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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I do say so. And thanks for the "warning" ....

Also, if you're going to listen to Christians who tell you to follow or go to hell and then use that in a thread about evolution and intelligent design then I am highly disappointed. It's easy to bring the Bible up and then drag it down isn't it? Don't be that guy.

a reply to: MrConspiracy

Just giving you a frame of reference for why I say the line, "Evolution doesn't care if you believe in it," as a response to people who try to compare evolution to a religion.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I do say so. And thanks for the "warning" ....

Also, if you're going to listen to Christians who tell you to follow or go to hell and then use that in a thread about evolution and intelligent design then I am highly disappointed. It's easy to bring the Bible up and then drag it down isn't it? Don't be that guy.

Then why do people keep bringing up the Bible as evidence? Don't get mad if it doesn't pass inspection. This is a debate about intelligent design vs evolution (after a hubdred other threads or so), we would be remiss if we didn't ask these questions or address these concerns.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Just giving you a frame of reference for why I say the line, "Evolution doesn't care if you believe in it," as a response to people who try to compare evolution to a religion.

Ironically, I see evolutionists get more defensive when people say evolution is a sham, than a Christian when Christianity is said to be a sham.

Answer the paradox: How could the genes that code for the proteins involved in replication, transcription and translation have evolved when there were no proteins to forego such processes? All of these processes would have had to come into effect simultaneously, incomplete machinery would not suffice. Without replication you have no offspring, without transcription you have no mRNA, without translation you have no proteins - all of these processes require proteins which require genes. Not to mention all the necessary regulative agents that control said processes.

Phantom presented a web article with no source (which didn't even mention the materials, and involved [somewhat] intelligent researchers anyway). Can you do better?

Consoling each other will not give an answer to anything. Why not answer a question from the OP?

I say this to shake you to reason.

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
Consoling each other will not give an answer to anything. Why not answer a question from the OP?

I say this to shake you to reason.

No. No, you don't.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Just giving you a frame of reference for why I say the line, "Evolution doesn't care if you believe in it," as a response to people who try to compare evolution to a religion.

Evolution and religion aren't comparable. Whoever tries to do that, is ridiculous. (I'm not saying you) Evolution, as you pointed out, explains how life changes over time. The Bible doesn't eve touch on that. That's why the Bible, although important, should be taken for what it is. Ancient scripture written for the illiterate masses of the time. Also, a scripture that has been torn apart, changed and put back together countless times. Why people would compare this to Evolution is beyond me.

All I ever try and tell people is, there is more to our history than "we came from monkeys" which is what a lot of people jump to when they hear/see the word "Evolution" ... unfortunately. Evolution can only go so far and has not yet been categorically proven (in the search for OUR genesis) .. There's always a lot of "probably's" and "evidence points to.." ... we have to remember we are working with what humans have right now. We are limited. Theories (oops) be them scientific or otherwise, are vulnerable to change.... heck, even vulnerable to being made completely obsolete. The more science progresses the more it proves itself wrong.

I think we have a good idea with the theory of Evolution. But I worry for those who hang on to it for their life. That way, we're limiting ourself.

a reply to: MrConspiracy

Evolution can only account for the evidence we've discovered. It, like ALL scientific theories, are incomplete. Hence we accept that, no, evolution doesn't answer every question. If we had a complete scientific theory then it would describe literally EVERYTHING in the universe.

So saying things like, "Evolution doesn't answer everything," is a strawman statement since evolution never claimed to answer everything, even about the subject of evolution. There is clearly more to learn about evolution, since we learn new stuff about it all the time. So no one is saying that evolutionary theory in its present form is the end all be all answer to how we came to be.

originally posted by: cooperton
Ironically, I see evolutionists get more defensive when people say evolution is a sham, than a Christian when Christianity is said to be a sham.

Thanks for your anecdotal study into your perception biases.

Answer the paradox: How could the genes that code for the proteins involved in replication, transcription and translation have evolved when there were no proteins to forego such processes? All of these processes would have had to come into effect simultaneously, incomplete machinery would not suffice. Without replication you have no offspring, without transcription you have no mRNA, without translation you have no proteins - all of these processes require proteins which require genes. Not to mention all the necessary regulative agents that control said processes.

Check out the links I provided on the previous page.

Phantom presented a web article with no source (which didn't even mention the materials, and involved [somewhat] intelligent researchers anyway). Can you do better?

I already did.

a reply to: TzarChasm

So it isn't possible. And still you won't answer a question from the OP.


So I can neither shake you to reason, nor even think you are able to.

That is very enlightening. Not just you, I have met so many zealots like you who can't be shaken to reason, or to answer questions of their faith.

When I am asked something I give answers. To the questions. No one here has been able to. Not to a single question.

And they will not, and still, I feel that those people will think, like the Spanish Inquisitors of old, they hold all knowledge, without being able to answer a single question.

Lobe finned fish:
Lobe finned fish wiki
Ausrtalopithecines:
Australopithecines
Birds:
Origin of Birds wiki

The scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

Proof of evolution is just sitting there if anyone would bother to look at it. Was evolution directed by intelligent design? Probably impossible to prove or disprove. But to deny evolution as a process is just plain silly.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

You can't declare victory because you don't want to read the thread reponses. Though it is rather telling that you've started ignoring me since I posted those answers to your questions while talking to TzarChasm so you can declare victory because you think your (someone else's) Gish Gallop remains unanswered.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Lobe finned fish:
Lobe finned fish wiki
Ausrtalopithecines:
Australopithecines
Birds:
Origin of Birds wiki

The scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

Proof of evolution is just sitting there if anyone would bother to look at it. Was evolution directed by intelligent design? Probably impossible to prove or disprove. But to deny evolution as a process is just plain silly.

You said that without answering a single question from the OP. As anyone else.

Why is it, that everyone that believes in evolution cannot answer logical questions?

I can answer questions about my faith. Why can't you about yours?

This is the Catholic Inquisition all over again.

a reply to: Krazysh0t



You can't answer a single question. If you were able to, you would have. I don't have to declare anything. I am logical. I am not looking for victory.

You are. That is why you are projecting your own thoughts on me.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

"Answer the paradox: How could the genes that code for the proteins involved in replication, transcription and translation have evolved when there were no proteins to forego such processes? All of these processes would have had to come into effect simultaneously, incomplete machinery would not suffice. Without replication you have no offspring, without transcription you have no mRNA, without translation you have no proteins - all of these processes require proteins which require genes. Not to mention all the necessary regulative agents that control said processes."

I already did. Check out the links I provided on the previous page.

Not only are the articles you presented speculation, but all of the necessary framework for reproduction, transcription, translation, and regulation, would have all had to evolve simultaneously - evolution is impossible without all of these factors working completely. Do you speculate that all those speculative ideas of how these mechanisms evolved so happen to all evolve in one grand synchronous mutation without any intelligence involved? I haven't seen faith like this in all Israel! A shame its faith in nothing.

a reply to: cooperton

Do you speculate that all those speculative ideas of how these mechanisms evolved so happen to all evolve in one grand synchronous mutation without any intelligence involved? I haven't seen faith like this in all Israel! A shame its faith in nothing.

I speculate that you just dismissed tons of evidence due to flimsy reasoning and no substantive rebuttal to any of it. Which makes me speculate that you didn't read any of it.

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: Krazysh0t



You can't answer a single question. If you were able to, you would have. I don't have to declare anything. I am logical. I am not looking for victory.

You are. That is why you are projecting your own thoughts on me.

I DID answer your questions. You are just being stubborn because you acted all smug about your questions not getting answered (even though I doubt you understood the meaning of the questions you even asked). I suddenly don't believe you about your claim of having read every post in the thread. I'm pretty sure you just read the ones you agreed with and skimmed the dissents.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

Ok. We're done here. I don't feel like getting trolled any further.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I speculate that you just dismissed tons of evidence due to flimsy reasoning and no substantive rebuttal to any of it. Which makes me speculate that you didn't read any of it.

None of your articles give an explanation involving a simultaneous evolution of all of the 4 required mechanisms (reproduction, translation, transcription, and regulation). The articles you presented are filibusters at best. They cannot explain the blatant impossibility of evolving all 4 of these major requirements for a sustainable living organism.