Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lol maybe re-read my post mate!'Most Christians were better people than non-Christians'.
Maybe you should go out in the world & meet some people who identify as Humanist.
You might learn something.
If this is the way you react to a post about someone admitting that they were wrong, what incentive is there to ever admitting such on here?'Most Christians were better people than non-Christians'.
Maybe you should go out in the world & meet some people who identify as Humanist.
You might learn something.
Lol maybe re-read my post mate!
If this is the way you react to a post about someone admitting that they were wrong, what incentive is there to ever admitting such on here?
Well on the scientific evidence, where is it.
I mean actual scientific evidence,
If life started out as a simple single sex animal, with all the genetic infrastructure to reproduce itself, then how did that evolve from that model to one that is interdependent on reproduction.
This is not within the realms of possibility, not only that but it would need everything that goes on with
conception, gestation and birth (birth canal etc.) at the same instant.
If this miraculous creation had both sexes, then they would have to have identical mutations across all species in perpetuity to perpetuate.
In the entire history of animal husbandry no new creation has ever happened.
You dont even understand what I’ve written do you, you haven’t contended with it at all.Ive just told you.
See my post. DNA sequencing is demonstrable scientific evidence.
It happened about 2 billion years ago. Sexual reproduction generates variation by mixing up the genetic makeup of the parents. Experiments confirm that members of a sexual lineage usually adapt faster than asexual members of the same species when conditions change. Prior to the advent of sexual reproduction, the adaptation process whereby genes would change from one generation to the next (genetic mutation) happened very slowly and randomly.
For example, imagine two individuals in an asexual population that both have a good but different mutation. Because their DNA can’t mix, their descendents end up competing with each other (this is called clonal interference) – you will never get the benefits of both mutations in one individual. In a sexual population, however, both of the good mutations can find their way into one individual. This way, we get the benefit of both, which makes adaptation a lot easier.
No it wouldn't. Bacteria began exchanging genes via
- conjugation (a form of sexual reproduction that involves gametes, a haploid cell that fuses with another haploid cell, of similar morphology (generally similar in shape and size), found in most unicellular organisms),
- transformation (the genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the direct uptake and incorporation of exogenous genetic material from its surroundings through the cell membrane), and
- transduction (the process by which foreign DNA is introduced into a cell by a virus)
See above.
Define 'new creation'.
If life started out as a simple single sex animal, with all the genetic infrastructure to reproduce itself,
then how did that evolve from that model to one that is interdependent on reproduction.
Are you related to darthbards by any chance?Well on the scientific evidence, where is it.
I mean actual scientific evidence, everyone has a barrow to push and generally choose
to believe that which suits them.
Today the vast majority (like the rest of society are atheists) of scientists are not immune from this.
see the famous Richard Lewonton quote re keeping the divine foot out of the door.
Im going to assume you understand the Neo-Darwinian model.
If life started out as a simple single sex animal, with all the genetic infrastructure to reproduce itself,
then how did that evolve from that model to one that is interdependent on reproduction.
You need to think about this.
You have a single sex which then somehow goes on to be interdependent for reproduction.
eg pairing the chromosomes.
This is not within the realms of possibility, not only that but it would need everything that goes on with
conception, gestation and birth (birth canal etc.) at the same instant.
If this miraculous creation had both sexes, then they would have to have identical mutations
across all species in perpetuity to perpetuate.
In the entire history of animal husbandry no new creation has ever happened.
My lord, he was bad, i remember engaging with him on flat earth. These Xtians are just as bad, all deny evolution/science to assert creationist supremacy. I am yet to meet a Christian in this thread who accepts evolution, although in real life it's completely opposite. Are we just unlucky?Are you related to darthbards by any chance?
Do yourself a favour, and look up his posts in the Vegan s**t*ery thread. Watching reasonable posters slowly get frustrated into fury beyond belief at his intransigence and consummate idiocy was genuinely one of the best spectacles Bigfooty has to offer.My lord, he was bad, i remember engaging with him on flat earth. These Xtians are just as bad, all deny evolution/science to assert creationist supremacy. I am yet to meet a Christian in this thread who accepts evolution, although in real life it's completely opposite. Are we just unlucky?
]
I quoted Lewontin because he is in print, even though this indicative of probs most atheistic writers
and commentators.
nb if you are an atheist why mention respect.
You dont even understand what I’ve written do you, you haven’t contended with it at all.
What do you think it is indicative of?
Why can’t an atheist mention respect? Is belief in gods necessary to understand the value of respect?
Really, all?My lord, he was bad, i remember engaging with him on flat earth. These Xtians are just as bad, all deny evolution/science to assert creationist supremacy. I am yet to meet a Christian in this thread who accepts evolution, although in real life it's completely opposite. Are we just unlucky?
Really?Boston tiger asserted you can't love without God. Now someone said you can't have respect without God. What's next, you can't breathe without God? these guys are really indoctrinated to their eyeballs.
Really, all?
I think you’re just being slightly narrow minded; nothing to do with luck.
If the creationists took the same arrogant position as you, would this discussion have ever started?When you don't understand science, just walk away from the discussion.
If the creationists took the same arrogant position as you, would this discussion have ever started?
Cut the s**t. I meant you, not science.Scientific evidence is now arrogant? what's the evidence of 'goddiit'?
Cut the sh*t. I meant you, not science.
He may have been technically wrong. But it was arrogant of you to suggest that he should walk away from that discussion if his understanding of science isn’t as extensive as yours appears to be: Yet, here you are in a Christian thread, and he’s sharing his seemingly deeper understanding of that doctrine with you.He was wrong, on both counts, he doesn't understand science, nor evolution. Bacterias are not animals and they don't have 'sex'.. It's arrogant to point out he doesn't understand science?
Tough luck that you don't see it.
He may have been technically wrong. But it was arrogant of you to suggest that he should walk away from that discussion if his understanding of science isn’t as extensive as yours appears to be: Yet, here you are in a Christian thread, and he’s sharing his seemingly deeper understanding of that doctrine with you.
You’d have a point if it was a biology thread, but it’s not: and no indirect relevance doesn’t justify that reaction.He should walk away from the discussion cause he doesn't understand the basics of science. If you get the basics wrong, your entire argument that follows will be **** .He is asking a question and challenging people based on his lack of understanding of the basics of biology. Posters like Roy have gone into great depths trying to make him understand this. I am ok if you accept you are wrong, but asserting others are wrong about evolution while not having the basics of biology right is arrogant.
He wasn't the first one in this thread to do this and he won't be the last one.
You’d have a point if it was a biology thread, but it’s not: and no indirect relevance doesn’t justify that reaction.
I thought he was coherent. Moreover, this isn’t a science threadPerhaps you should write more coherently if that is the case.
Do you understand science?