PDA

View Full Version : For those of you who do not accept the theory of evolution.



PixelVibration
05-22-2010, 08:56 PM
I would like to know your theory on how we came to be on this planet and is it any more plausible than the theory of evolution?

I would like to start off by saying I am sort of a "deist". I believe in "something" that created this universe for a purpose other than human beings( or at least not making us the focus point of the universe).

But creating the universe and the process of evolution are two different things. Whether or not there is a god, evolution explains how simple life forms gradually evolve into more complicated beings.

Now can creationists and other people who don't accept evolution to be true explain to me in detail how we came to be?

( By details I mean steps.... for example: 1. a turtle farted and made luminescent balls of gas 2. one of those turned into our sun)

Ebola_Virus
05-22-2010, 08:59 PM
I would like to know your theory on how we came to be on this planet and is it any more plausible than the theory of evolution?

I would like to start off by saying I am sort of a "deist". I believe in "something" that created this universe for a purpose other than human beings( or at least not making us the focus point of the universe).

But creating the universe and the process of evolution are two different things. Evolution explains whether or not there is a god, how simple life forms gradually evolve into more complicated beings.

Now can creationists and other people who don't accept evolution to be true explain to me in detail how we came to be?

( By details I mean steps.... for example: 1. a turtle farted and made luminescent balls of gas 2. one of those turned into our sun)



I stopped reading right there.

PixelVibration
05-22-2010, 09:01 PM
I stopped reading right there.

Edited fool, I was tired.

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 01:58 AM
I guess evolution is accepted by everyone.

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 02:00 AM
I accept the theory of evolution, but I believe in God or in a plain and simple word: a creator, a divine being. Plain and simple. Now where should we take this argument from here?

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 02:02 AM
I stopped reading right there.

Yeah, because you cannot believe in God and science, right? I like it when people try to tell you what you can or cannot believe in.

Infusco
05-23-2010, 02:05 AM
I accept the theory of evolution, but I believe in God or in a plain and simple word: a creator, a divine being. Plain and simple. Now where should we take this argument from here?

How about toward the question of why 99.9% of God's creations have become extinct?

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 02:09 AM
To the thread starter, you use a "god of the gaps argument" which is unintelligent. Learn how to argue better, plus the things you say sound stupid. "A turtle farted." Who says garbage like that? When has a comment like that even been brought up, ever? No one in religion knows how life was created, but you wont get me to argue about science that humans have discovered, because I believe in education/science and the humans brain power 100%.


To Infuscio, that should be a belief in God in itself. 0.01% of life has survived which means life is uncommon, especially on other planets (as of now, 05/23/2010 - we cannot prove in life on other planets - however in my opinion life exists on the sun, and just a planet "existing" that is life, in my opinion. it could be bacteria we cannot see yet. how could one argue that fire is not life? which is the sun.)

God or a creator in other words, created life and allowed it to run its course. Be it survive, or die with no interference. Its not barbaric, its "life." The whole purpose of life to live, breed, and die. If you do not breed your species dies, and no one can be blamed but your species. We as humans have survived due to sole brain power. Why are we the only species with brains large enough to control the world? One species out of billions that has a brain capable of ANYTHING. Sounds to me like it was created in this manner. A little to perfect eh? A little perfect to be: "the blank universe was hot and over 14 million years exploaded into the perfect earth as we know it." Yes, earth, and life is perfect, too perfect to just be "because it just happened like this." This could be just a figment of imagination, we could be bacteria on some peetree dish of a much larger form of life. There are countless things this could be. But it is much bigger then us. But thats just MY opinion, who am I to tell YOU what to believe? No one.

Infusco
05-23-2010, 02:12 AM
To Infuscio, that should be a belief in God in itself. 0.01% of life has survived which means life is uncommon, especially on other planets (as of now, 05/23/2010 - we cannot prove in life on other planets - however in my opinion life exists on the sun, and just a planet "existing" that is life, in my opinion. it could be bacteria we cannot see yet. how could one argue that fire is not life? which is the sun.)

God or a creator in other words, created life and allowed it to run its course. Be it survive, or die with no interference. Its not barbaric, its "life." The whole purpose of life to live, breed, and die. If you do not breed your species dies, and no one can be blamed but your species. We as humans have survived due to sole brain power.

I should have been more specific, I was talking about 99.9% of creations on our earth. If God has created life here on this planet, why has he let the vast majority of it to become extinct? It would be a cruel God who creates life and then kills most of it, would it not?

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 02:14 AM
I accept the theory of evolution, but I believe in God or in a plain and simple word: a creator, a divine being. Plain and simple. Now where should we take this argument from here?

There is no argument. People who do not accept the theory of evolution whether theist or atheist are supposed to give us an idea of what kind of theory they believe in and why.

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 02:17 AM
To the thread starter, you use a "god of the gaps argument" which is unintelligent. Learn how to argue better, plus the things you say sound stupid. "A turtle farted." Who says garbage like that? When has a comment like that even been brought up, ever? No one in religion knows how life was created, but you wont get me to argue about science that humans have discovered, because I believe in education/science and the humans brain power 100%.


God of the gaps argument is not unintelligent when dealing with theists. With deists, it is different. Theists believe that there is a personal god who answers prayers, cares about your sex life, unconditionally loves you...etc. I am going to assume you are a deist because you said that you just believe in something which created this universe and let things go on from there. We have similar beliefs if you read my OP.

The farting turtle was an example. I asked for peoples theory on how the universe came to be or how life started " for example: a turtle farted".

It is also ironic how you ask me to argue better when you can't even form a coherent statement.


"No one in religion knows how life was created, but you wont get me to argue about science that humans have discovered, because I believe in education/science and the humans brain power 100%."

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 02:32 AM
God of the gaps argument is not unintelligent when dealing with theists. With deists, it is different. Theists believe that there is a personal god who answers prayers, cares about your sex life, unconditionally loves you...etc. I am going to assume you are a deist because you said that you just believe in something which created this universe and let things go on from there. We have similar beliefs if you read my OP.

The farting turtle was an example. I asked for peoples theory on how the universe came to be or how life started " for example: a turtle farted".

It is also ironic how you ask me to argue better when you can't even form a coherent statement.


"No one in religion knows how life was created, but you wont get me to argue about science that humans have discovered, because I believe in education/science and the humans brain power 100%."

I made a typo, I was trying to type fast. I wanted to say: "No one who believes in religion or God, can give the details as to how life was created. But you wont get me to argue about sciencific discoveries because I believe in education/science and the humans brain power 100%."

Pretty big typo huh? I wont lie, it was incoherent.

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 02:36 AM
I made a typo, I was trying to type fast. I wanted to say: "No one who believes in religion or God, can give the details as to how life was created. But you wont get me to argue about sciencific discoveries because I believe in education/science and the humans brain power 100%."

Pretty big typo huh? I wont lie, it was incoherent.

Well okay then, but I guess you are on the pro-evolution side of the argument. Why are you arguing with me! >=[

No im just playing, I am still waiting for those against the theory of evolution to come and tell us their theories.

BetterBehaved
05-23-2010, 03:20 AM
OP evolution is fake, this is common knowledge. The big bang is also false, our universe was created in what is known as the big boom.

The true story is that one day God was really bored and horny so he decided to jerk it. All of a sudden, BOOM! protein was everywhere. This protein created the world as we know it.

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 03:25 AM
OP evolution is fake, this is common knowledge. The big bang is also false, our universe was created in what is known as the big boom.

The true story is that one day God was really bored and horny so he decided to jerk it. All of a sudden, BOOM! protein was everywhere. This protein created the world as we know it.

you need to provide some evidence.

Infusco
05-23-2010, 03:32 AM
While this thread doesn't have any creationists in it to defend the glory of God, would you care to outline why you think of yourself as a deist OP?

BetterBehaved
05-23-2010, 03:38 AM
you need to provide some evidence.

http://www.lowcostvitamins.net/images/designer.jpg

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 03:47 AM
While this thread doesn't have any creationists in it to defend the glory of God, would you care to outline why you think of yourself as a deist OP?

I don't believe that something can come from nothing. Therefore, I attribute the existence of this universe to a creator, whether it be foaming bubble of multi-verses, an intelligent toad, or a box of cereal... I am just saying it could be anything but I don't think that all this came from nothing.

I also consider myself a deist because I do not automatically assume that everything needs a purpose, or that there is a god who answers prayers, watches over you 24/7.....etc ( religious stuff)

I saw the video of Lawrence Krauss " A universe from nothing". It doesn't explain how something can come from nothing, but from quantum fluctuations and things of that sort. The "nothingness" he is talking about isn't really nothing in itself.

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 03:49 AM
http://www.lowcostvitamins.net/images/designer.jpg

That isn't evidence. What you did is kind of like a creationist going

" God made the universe"

I go " show me evidence"

" The universe is evidence"

You need to provide us evidence of God jerking off and blowing protein everywhere, thus creating the universe and the life in it.

Infusco
05-23-2010, 03:53 AM
I don't believe that something can come from nothing. Therefore, I attribute the existence of this universe to a creator, whether it be foaming bubble of multi-verses, an intelligent toad, or a box of cereal... I am just saying it could be anything but I don't think that all this came from nothing.

I also consider myself a deist because I do not automatically assume that everything needs a purpose, or that there is a god who answers prayers, watches over you 24/7.....etc ( religious stuff)

I saw the video of Lawrence Krauss " A universe from nothing". It doesn't explain how something can come from nothing, but from quantum fluctuations and things of that sort. The "nothingness" he is talking about isn't really nothing in itself.

Ha that Krauss video, awesome as it is, does get waved around a lot in these forums.

How do you account for the existence of a creator though? If the universe does not come from nothing, how does a god come from nothing?

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 04:00 AM
Ha that Krauss video, awesome as it is, does get waved around a lot in these forums.

How do you account for the existence of a creator though? If the universe does not come from nothing, how does a god come from nothing?

Never said it didn't, which is the beauty of deism. I don't even try to imagine what created this universe. Like I said, it could be anything such as a multi-verse.

I would imagine the creator of this universe would have had to have been created also... and so on. I am just guessing.

Infusco
05-23-2010, 04:15 AM
Never said it didn't, which is the beauty of deism. I don't even try to imagine what created this universe. Like I said, it could be anything such as a multi-verse.

I would imagine the creator of this universe would have had to have been created also... and so on. I am just guessing.

Fair enough. I think the reason I'm not a deist is that if this universe requires a creator on the grounds that something cannot come from nothing, the deist, it seems to me, doesn't maintain that requirement as far as it should extend. As you said, the creator of this universe would have had to have been created and therefore the creator's creator requires a creator, so you still seem to end up with an infinite regression towards something that has come from nothing. The only escape is to posit that something can come from nothing, and if you're willing to accept that, then there's no reason to go beyond saying our universe could have come into existence out of nothing, and just do away with creators.

Just my thoughts on the matter. I should be planning a short story and studying for exams, which is why I'm posting here.

BetterBehaved
05-23-2010, 04:48 AM
That isn't evidence. What you did is kind of like a creationist going

" God made the universe"

I go " show me evidence"

" The universe is evidence"

You need to provide us evidence of God jerking off and blowing protein everywhere, thus creating the universe and the life in it.

urine idiot

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 04:51 AM
Fair enough. I think the reason I'm not a deist is that if this universe requires a creator on the grounds that something cannot come from nothing, the deist, it seems to me, doesn't maintain that requirement as far as it should extend. As you said, the creator of this universe would have had to have been created and therefore the creator's creator requires a creator, so you still seem to end up with an infinite regression towards something that has come from nothing. The only escape is to posit that something can come from nothing, and if you're willing to accept that, then there's no reason to go beyond saying our universe could have come into existence out of nothing, and just do away with creators.

Just my thoughts on the matter. I should be planning a short story and studying for exams, which is why I'm posting here.

I think I know where you are getting at. Do you mean that even if this universe had to have come from something, there would have to have been an infinite amount of creators, each creating the one before, and that doesn't lead us to anywhere. Therefore, it is safe to say that before existence of any kind even beyond this universe, there must have been nothing?

^ I am just trying to interpret what you are saying.


Fukk the human brain we are so stupid. =[

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 04:52 AM
urine idiot

noe aime naht.

Infusco
05-23-2010, 05:19 AM
I think I know where you are getting at. Do you mean that even if this universe had to have come from something, there would have to have been an infinite amount of creators, each creating the one before, and that doesn't lead us to anywhere. Therefore, it is safe to say that before existence of any kind even beyond this universe, there must have been nothing?

^ I am just trying to interpret what you are saying.


Fukk the human brain we are so stupid. =[

Yeah, I think you get what I mean.

Unfortunately I can only define my own position on something-out-of-nothing by what it is not. Partly because I haven't considered it long enough, I'm ignorant of too much of cosmology and the possibility that we may not be able to understand this for a long, long time.

I don't know if something can come from nothing. I just don't think that the deistic/theistic position is any better than 'I don't know' because both seem to implicitly rely on something coming from nothing anyway. To over-simplify enormously:

Deist: The universe came from a creator, but I don't know how the creator of all creators came to be.
Non-deist: I don't know how the universe came to be.

Both positions seem forced to rely on saying something could at some point have arisen from nothing. To me, deism just adds another step before having to say so.

Looking back at your quote you basically summarised what I said the first time well enough lol. Only the last sentence, "Therefore, it is safe to say that before existence of any kind even beyond this universe, there must have been nothing?", I'd be slightly wary of committing to. It's what I feel the logic in some ways points towards, but then to say that something can come from nothing is illogical in practically any other situation.

I think the only thing that's safe to say in relation to this topic is that we don't know enough :p

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 06:01 AM
I stopped reading right there.

No it doesn't.

LOL

One of my buddies posted this as his status the other week. :/

http://i40.tinypic.com/1zwp53l.jpg

Fuuu

riptor
05-23-2010, 09:02 AM
He uses Lee Strobbel and Jonathan Wells as his scientists who reject evolution? Wow. Strobbel isn't even a scientist at all, and even though Wells does have a PhD in biology he doesn't actually do anything with it other than write crappy creationists books and give lectures on Intelligent Design.

If you look at the reason why Wells rejects evolution, it has nothing to do with the evidence but with his religious beliefs. He rejects it because he is a member of the Unification Church and it goes against their doctrines.


Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm

GoJu
05-23-2010, 09:34 AM
OP evolution is fake, this is common knowledge. The big bang is also false, our universe was created in what is known as the big boom.

The true story is that one day God was really bored and horny so he decided to jerk it. All of a sudden, BOOM! protein was everywhere. This protein created the world as we know it.

that's the egyptian creation myth (srs)

Galvatorex
05-23-2010, 10:20 AM
I should have been more specific, I was talking about 99.9% of creations on our earth. If God has created life here on this planet, why has he let the vast majority of it to become extinct? It would be a cruel God who creates life and then kills most of it, would it not?

A god that sets things in motion then backs off so he doesnt interfere with our free will

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 01:41 PM
A god that sets things in motion then backs off so he doesnt interfere with our free will

God*

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 01:45 PM
He uses Lee Strobbel and Jonathan Wells as his scientists who reject evolution? Wow. Strobbel isn't even a scientist at all, and even though Wells does have a PhD in biology he doesn't actually do anything with it other than write crappy creationists books and give lectures on Intelligent Design.

If you look at the reason why Wells rejects evolution, it has nothing to do with the evidence but with his religious beliefs. He rejects it because he is a member of the Unification Church and it goes against their doctrines.



http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm

Where were you on the 12th, lol.

I didn't know that about either Strobbel or Wells other than him holding two PhDs. How can Wells make even the slightest case against evolution without conducting any research? Sounds like he just says, "i has pHd in brobiology, which makes me infallible"

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 02:55 PM
The people speaking in this thread, are you talking about evolution in the sense that: "humans evolved from apes" or in the sense that of "surival of the fittest" or in the case of the peppered moth example where the moth "changed colors to adapt to its enviornment."

I 100% believe in surival of the fittest, the peppered moth case, and most theories of evolution that Darwin has proved, but not in the sense that apes turned into humans.

GoJu
05-23-2010, 03:04 PM
The people speaking in this thread, are you talking about evolution in the sense that: "humans evolved from apes" or in the sense that of "surival of the fittest" or in the case of the peppered moth example where the moth "changed colors to adapt to its enviornment."

I 100% believe in surival of the fittest, the peppered moth case, and most theories of evolution that Darwin has proved, but not in the sense that apes turned into humans.

its the same thing, sorry bub, humans didn't turn into apes though we ARE apes

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 03:08 PM
its the same thing, sorry bub, humans didn't turn into apes though we ARE apes

No its not the same thing at all, "bub." Our genes are different from apes which means we would have had to do a complete 360 to seperate ourselfs from apes: bones, strength, intelligence, speech, needing to cook meat, etc.

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 03:15 PM
The people speaking in this thread, are you talking about evolution in the sense that: "humans evolved from apes" or in the sense that of "surival of the fittest" or in the case of the peppered moth example where the moth "changed colors to adapt to its enviornment."

I 100% believe in surival of the fittest, the peppered moth case, and most theories of evolution that Darwin has proved, but not in the sense that apes turned into humans.

Neither...

Both are horrible explanations of Evolution. :rolleyes:

Humans and chimps/apes share a common ancestor and evolved seperately.

"Survival of the fittest" is a tautology, which requires no further explanation as to why it's stupid to say.

Oh, and the moths didn't "change color" to blend in. They already had that color in their genes. After the industrial revolution, it allowed moths that were black(resembling ash) to blend in better.

GoJu
05-23-2010, 03:15 PM
No its not the same thing at all, "bub." Our genes are different from apes which means we would have had to do a complete 360 to seperate ourselfs from apes: bones, strength, intelligence, speech, needing to cook meat, etc.

we are different from chimps (closest living relative) by 1 gene though they are our cousins rather than direct ancestors 'bubski'

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 03:19 PM
we are different from chimps (closest living relative) by 1 gene though they are our cousins rather than direct ancestors 'bubski'

Birds can also be linked to dinosaurs. So what is your point?

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 03:19 PM
we are different from chimps (closest living relative) by 1 gene though they are our cousins rather than direct ancestors 'bubski'

It's more than that... We share between 95-98.5% genomic homology between homo sapiens and chimps.

PixelVibration
05-23-2010, 03:49 PM
Birds can also be linked to dinosaurs. So what is your point?

A bird is not as closely related to a dinosaur as a human is to a chimp. A human is 95-100% related to a chimp as far as DNA is concerned.

You hold no background in biology.... I suggest you.........shaddafawk up.

EDIT: snails can be linked to a armadillo.... So what is your point? A tree can be linked to a toad.... what is your point? Your mom can be linked to my mom..... So what is your point?

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 04:18 PM
A bird is not as closely related to a dinosaur as a human is to a chimp. A human is 95-100% related to a chimp as far as DNA is concerned.

You hold no background in biology.... I suggest you.........shaddafawk up.

EDIT: snails can be linked to a armadillo.... So what is your point? A tree can be linked to a toad.... what is your point? Your mom can be linked to my mom..... So what is your point?

Humans can theoretically be linked to cabbage and venus fly traps. :rolleyes:

Infusco
05-23-2010, 04:39 PM
A god that sets things in motion then backs off so he doesnt interfere with our free will

Either God created the conditions required for evolution (the creation of the first self-replicating cell or whatever) and then stepped back so as to not 'interfere with our free will', or God guided the whole process.

If God started the process of evolution and then did nothing more, then there was never any intent on his part to create humans. We are simply the fortunate winners of billions of years worth of evolution.

If God did guide the evolutionary process towards humans, then he is responsible for the extinction of almost everything that ever lived.


Seriously though, evolution has nothing to do with free will lolwut.

ONtop888
05-23-2010, 05:57 PM
Either God created the conditions required for evolution (the creation of the first self-replicating cell or whatever) and then stepped back so as to not 'interfere with our free will', or God guided the whole process.

If God started the process of evolution and then did nothing more, then there was never any intent on his part to create humans. We are simply the fortunate winners of billions of years worth of evolution.

If God did guide the evolutionary process towards humans, then he is responsible for the extinction of almost everything that ever lived.


Seriously though, evolution has nothing to do with free will lolwut.

Infusco, I replied to your thread a while back about God and evolution.

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 07:15 PM
A bird is not as closely related to a dinosaur as a human is to a chimp. A human is 95-100% related to a chimp as far as DNA is concerned.

You hold no background in biology.... I suggest you.........shaddafawk up.

EDIT: snails can be linked to a armadillo.... So what is your point? A tree can be linked to a toad.... what is your point? Your mom can be linked to my mom..... So what is your point?

Well mice and humans are 60% linked so whats your point? Trees cannot be linked to toads. Human genomes have 3.25 billion pairs which is why they are linked so closely to lots of animals. Holding a background in biolgy has what to do with reading and learning on your own? I dont remember biology classes talking about evolution, it talks about cells, plants, and anatomy, depending on what field of medicine or health youre trying to pursue. And actually a few years ago scientists said that chimps and humans are not as closely linked as once thought:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

ONtop888
05-23-2010, 07:17 PM
Well mice and humans are 60% linked so whats your point? Trees cannot be linked to toads. Human genomes have 3.25 billion pairs which is why they are linked so closely to lots of animals. Holding a background in biolgy has what to do with reading and learning on your own? I dont remember biology classes talking about evolution, it talks about cells, plants, and anatomy, depending on what field of medicine or health youre trying to pursue. And actually a few years ago scientists said that chimps and humans are not as closely linked as once thought:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

LOL wuttttt????

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 07:22 PM
LOL wuttttt????

I never learned about evolution in any biology class ive taken. The first time I learned about evolution in any class ive taken was anthropolgy, which has nothing to do with the study of science unless we're talking science of specific cultures.

ONtop888
05-23-2010, 07:23 PM
I never learned about evolution in any biology class ive taken. The first time I learned about evolution in any class ive taken was anthropolgy, has nothing to do with the study of science unless we're talking science of specific cultures.

It has everything to do with science, and anthropology consults evolution to further understand the anthropological archives of human history.

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 07:29 PM
It has everything to do with science, and anthropology consults evolution to further understand the anthropological archives of human history.

I just took an anthropology class and got an A and youre going to argue with me on what I learned? They briefly spoke about evolution maybe two times in all three books I read in the class.

When did I say evolution had nothing to do with science? I said I never once heard it any biology class I took, and I took two. One was about plant and cells, the other was about anaomty and the human body: genomes, etc.

I made a typo: I said "anthropology has nothing to do with science, unless it the science a particular culture uses." Anthropology is the study of culture, not science or evolution. Evolution is not culture, its science.

ONtop888
05-23-2010, 07:34 PM
I just took an anthropology class and got an A and youre going to argue with me on what I learned? They briefly spoke about evolution maybe two times in all three books I read in the class.
I have taken anthropology classes and received A's as well. I'm not arguing that evolution doesn't play an important role in anthropology, so I'm not sure where you are coming up with that.


When did I say evolution had nothing to do with science? I said I never once heard it any biology class I took, and I took two. One was about plant and cells, the other was about anaomty and the human body: genomes, etc.

I made a typo: I said "anthropology has nothing to do with science, unless it the science a particular culture uses." Anthropology is the study of culture, not science or evolution. Evolution is not culture, its science.

That's fine. Your typo is the reason why I thought that you believe that evolution has nothing to do with science. I am, however, still astonished that you have taken multiple biology classes, and never learned about evolution. Did you take them in college? Was your school accredited?

blip63
05-23-2010, 07:41 PM
i just took an anthropology class and got an a and youre going to argue with me on what i learned?

owned!

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 07:45 PM
Well mice and humans are 60% linked so whats your point? Trees cannot be linked to toads. Human genomes have 3.25 billion pairs which is why they are linked so closely to lots of animals. Holding a background in biolgy has what to do with reading and learning on your own? I dont remember biology classes talking about evolution, it talks about cells, plants, and anatomy, depending on what field of medicine or health youre trying to pursue. And actually a few years ago scientists said that chimps and humans are not as closely linked as once thought:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

Dude, STOP talking. You know next to nothing about evolution... It was funny, now it is getting annoying.

Toads and Trees CAN be linked. You just have to go way, way back to find a common ancestor. Around the time that a small bacterium underwent endosymbiosis to form chloroplasts would do it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Phylogenetic_tree.svg/800px-Phylogenetic_tree.svg.png

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 07:50 PM
So your going to link trees and toads with a cell that has no nucleus? Thats how you link things together? Cells that have no nucleus? So if I catch the same bacteria that a 10 million year old bird has, that means your linked together, in your opinion? You said it yourself: "go way, way, way back." Bacteria lives in the air, ground, etc, Bacteria has evolved to survive conditions and w have evolved to survive bacteria.

That chart didnt prove any link except for the fact we all share the same bacteria, so bacteria links us. What does that have to do with evolution, besiders evolving to survive bacteria, or bacteria evoving itself.

So in your opinion, or the scientific communites opinion, that toads, animals, humans etc, can be linked to trees or anything in general, because they were infected, or came accross the same bacterium? A 180 million year old bacterium that has survived for 200 + million years. So our link is bacteria, not DNA, which means we are not really linked afterall, besides bacterium. Right? Thats your argument.

-Edit

Of course your going to use personal attacks on me to make yourself sound smarter because I dont agree with you, thats what most people do. But anything can be linked because we live on EARTH, and share the same air, bacteria, etc. What does that have to do with humans being evolving from chimps? As far as im concerned we are linked so closely to animals because we have organs and vitals versues a tree or a plant. What does that have to do with evolution?

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 08:17 PM
So your going to link trees and toads with a cell that has no nucleus? Thats how you link things together? Cells that have no nucleus? So if I catch the same bacteria that a 10 million year old bird has, that means your linked together, in your opinion? You said it yourself: "go way, way, way back." Bacteria lives in the air, ground, etc, Bacteria has evolved to survive conditions and w have evolved to survive bacteria.

That chart didnt prove any link except for the fact we all share the same bacteria, so bacteria links us. What does that have to do with evolution, besiders evolving to survive bacteria, or bacteria evoving itself.

So in your opinion, or the scientific communites opinion, that toads, animals, humans etc, can be linked to trees or anything in general, because they were infected, or came accross the same bacterium? A 180 million year old bacterium that has survived for 200 + million years. So our link is bacteria, not DNA, which means we are not really linked afterall, besides bacterium. Right? Thats your argument.

-Edit

Of course your going to use personal attacks on me to make yourself sound smarter because I dont agree with you, thats what most people do. But anything can be linked because we live on EARTH, and share the same air, bacteria, etc. What does that have to do with humans being evolving from chimps? As far as im concerned we are linked so closely to animals because we have organs and vitals versues a tree or a plant. What does that have to do with evolution?

I'm an expert compared to you. And, I give direct criticism when needed. :D

I was going to explain everything because I pitied your knowledge, or lack-thereof, in regards to evolution and Biology in general.

I hope you're just trolling... If not, you may find these terms helpful:
- Fronkey
- Crocoduck
- Endosymbiosis
- Origin of Eukaryotes
- Invagination
- Phagocytosis
- Vertical / Horizontal Gene transfer
EDIT: - Common ancestor and Last Universal Ancestor(LUCA)

http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/crocoduck.jpg

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 08:37 PM
I'm an expert compared to you. And, I give direct criticism when needed. :D

I was going to explain everything because I pitied your knowledge, or lack-thereof, in regards to evolution and Biology in general.

I hope you're just trolling... If not, you may find these terms helpful:
- Fronkey
- Crocoduck
- Endosymbiosis
- Origin of Eukaryotes
- Invagination
- Phagocytosis
- Vertical / Horizontal Gene transfer
EDIT: - Common ancestor and Last Universal Ancestor(LUCA)

http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/crocoduck.jpg

Usually people who claim how smart they are its usually the opposite. What did you just prove, that you know a couple names? You didnt answer one question. And thanks for posting that Crocoduck, I forgot which animal it was. That crockduck was actually used to flaw the theory of evolution, good job, self proclaimed genius. Thanks for posting it: "We called one a 'Crocoduck' and another was called a 'birddog.' This was to show exactly what evolutionists believe, but can't back up through the fossil record." - Kirk Cameron / Ray Comfort, who are real scientists.

According to Dawkins, another REAL scientist, I quote: "the evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins included a section titled 'Show me your crocoduck!' in which he compared this to the question put by another creationist as to why there was no transitional fossil "fronkey" between frogs and monkeys, and described it as a warped misunderstanding of evolution. Modern species share a common ancestor, but are neither descended from each other nor from some crude composite chimera, and ducks are not descended from crocodiles." I know how to bold text too.

So in other words, a toad cannot be linked to a tree just because it shares a common ancestor which happens to be bacterium.

Dont believe me, email Dawkins, i'm sure when hes not busy he'll answer your personal attacks about how much smarter you are then him.

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 08:52 PM
Usually people who claim how smart they are its usually the opposite. What did you just prove, that you know a couple names? You didnt answer one question. And thanks for posting that Crocoduck, I forgot which animal it was. That crockduck was actually used to flaw the theory of evolution, good job, self proclaimed genius. Thanks for posting it: "We called one a 'Crocoduck' and another was called a 'birddog.' This was to show exactly what evolutionists believe, but can't back up through the fossil record." - Kirk Cameron / Ray Comfort, who are real scientists.

According to Dawkins, another REAL scientist, I quote: "the evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins included a section titled 'Show me your crocoduck!' in which he compared this to the question put by another creationist as to why there was no transitional fossil "fronkey" between frogs and monkeys, and described it as a warped misunderstanding of evolution. Modern species share a common ancestor, but are neither descended from each other nor from some crude composite chimera, and ducks are not descended from crocodiles." I know how to bold text too.

So in other words, a toad cannot be linked to a tree just because it shares a common ancestor which happens to be bacterium.

Dont believe me, email Dawkins, i'm sure when hes not busy he'll answer your personal attacks about how much smarter you are then him.

You misinterpreted that thar. :rolleyes:

He's saying two modern species(toad and tree) aren't descended directly from one another.

Those terms I linked you should explain everything. Even though you don't think a good knowledge of biology is necessary and that your "knowledge" is sound proof.

Please just google the theory of common descent.

"You didnt answer one question. "
Google those terms, and you'll see I did.

"And thanks for posting that Crocoduck, I forgot which animal it was. That crockduck was actually used to flaw the theory of evolution"

No problem, I think it's an awesome picture.

It most certainly did NOT find a flaw in the theory of evolution... It showed that the creationists had a horribly wrong view on evolution.

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 08:54 PM
And dont say what I posted doesnt destroy your theory because it does, you recluse. You probably got so excited with your chart that links trees to toads through bacteria. (which is discreted by Dawkins). Then you got even more excited and posted that random crocoduck picture which was discredited by again by Dawkins, again a real scientist. Please dont quit your day job, you recluse, because your not as smart as you think you are. I defintally believe in evolution after coming accross you. You must of evolved from a rat or some sort of vermin.

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 08:58 PM
You misinterpreted that thar. :rolleyes:

He's saying two modern species(toad and tree) aren't descended directly from one another.

Those terms I linked you should explain everything. Even though you don't think a good knowledge of biology is necessary and that your "knowledge" is sound proof.

Please just google the theory of common descent.

"You didnt answer one question. "
Google those terms, and you'll see I did.

"And thanks for posting that Crocoduck, I forgot which animal it was. That crockduck was actually used to flaw the theory of evolution"

No problem, I think it's an awesome picture.

It most certainly did NOT find a flaw in the theory of evolution... It showed that the creationists had a horribly wrong view on evolution.

How come your not so aggressive now? Ok but i'll take it from here: you claimed that a tree could be linked to a toad through bacterium. The only link from a tree to a toad as you claim is old old old old bacterium, but Dawkins claims you cannot be linked due to a common ancestor. The only common ancestor is 180 million year old bacterium, and again I ask, thats your link? So your link is false, period. Im not going to play into your girly mind games and google some fictional blog garbage and waste my time with another whiney baby who has to be right so he engages in fake misconstrued concepts. Dawkins discredited you, and I posted proof. Claiming I dont know how to read what he said, only proves how stupid you really are, because in reality, it discredits you, but you claim it doesnt. 2+2 = 4 , not 5, no matter how many blogs or idiots say it is.

bzman
05-23-2010, 09:01 PM
Clearly god placed dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith ... lulz... anyone who believes there is a god and evolution never happened I just feel sorry for

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 09:09 PM
How come your not so aggressive now? Ok but i'll take it from here: you claimed that a tree could be linked to a toad through bacterium. The only link from a tree to a toad as you claim is old old old old bacterium, but Dawkins claims you cannot be linked due to a common ancestor. The only common ancestor is 180 million year old bacterium, and again I ask, thats your link? Im not going to play into your girly mind games and google some pathetic stuff and waste my time with your whiney self who has to be right so he engages in petty insults. Dawkins discredited you, and I posted it. Claiming I dont know how to read it only proves how stupid you really are, because in reality, youre refusing to read it correctly.

I never once made that claim. :rolleyes:

Because apathy has kicked in and futurama is on TV. I don't recall being aggressive, either. Why are you getting so frustrated to resort to ad hominem attacks too?

You completely misread what I typed above. I mentioned a bacterium was phagocytised by another cell. The bacterium became a chloroplast which started the evolution towards plant cells. This is around the time when plant an animal cells started to diverge, ie trees and toads.

Oh, and Dawkins actually wrote a book, supporting common descent, btw:
"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (or last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.[4][5]

In The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins coined the word concestor, as a substitute for common ancestor or most recent common ancestor. This new word is very gradually entering scientific parlance.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

"It follows the path of humans backwards through evolutionary history, meeting humanity's cousins as they converge on common ancestors. The book was nominated for the 2005 Aventis Prize for Science Books."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor%27s_Tale

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 09:11 PM
I never once made that claim. :rolleyes:

Because apathy has kicked in and futurama is on TV. I don't recall being aggressive, either. Why are you getting so frustrated to resort to ad hominem attacks too?

You completely misread what I typed above. I mentioned a bacterium was phagocytised by another cell. The bacterium became a chloroplast which started the evolution towards plant cells. This is around the time when plant an animal cells started to diverge, ie trees and toads.

Oh, and Dawkins actually wrote a book, supporting common descent, btw:
"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (or last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.[4][5]

In The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins coined the word concestor, as a substitute for common ancestor or most recent common ancestor. This new word is very gradually entering scientific parlance.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

"It follows the path of humans backwards through evolutionary history, meeting humanity's cousins as they converge on common ancestors. The book was nominated for the 2005 Aventis Prize for Science Books."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor%27s_Tale

I'm not upset, i'm embarassed that I was insulted by a fake know it all. I didn't even have to discredit you, you did it yourself. And I did not misinterpret what you said, I understood completely, which is why I asked you three times to clarify yourself before I embarassed you. Dawkins discredited your theory of common acnestors being linked together wether its 3.9 billion, or 3.9 million, it doesnt matter, he says you cannot be linked through a descended common ancestor. What is hard to understand about that?

-Edit

Darwin states, that all warm blooded animals are linked together by ONE common ancestor, which is probably bacteriuma; however, a tree is not warm blooded, so how oculd it be linked to a toad?

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 09:29 PM
I'm not upset, i'm embarassed that I was insulted by a fake know it all. I didn't even have to discredit you, you did it yourself. And I did not misinterpret what you said, I understood completely, which is why I asked you three times to clarify yourself before I embarassed you. Dawkins discredited your theory of common acnestors being linked together wether its 3.9 billion, or 3.9 million, it doesnt matter, he says you cannot be linked through a descended common ancestor. What is hard to understand about that?

-Edit

Darwin states, that all warm blooded animals are linked together by ONE common ancestor, which is probably bacteriuma; however, a tree is not warm blooded, so how oculd it be linked to a tree?

Yes... And that ONE common ancestor has common ancestors who have common ancestors up until you have the last common ancestor of ALL life that we know of today.

You haven't read Dawkin's book, "The ancestors tale" have you?

:)

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 09:35 PM
Yes... And that ONE common ancestor has common ancestors who have common ancestors up until you have the last common ancestor of ALL life that we know of today.

You haven't read Dawkin's book, "The ancestors tale" have you?

:)

No I haven't, and i dont think you have either. I think you just google your answers, which is not wrong, but your no expert. I dont even think bacterium is a common ancestor because it is a single celled organism. I assume a fake expert, I mean expert, like you would know that; meaning it lacks mitochondria. Mitochondria cells or in other words organisms that contain more then one cell, could be argued as common ancestors. Again, just my opinion, and most others, but what do they know. Right?

"The reason of natural science can enter into a discussion with faith. Faith, as Pascal said, has its reasons that reason doesn't know. God is not a category for science, but there is room for faith in divine creation. Let us Not Preach to the Scientists. A theologian should not cast doubt on a scientific consensus, but should see how he can deal with it." Hans Küng.

CarDent
05-23-2010, 09:57 PM
I would like to know your theory on how we came to be on this planet and is it any more plausible than the theory of evolution?

I would like to start off by saying I am sort of a "deist". I believe in "something" that created this universe for a purpose other than human beings( or at least not making us the focus point of the universe).

But creating the universe and the process of evolution are two different things. Whether or not there is a god, evolution explains how simple life forms gradually evolve into more complicated beings.

Now can creationists and other people who don't accept evolution to be true explain to me in detail how we came to be?

( By details I mean steps.... for example: 1. a turtle farted and made luminescent balls of gas 2. one of those turned into our sun)

LOL I like your imagination.

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 10:11 PM
No I haven't, and i dont think you have either. I think you just google your answers, which is not wrong, but your no expert. I dont even think bacterium is a common ancestor because it is a single celled organism. I assume a fake expert, I mean expert, like you would know that; meaning it lacks mitochondria. Mitochondria cells or in other words organisms that contain more then one cell, could be argued as common ancestors. Again, just my opinion, and most others, but what do they know. Right?

"The reason of natural science can enter into a discussion with faith. Faith, as Pascal said, has its reasons that reason doesn't know. God is not a category for science, but there is room for faith in divine creation. Let us Not Preach to the Scientists. A theologian should not cast doubt on a scientific consensus, but should see how he can deal with it." Hans Küng.

Uhm, no, I own it actually. :rolleyes: That's funny, you actually admitted to doing that. I normally don't google things that I've learned in class. :rolleyes:

Basically Dawkins goes back from current humans to the origin of life to one ancestor which links ALL life on Earth.

I lent the book to one of my buddies who doesn't believe in evolution a few weeks ago. But, I can post spoon pics of three other Dawkins books that I own if you don't believe me right now if you'd like.

Um, and guess what complex organisms are made of? Lots and lots of single celled eukaryotes. lol

Basically the common ancestor to eukaryotes, like I've mentioned multiple times ITT(bacteria phagocytized by another single celled organism which becomes a chloroplast/mitochondria), was a simple ass single celled predator engulfed a bacterium(Cyanobacterium ancestors is usually accredited to becoming chloroplasts).

The predator cell couldn't digest said bacterium, and they both ended up becoming intertwined through a series of events and processes(endosymbiosis, Vertical and horizontal gene transfer, etc.) and started the domain Eukarya(don't forget membrane invagination) this is generally the accepted theory in regards to BOTH mitochondria formation and chloroplast formation which lead to the offshoot to eukaryotic cells.

Both mitos and chloros have vast amounts of supporting evidence that show they all but mimic bacterium. Check out the Rhizobium bacteria inside sacks on legume plants. Basically the same thing is happening. The two separate organisms help each other so the are becoming one slowly over time.

Oh, and mitochondria cells = cells with mitochondria = eukaryotic cells = same Domain that plants and animals belong too. Cells that have mitochondria can live as single cells too btw. The term you are looking for are complex organisms, which are groups and colonies of cells.

Plant cells and Animal cells are Eukaryotes that differ in a few cell organelles/structures(Plants have a cell wall, chloroplasts, no centrioles, and no flagellum(with the exception to some plant sperm) Animal cells have no cell wall, some have flagellum, centrioles, etc.)

CarDent
05-23-2010, 10:11 PM
I'm not upset, i'm embarassed that I was insulted by a fake know it all. I didn't even have to discredit you, you did it yourself. And I did not misinterpret what you said, I understood completely, which is why I asked you three times to clarify yourself before I embarassed you. Dawkins discredited your theory of common acnestors being linked together wether its 3.9 billion, or 3.9 million, it doesnt matter, he says you cannot be linked through a descended common ancestor. What is hard to understand about that?

-Edit

Darwin states, that all warm blooded animals are linked together by ONE common ancestor, which is probably bacteriuma; however, a tree is not warm blooded, so how oculd it be linked to a toad?

I understand the point that you are trying to get accross here. WHen my instructors tried to go off on this idea, of the common ancestor descencency theory, I often thought that they needed to claryfy their explanation a bit more, I actually think tthat there were a bunch of different number of bateria that started life... I mean, the Earth is huge right, so perhaps those beings that don't have a lot of common ancestry with other organisms, probably are descendants from other little beings that were fortunate enough to replicate right? I know this logic is worded weird, but this is how i had it in my head.

CarDent
05-23-2010, 10:16 PM
Uhm, no, I own it actually. :rolleyes: That's funny, you actually admitted to doing that. I normally don't google things that I've learned in class. :rolleyes:

Basically Dawkins goes back from current humans to the origin of life to one ancestor which links ALL life on Earth.

I lent the book to one of my buddies who doesn't believe in evolution a few weeks ago. But, I can post spoon pics of three other Dawkins books that I own if you don't believe me right now if you'd like.

Um, and guess what complex organisms are made of? Lots and lots of single celled eukaryotes. lol

Basically the common ancestor to eukaryotes, like I've mentioned multiple times ITT(bacteria phagocytized by another single celled organism which becomes a chloroplast/mitochondria), was a simple ass single celled predator engulfed a bacterium(Cyanobacterium ancestors is usually accredited to becoming chloroplasts).

The predator cell couldn't digest said bacterium, and they both ended up becoming intertwined through a series of events and processes(endosymbiosis, Vertical and horizontal gene transfer, etc.) and started the domain Eukarya(don't forget membrane invagination) this is generally the accepted theory in regards to BOTH mitochondria formation and chloroplast formation which lead to the offshoot to eukaryotic cells.

Both mitos and chloros have vast amounts of supporting evidence that show they all but mimic bacterium. Check out the Rhizobium bacteria inside sacks on legume plants. Basically the same thing is happening. The two separate organisms help each other so the are becoming one slowly over time.

Oh, and mitochondria cells = cells with mitochondria = eukaryotic cells = same Domain that plants and animals belong too. Cells that have mitochondria can live as single cells too btw. The term you are looking for are complex organisms, which are groups and colonies of cells.

Plant cells and Animal cells are Eukaryotes that differ in a few cell organelles/structures(Plants have a cell wall, chloroplasts, no centrioles, and no flagellum(with the exception to some plant sperm) Animal cells have no cell wall, some have flagellum, centrioles, etc.)

WOW, you know your Shaiit/

ChicagoMan
05-23-2010, 10:18 PM
Uhm, no, I own it actually. :rolleyes: That's funny, you actually admitted to doing that. I normally don't google things that I've learned in class. :rolleyes:

Basically Dawkins goes back from current humans to the origin of life to one ancestor which links ALL life on Earth.

I lent the book to one of my buddies who doesn't believe in evolution a few weeks ago. But, I can post spoon pics of three other Dawkins books that I own if you don't believe me right now if you'd like.

Um, and guess what complex organisms are made of? Lots and lots of single celled eukaryotes. lol

Basically the common ancestor to eukaryotes, like I've mentioned multiple times ITT(bacteria phagocytized by another single celled organism which becomes a chloroplast/mitochondria), was a simple ass single celled predator engulfed a bacterium(Cyanobacterium ancestors is usually accredited to becoming chloroplasts).

The predator cell couldn't digest said bacterium, and they both ended up becoming intertwined through a series of events and processes(endosymbiosis, Vertical and horizontal gene transfer, etc.) and started the domain Eukarya(don't forget membrane invagination) this is generally the accepted theory in regards to BOTH mitochondria formation and chloroplast formation which lead to the offshoot to eukaryotic cells.

Both mitos and chloros have vast amounts of supporting evidence that show they all but mimic bacterium. Check out the Rhizobium bacteria inside sacks on legume plants. Basically the same thing is happening. The two separate organisms help each other so the are becoming one slowly over time.

Oh, and mitochondria cells = cells with mitochondria = eukaryotic cells = same Domain that plants and animals belong too. Cells that have mitochondria can live as single cells too btw. The term you are looking for are complex organisms, which are groups and colonies of cells.

Plant cells and Animal cells are Eukaryotes that differ in a few cell organelles/structures(Plants have a cell wall, chloroplasts, no centrioles, and no flagellum(with the exception to some plant sperm) Animal cells have no cell wall, some have flagellum, centrioles, etc.)

You just repeated what I said, did you not, plus a bunch of jargon that was not necessary. Anways, Dawkins said (which I did google): that "ancestors cannot be traced due to common descendents." Darwin said (which I did not google): "that all WARM blooded creatures can be linked together by one common ancestor", but a tree is not warm blooded. same with your octoduck, which is also false and discredits evolution, but you did not know that, but I did.

By taking both theories, one says that you cannot link ancestors to common descendents, the other says only warm blooded ancestors can be traced to warm blooded descendents. either/or which every theory you take discredits a toad being linked to a tree. the only link could possibly be 180 million year old bacterium off the chart that you googled. but bacterium, or in other words, a single cell, is not a link to a cell that has more then one cell: I.E (mitochonrdia, etc) - even though mitochondria is formed by one cell. bacterium does not even achieve more then one cell so it cannot be the link of a tree or a toad, based on Dawkins or Darwins, whom I respect more then you.

KTownGT
05-23-2010, 10:29 PM
I understand the point that you are trying to get accross here. WHen my instructors tried to go off on this idea, of the common ancestor descencency theory, I often thought that they needed to claryfy their explanation a bit more, I actually think tthat there were a bunch of different number of bateria that started life... I mean, the Earth is huge right, so perhaps those beings that don't have a lot of common ancestry with other organisms, probably are descendants from other little beings that were fortunate enough to replicate right? I know this logic is worded weird, but this is how i had it in my head.

The language of DNA wouldn't be universal(Across basically ALL species) if there were more than one common ancestor of life today. :)


You just repeated what I said, did you not, plus a bunch of jargon that was not necessary. Anways, Dawkins said (which I did google): that "ancestors cannot be traced due to common descendents." Darwin said (which I did not google): "that all WARM blooded creatures can be linked together by one common ancestor", but a tree is not warm blooded. same with your octoduck, which is also false and discredits evolution, but you did not know that, but I did.

By taking both theories, one says that you cannot link ancestors to common descendents, the other says only warm blooded ancestors can be traced to warm blooded descendents. either/or which every theory you take discredits a toad being linked to a tree. the only link could possibly be 180 million year old bacterium off the chart that you googled. but bacterium, or in other words, a single cell, is not a link to a cell that has more then one cell: I.E (mitochonrdia, etc) - even though mitochondria is formed by one cell. bacterium does not even achieve more then one cell so it cannot be the link of a tree or a toad, based on Dawkins or Darwins, whom I respect more then you.

Post up those quotes and links please. I don't care about the Darwin quote, that doesn't disprove me.

Where did you get 180 million years btw?


WOW, you know your Shaiit/

Apparently not, according to the guy who took an anthropology class. :rolleyes:

Infusco
05-23-2010, 10:56 PM
Infusco, I replied to your thread a while back about God and evolution.

Oh yay, I thought that thread had died.

I'll find it at some point today and respond either there or in here.

JAGERBOY
05-24-2010, 05:18 AM
Never said it didn't, which is the beauty of deism. I don't even try to imagine what created this universe. Like I said, it could be anything such as a multi-verse.

I would imagine the creator of this universe would have had to have been created also... and so on. I am just guessing.

Wouldn't it just be easier to then say the "universe" in some capacity has just always existed? Whats the point in attributing it to a "creator", if its not a creator with some intelligence or awareness? Seems like an uneccesary and misleading definition of yourself to state you are a "deist" if you don't explicitly think a conscious entity created the universe.

CarDent
05-24-2010, 07:46 AM
The language of DNA wouldn't be universal(Across basically ALL species) if there were more than one common ancestor of life today. :)



Post up those quotes and links please. I don't care about the Darwin quote, that doesn't disprove me.

Where did you get 180 million years btw?



Apparently not, according to the guy who took an anthropology class. :rolleyes:

ENdosymbiosis is not a word that is learned in Anthropology :P with Mitochodria, phagocytosed....