[004]
AbraSliver
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
Stoogebie:
* Give the name, edition, date, publisher, and all other identifying information for the textbook. If we aren\\\'t able to verify the claim you make, why should we believe it?
* \\\"Only a Theory\\\" (Kenneth Miller), \\\"Just a Theory\\\" (Moti Ben-Ari), and \\\"Top Ten Myths About Evolution\\\" (Cameron McPherson and Charles Sullivan) are good places to explain your ignorance with regards to what a scientific theory is.
* Evolution only deals with the divergence of life from the original organism/species. Hence why Darwin titled his book \\\"On the ORIGIN OF SPECIES...\\\" and not something else. The origin of life is being handled by a collection of NON-MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE hypotheses under the collective name of \\\"abiogenesis.\\\"
** Most of the hypotheses aren\\\'t in any way \\\"junk science\\\" and in fact are based on well-observed phenomenon and well-recorded observations and inferences. Even more, these observations are generally made outside of the field of biology or on the very edges of biology and hence aren\\\'t being made-up by people wanting to support the evolutionary worldview. They are as unbiased as Creationists can ask for, and yet they are ripe for plausible valid explanations for naturalistic origins of life while incompatible with Creationist explanations.
** Almost none of the explanations excludes any other. Comets could have provided some amino acids and nucleic acids and phosphates and lipids, while hydrothermal vents provided some more, and God\\\'s cum provided the rest. And if this insults you, what else would God be doing for about 9 billion years other than masturbating? He can\\\'t complain about humans turning against him because humans don\\\'t exist yet!
*** They all mix in either atmospheric or aqueous environments and produce a strand of \\\"genetic material\\\" (any of a multitude of nucleic acids could have been the first) as well as various proteins (both of these are highly favorable processes in a thermodynamic sense as they release water to the environment and so would happen even if God had died from his masturbation. The genetic material could self-replicate or interact with neighboring proteins to replicate.
*** At the end, we have 3 non-exclusive ways to get the stuff, 2 ways (let\\\'s assume exclusive) the stuff can interact to form larger things, 6 non-exclusive larger things we can make from the interactions, and two non-exclusive ways the larger things can count as life.
*** This means we have (6 x 2 x 21 x 3) = 756 different combinations just to begin with. 756 different ways life could have formed without Creationism being true. And this only allows for the GENERALIZED ORTHODOX explanations, not the fringe or specified proposals. I mean, perhaps nucleic acids were NOT first, but instead it was a family of self-replicating proteins. Or five different protein families and 10 different nucleic acids and 20 lipids and 100 sugars all essentially competing as \\\"genetic material\\\" until eventually RNA formed and \\\"won the pot.\\\"
** The objections to these 756+ hypotheses are the opposite of the hypotheses. Instead of being based on scientific knowledge and inference of known mechanisms and reactions and conditions, they flat-out ignore anything that disagrees with them.
@71.80.226.45
* There is no line between \\\"macroevolution\\\" and \\\"microevolution\\\" that isn\\\'t an arbitrary construct created by humans for the purpose of making our studies easier. The ONLY line that can be drawn is enforced sexual separation. But this can be determined by many layers of criteria that are independent of the other layers.
** If two species can produce a hybrid species, are they the same species or still two different species?
*** If we give the second answer, then we have the creation of a third species and hence we have undeniable \\\"macroevolution.\\\"
*** If we give the first answer, then why is it that Lions and Tigers are the same species, but not Lions and Leopards? The only valid reasoning would be that the determinant of whether two populations are of the same species is the extent of genetic differences between the two genomes. But if this is the case, then we necessarily posit the genetic SIMILARITY as coming from a common ancestor that NECESSARILY experienced SOME \\\"macroevolution\\\" in becoming TWO DISTINCT SPECIES (the \\\"lion/tiger\\\" species and \\\"leopard\\\" species) instead of REMAINING ONE SPECIES.
Either way, we must admit macroevolution as a fact.
* Give the name, edition, date, publisher, and all other identifying information for the textbook. If we aren\\\'t able to verify the claim you make, why should we believe it?
* \\\"Only a Theory\\\" (Kenneth Miller), \\\"Just a Theory\\\" (Moti Ben-Ari), and \\\"Top Ten Myths About Evolution\\\" (Cameron McPherson and Charles Sullivan) are good places to explain your ignorance with regards to what a scientific theory is.
* Evolution only deals with the divergence of life from the original organism/species. Hence why Darwin titled his book \\\"On the ORIGIN OF SPECIES...\\\" and not something else. The origin of life is being handled by a collection of NON-MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE hypotheses under the collective name of \\\"abiogenesis.\\\"
** Most of the hypotheses aren\\\'t in any way \\\"junk science\\\" and in fact are based on well-observed phenomenon and well-recorded observations and inferences. Even more, these observations are generally made outside of the field of biology or on the very edges of biology and hence aren\\\'t being made-up by people wanting to support the evolutionary worldview. They are as unbiased as Creationists can ask for, and yet they are ripe for plausible valid explanations for naturalistic origins of life while incompatible with Creationist explanations.
** Almost none of the explanations excludes any other. Comets could have provided some amino acids and nucleic acids and phosphates and lipids, while hydrothermal vents provided some more, and God\\\'s cum provided the rest. And if this insults you, what else would God be doing for about 9 billion years other than masturbating? He can\\\'t complain about humans turning against him because humans don\\\'t exist yet!
*** They all mix in either atmospheric or aqueous environments and produce a strand of \\\"genetic material\\\" (any of a multitude of nucleic acids could have been the first) as well as various proteins (both of these are highly favorable processes in a thermodynamic sense as they release water to the environment and so would happen even if God had died from his masturbation. The genetic material could self-replicate or interact with neighboring proteins to replicate.
*** At the end, we have 3 non-exclusive ways to get the stuff, 2 ways (let\\\'s assume exclusive) the stuff can interact to form larger things, 6 non-exclusive larger things we can make from the interactions, and two non-exclusive ways the larger things can count as life.
*** This means we have (6 x 2 x 21 x 3) = 756 different combinations just to begin with. 756 different ways life could have formed without Creationism being true. And this only allows for the GENERALIZED ORTHODOX explanations, not the fringe or specified proposals. I mean, perhaps nucleic acids were NOT first, but instead it was a family of self-replicating proteins. Or five different protein families and 10 different nucleic acids and 20 lipids and 100 sugars all essentially competing as \\\"genetic material\\\" until eventually RNA formed and \\\"won the pot.\\\"
** The objections to these 756+ hypotheses are the opposite of the hypotheses. Instead of being based on scientific knowledge and inference of known mechanisms and reactions and conditions, they flat-out ignore anything that disagrees with them.
@71.80.226.45
* There is no line between \\\"macroevolution\\\" and \\\"microevolution\\\" that isn\\\'t an arbitrary construct created by humans for the purpose of making our studies easier. The ONLY line that can be drawn is enforced sexual separation. But this can be determined by many layers of criteria that are independent of the other layers.
** If two species can produce a hybrid species, are they the same species or still two different species?
*** If we give the second answer, then we have the creation of a third species and hence we have undeniable \\\"macroevolution.\\\"
*** If we give the first answer, then why is it that Lions and Tigers are the same species, but not Lions and Leopards? The only valid reasoning would be that the determinant of whether two populations are of the same species is the extent of genetic differences between the two genomes. But if this is the case, then we necessarily posit the genetic SIMILARITY as coming from a common ancestor that NECESSARILY experienced SOME \\\"macroevolution\\\" in becoming TWO DISTINCT SPECIES (the \\\"lion/tiger\\\" species and \\\"leopard\\\" species) instead of REMAINING ONE SPECIES.
Either way, we must admit macroevolution as a fact.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@Stoogebie:
1) Give the name, edition, date, publisher, and all other identifying information for the textbook. If we aren\'t able to verify the claim you make, why should we believe it?
1) Give the name, edition, date, publisher, and all other identifying information for the textbook. If we aren\'t able to verify the claim you make, why should we believe it?
to:
Stoogebie:
** Give the name, edition, date, publisher, and all other identifying information for the textbook. If we aren\\\'t able to verify the claim you make, why should we believe it?
** 2) \\\"Only a Theory\\\" (Kenneth Miller), \\\"Just a Theory\\\" (Moti Ben-Ari), and \\\"Top Ten Myths About Evolution\\\" (Cameron McPherson and Charles Sullivan) are good places to explain your ignorance with regards to what a scientific theory is.
** 3) Evolution only deals with the divergence of life from the original organism/species. Hence why Darwin titled his book \\\"On the ORIGIN OF SPECIES...\\\" and not something else. The origin of life is being handled by a collection of NON-MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE hypotheses under the collective name of \\\"abiogenesis.\\\"
*** 3.1) Most of the hypotheses aren\\\'t in any way \\\"junk science\\\" and in fact are based on well-observed phenomenon and well-recorded observations and inferences. Even more, these observations are generally made outside of the field of biology or on the very edges of biology and hence aren\\\'t being made-up by people wanting to support the evolutionary worldview. They are as unbiased as Creationists can ask for, and yet they are ripe for plausible valid explanations for naturalistic origins of life while incompatible with Creationist explanations.
*** 3.2.a) Almost none of the explanations excludes any other. Comets could have provided some amino acids and nucleic acids and phosphates and lipids, while hydrothermal vents provided some more, and God\\\'s cum provided the rest. And if this insults you, what else would God be doing for about 9 billion years other than masturbating? He can\\\'t complain about humans turning against him because humans don\\\'t exist yet!
3.2.b) They all mix in either atmospheric or aqueous environments and produce a strand of \\\"genetic material\\\" (any of a multitude of nucleic acids could have been the first) as well as various proteins (both of these are highly favorable processes in a thermodynamic sense as they release water to the environment and so would happen even if God had died from his masturbation. The genetic material could self-replicate or interact with neighboring proteins to replicate.
3.3) At the end, we have 3 non-exclusive ways to get the stuff, 2 ways (let\\\'s assume exclusive) the stuff can interact to form larger things, 6 non-exclusive larger things we can make from the interactions, and two non-exclusive ways the larger things can count as life.
3.3.a) This means we have 6 * 2 * 21 * 3 = 756 different combinations just to begin with. 756 different ways life could have formed without Creationism being true. And this only allows for the GENERALIZED ORTHODOX explanations, not the fringe or specified proposals. I mean, perhaps nucleic acids were NOT first, but instead it was a family of self-replicating proteins. Or five different protein families and 10 different nucleic acids and 20 lipids and 100 sugars all essentially competing as \\\"genetic material\\\" until eventually RNA formed and \\\"won the pot.\\\"
3.4) The objections to these 756+ hypotheses are the opposite of the hypotheses. Instead of being based on scientific knowledge and inference of known mechanisms and reactions and conditions, they flat-out ignore anything that disagrees with them.
** Give the name, edition, date, publisher, and all other identifying information for the textbook. If we aren\\\'t able to verify the claim you make, why should we believe it?
** 2) \\\"Only a Theory\\\" (Kenneth Miller), \\\"Just a Theory\\\" (Moti Ben-Ari), and \\\"Top Ten Myths About Evolution\\\" (Cameron McPherson and Charles Sullivan) are good places to explain your ignorance with regards to what a scientific theory is.
** 3) Evolution only deals with the divergence of life from the original organism/species. Hence why Darwin titled his book \\\"On the ORIGIN OF SPECIES...\\\" and not something else. The origin of life is being handled by a collection of NON-MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE hypotheses under the collective name of \\\"abiogenesis.\\\"
*** 3.1) Most of the hypotheses aren\\\'t in any way \\\"junk science\\\" and in fact are based on well-observed phenomenon and well-recorded observations and inferences. Even more, these observations are generally made outside of the field of biology or on the very edges of biology and hence aren\\\'t being made-up by people wanting to support the evolutionary worldview. They are as unbiased as Creationists can ask for, and yet they are ripe for plausible valid explanations for naturalistic origins of life while incompatible with Creationist explanations.
*** 3.2.a) Almost none of the explanations excludes any other. Comets could have provided some amino acids and nucleic acids and phosphates and lipids, while hydrothermal vents provided some more, and God\\\'s cum provided the rest. And if this insults you, what else would God be doing for about 9 billion years other than masturbating? He can\\\'t complain about humans turning against him because humans don\\\'t exist yet!
3.2.b) They all mix in either atmospheric or aqueous environments and produce a strand of \\\"genetic material\\\" (any of a multitude of nucleic acids could have been the first) as well as various proteins (both of these are highly favorable processes in a thermodynamic sense as they release water to the environment and so would happen even if God had died from his masturbation. The genetic material could self-replicate or interact with neighboring proteins to replicate.
3.3) At the end, we have 3 non-exclusive ways to get the stuff, 2 ways (let\\\'s assume exclusive) the stuff can interact to form larger things, 6 non-exclusive larger things we can make from the interactions, and two non-exclusive ways the larger things can count as life.
3.3.a) This means we have 6 * 2 * 21 * 3 = 756 different combinations just to begin with. 756 different ways life could have formed without Creationism being true. And this only allows for the GENERALIZED ORTHODOX explanations, not the fringe or specified proposals. I mean, perhaps nucleic acids were NOT first, but instead it was a family of self-replicating proteins. Or five different protein families and 10 different nucleic acids and 20 lipids and 100 sugars all essentially competing as \\\"genetic material\\\" until eventually RNA formed and \\\"won the pot.\\\"
3.4) The objections to these 756+ hypotheses are the opposite of the hypotheses. Instead of being based on scientific knowledge and inference of known mechanisms and reactions and conditions, they flat-out ignore anything that disagrees with them.
Changed line(s) 4 from:
n
2) \
to:
<p></p>
@71.80.226.45
There is no line between \\\"macroevolution\\\" and \\\"microevolution\\\" that isn\\\'t an arbitrary construct created by humans for the purpose of making our studies easier. The ONLY line that can be drawn is enforced sexual separation. But this can be determined by many layers of criteria that are independent of the other layers.
If two species can produce a hybrid species, are they the same species or still two different species? If we give the second answer, then we have the creation of a third species and hence we have undeniable \\\"macroevolution.\\\" If we give the first answer, then why is it that Lions and Tigers are the same species, but not Lions and Leopards? The only valid reasoning would be that the determinant of whether two populations are of the same species is the extent of genetic differences between the two genomes. But if this is the case, then we necessarily posit the genetic SIMILARITY as coming from a common ancestor that NECESSARILY experienced SOME \\\"macroevolution\\\" in becoming TWO DISTINCT SPECIES (the \\\"lion/tiger\\\" species and \\\"leopard\\\" species) instead of REMAINING ONE SPECIES.
Either way, we must admit macroevolution as a fact.
@71.80.226.45
There is no line between \\\"macroevolution\\\" and \\\"microevolution\\\" that isn\\\'t an arbitrary construct created by humans for the purpose of making our studies easier. The ONLY line that can be drawn is enforced sexual separation. But this can be determined by many layers of criteria that are independent of the other layers.
If two species can produce a hybrid species, are they the same species or still two different species? If we give the second answer, then we have the creation of a third species and hence we have undeniable \\\"macroevolution.\\\" If we give the first answer, then why is it that Lions and Tigers are the same species, but not Lions and Leopards? The only valid reasoning would be that the determinant of whether two populations are of the same species is the extent of genetic differences between the two genomes. But if this is the case, then we necessarily posit the genetic SIMILARITY as coming from a common ancestor that NECESSARILY experienced SOME \\\"macroevolution\\\" in becoming TWO DISTINCT SPECIES (the \\\"lion/tiger\\\" species and \\\"leopard\\\" species) instead of REMAINING ONE SPECIES.
Either way, we must admit macroevolution as a fact.
