

How did Repressors, Enhancers and Activators evolve and how did the mechanics evolve for there role in gene regulation?

Which evolved first the enhancers, activators, promoter region or DNA coding sequence and how did the mechanics evolve?

How did the bending protein evolve and how did the mechanics evolve where the bending protein folds the DNA strand to the spot near the promoter which activates gene expression?

Why does the activators attach themselves to the enhancers and how did the mechanics evolve?

Which evolved first gene regulation or gene expression? How did these things evolve and how did the mechanics evolve?

Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes. Which evolved first, how did it evolve and how did the mechanics evolve? Did the expression come before the regulation or did they both just magically appear as a system that works beautifully together?


Feel free to look back and see how many times these questions were asked. And feel free to answer any of them,.

I don't think you will though.

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: TzarChasm

I tend to disagree.


If you look, and I have, over the years, and many years. It is usually the same exact people who will argue with anyone that shows them logic evoltion isn't possible.

If you look at their posts, usually they are in the thousands or even tens of thousands.

It is the same people over and over. And you can explain things so simply and elegantly to them, and they will never ever ever answer you. They will always say the same things over and over and over. Much like a Catholic defending his faith.

You know Catholics are taught not to read the Holy Bible. And in the dark ages, if they even had a page their clergy would murder them for reading it.

Do you not see a pattern?

I strongly recommend you check out the ATS search engine. There are a hundred threads dedicated to the evidence.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You would lose. Anyway answer any question in the post above your last one. Thanks.

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: TzarChasm

You would lose. Anyway answer any question in the post above your last one. Thanks.

I'm just going to sit back and watch this happen. Too many threads already exist in this topic, you just gotta do a little legwork. And that doesn't mean trying to trip other people up.

Here is a resource for your perusal.

ats-library.wix.com...

a reply to: TzarChasm

I've been reading the threads here for 10 years.

And I have studied much more than you can imagine.

Really. Your answer doesn't tell me anything but, that you are perhaps someone that is distracting from the OP and the answers.

You yourself cannot answer any of them can you? In your throne of opulence? Can you? I have 100% certainty you can't, and will not even hint at the fact that you have no idea.

I have just been observing. How many others have been. And realize the fool you are.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

All of those questions can be answered with a google search. So because someone hasn't bothered to do that google search, that means there aren't answers to them? Figures. This is bush league level arguing, but hey I'll humor you and do the google searches.

How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

answer

Why does the repressor attach itself to the operator and how did the mechanics evolve?

answer 1
A study
Answer 2

Why does the repressor attach to the operator when lactose isn't present and how did the mechanics evolve?

Answered previously

Why do you have promoter, operator then genes and how did this sequence evolve?

Answer 1
Answer 2

What stops the RNA Polymerase when the repressor is attached to the operator?
Why can't it express the lac genes and how did this mechanism evolve?

Answer to all three questions

How did Repressors, Enhancers and Activators evolve and how did the mechanics evolve for there role in gene regulation?

Study

Which evolved first the enhancers, activators, promoter region or DNA coding sequence and how did the mechanics evolve?

Answer

How did the bending protein evolve and how did the mechanics evolve where the bending protein folds the DNA strand to the spot near the promoter which activates gene expression?

Answer

Why does the activators attach themselves to the enhancers and how did the mechanics evolve?

This question has been thoroughly answered in my previous links.

Which evolved first gene regulation or gene expression? How did these things evolve and how did the mechanics evolve?

Answer

Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes. Which evolved first, how did it evolve and how did the mechanics evolve? Did the expression come before the regulation or did they both just magically appear as a system that works beautifully together?

See the previous link

I didn't bother to actually quote any text, because you didn't bother to actually form a cogent argument. Just ask a bunch of questions in the form of a Gish Gallop. No wait, check that. Ask a bunch of someone ELSE'S questions in the form of a Gish Gallop. So feel free to read through the links and educate yourself. I just KNOW you'll be sure to deny some ignorance here and not blindly side with the OP just because he's capable of asking questions he doesn't care to look for the answers.

^^^ I was waiting for this, smarty pants. (Lifeisgrand, not krazy [see what happened there?])

Your turn. Substantiate or suffocate. Present your alternative theory and accompanying data, please.

His work on evolution hasnt been peer reviewed, at least in my short research. He also is religious because he believes in god, intelligent design, and young earth creationism.

He is clearly bias.

You say evolution relies more on aspects of belief than we thought? Well intelligent design relies on 1000000x more faith. Thats the problem with religious folk. Any holes or blanks in the puzzle of life is God.

This man is clearly very intelligent, but it seems clear that he working to prove intelligent design. Instead of working to discover awnsers.

Thats just my opinion though.

originally posted by: schuyler
The interesting thing about paleontology is that for a couple hundred years all we had were the bones. And at first we only had a few of them and data was sparse, but we put together a picture of human evolution that showed clear advances over time. There never was a "missing link." That was just your MSM in action. And as we dug more and found more that picture of human evolution began to fill in. The gaps were fewer and we also found that it was a lot more complicated than we first figured. We've got it pretty well down to Homo erectus. After that it gets sparse again, but the overall picture is clear. Lucy, or one of her cousins, is our ancestor.

Then along DNA, a COMPLETELY different science, and guess what? DNA says, "You were right!" DNA complements paleontology; it does not contradict it in the least. Indeed, we can now find neanderthal and Denisovan genes in ourselves. We are part Neanderthal, which was an offshoot, not a predecessor species. And as our techniques get better and more refined, we'll find even more similarities.

So, yes, we did evolve from an ape. We didn't evolve from modern apes, of course. That should go without saying in any educated group, but so many of us do not make the distinction. Apes are as evolved as we are. They evolved in parallel to us from the same distant ancestor. And somewhat over 99% of our genes are the same. The DNA proves it.

There's no reason any of this has to contradict Intelligent Design. You can easily have both with no contradictions. You can say and justify that "Yes, Evolution is true and yes, Intelligent Design is true." What you CANNOT do is claim the world was made in 4004 BC and God placed humans on the Earth fully formed. That has no credibility AT ALL and should be relegated to children's myths along with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

And if you profess such nonsense, you belong to the Ignorant Class. NOBODY needs to take you seriously.

Stellar post, but if I may...WE evolved from proto-sapiens, not apes. Apes evolved into what would eventually produce those proto-sapiens.

And still they cannot answer a single question the OP has given them.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

Ok. Troll confirmed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LifeisGrand

Ok. Troll confirmed.

Did you honestly expect anything else when you clicked on the title?

I'm still waiting on this marvelous alternative theory.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Of course not. That's why my first post in the thread was this:

Everyone who doesn't believe in Evolutionary theory should stop going to the doctor immediately. Most modern medicines and medical techniques are developed assuming the theory is true.

And not a well reasoned breakdown on the flaws in the OP's arguments.

Like flies to honey. These threads always attract the same fools with the same foolish arguments.