Discussion:
If you can answer this then you'll have a case for evolution...
(too old to reply)
old man joe
2011-04-20 12:18:36 UTC
Permalink
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.

the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life. call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.

the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.

none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.

before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from. and what made itself into a monkey... and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.

and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !

well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe in God that He created living things...
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth.

that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
just shows you are trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy
language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking about...
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.

the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God in His image and every cognizant
person knows full well there is the Living God who created all things because God Himself made
Himself evident to everyone with cognizance just as He says in Ro.1:18-20... rendering every person
" without excuse. "
raven1
2011-04-20 12:46:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:18:36 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
No, it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after its
origin, not how it originated. How many times do you have to be
corrected on this not-very-difficult point?
Irreverend Dave
2011-04-20 16:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:18:36 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
earth which are not alive.
No, it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after its
origin, not how it originated. How many times do you have to be
corrected on this not-very-difficult point?
As many times as there are stars in the universe?

OMJ also mananges to miss the point that even if the Bible were true the
same rules would apply since, according to the Book of Jewish Mythology,
God made man from the dust of the earth, or to put in Joe's terms,
elements never alive.
--
Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings, who don't have all
the answers, to think that they do. - Bill Maher
AllSeeing-I
2011-04-20 22:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:18:36 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
No, it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after its
origin, not how it originated. How many times do you have to be
corrected on this not-very-difficult point?
The very essence of the theory of evolution demands a definition of
what life is. But there is no definition. That is why the ToE will
remain an idea.

A bad one at that
Conan the bacterium
2011-04-20 23:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by raven1
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:18:36 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
No, it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after its
origin, not how it originated. How many times do you have to be
corrected on this not-very-difficult point?
<>
Post by AllSeeing-I
The very essence of the theory of evolution demands a definition of
what life is. But there is no definition. That is why the ToE will
remain an idea.
Hmmmm.....

Interesting. I'm trying to decide if that is the lamest
intentionally disingenuous bit of lawerly bullshit
I've ever come across, or if I might actually have
seen some other bit of intentionally disengenuous
lawerly bullshit which was even lamer.

So may we take it that when the doctor records
the time of death, he's only expressing an idea?

And that the remainder of biology, apart from
evolutionary studies, is only an idea?

And that "...so they may have life and have
it abundantly" was just shuck and jive?

And that "For God so loved the world that he gave
his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him
shall not perish but have eternal life" is just plain
silly?


conan
Post by AllSeeing-I
A bad one at that
Ralph
2011-04-21 00:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by raven1
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:18:36 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
No, it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after its
origin, not how it originated. How many times do you have to be
corrected on this not-very-difficult point?
The very essence of the theory of evolution demands a definition of
what life is. But there is no definition. That is why the ToE will
remain an idea.
A bad one at that
Another bald faced lie, from the biggest 'lier' on Usenet. A definition
of life is not required for evolution. Tell me Assman, does it get
tiresome from having to stand to breath????
Chris
2011-04-20 13:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
earth which are not alive.
No. Evolution would still happen even if some divine being or an alien
created the first cell.
Post by old man joe
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our
world and none of them by any combination brings them to life.
What? How do you know that?
Post by old man joe
call
names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they want...
That's not part of the Theory of Evolution.
I think.
Post by old man joe
they simply
will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements
that are not alive.
Why should they? It's not part of the Theory of Evolution.
Post by old man joe
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is
easily found on the Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
You still have not explained how that somehow invalidates the Theory of
Evolution.
Post by old man joe
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys they logically
need to prove where the monkey came from.
No. They only need to need to prove they came from monkeys.
(Let's accept the sloppy term "coming from a monkey" for a moment)
Post by old man joe
and what made itself into a
monkey... and before that, and before that... all the way back to the
first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not
alive.
Why?
Post by old man joe
and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !
No. There's no evidence God causes anyone to believe anything.

But why should people who spend their time writing against the Theory of
Evolution without even having a slight idea what it is about not be
called stupid?
Post by old man joe
well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that
its okay for you to believe in your scientists
The whole idea of the scientific method is to avoid having to believe
blindly in some dogma.

Of course you need to have a little bit of trust that not the vast
majority of scientists is fradulent. But I really, really can't see
evidence for that.
Post by old man joe
but its not okay for the
elect to believe in God that He created living things... for example,
the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the
earth.
Well, reagarding that the Theory of Evolution is backed up by much, much
evidence and that the existence God is an exceptional huge assumption you
would need rather strong evidence to make a senseful point.

Yet "Why is there anything rather then nothing" and "How did abiogenesis
happen" is the best creationists can come up.
Post by old man joe
that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for
His elect ones to believe God just shows you are trying desperately to
hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy language...
No, it shows you that they are certainly pissed by constant
misrepresentation of what they found out about nature and efforts to
replace it by a hypothesis backed up by barely anything.
Post by old man joe
which
is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking
about...
On the contrary there is much evidence that you don't know what you're
talking about since you think the Theory of Evolution is about
abiogenesis and you fail to present any other evidence that backs up the
Theory of Evolution for falsification.
Post by old man joe
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by
intimidation.
In reality I can see that you or people like you are repeatedly told that
you should first get your facts straight.
Post by old man joe
the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God in His
image and every cognizant person knows full well there is the Living God
who created all things because God Himself made Himself evident to
everyone with cognizance just as He says in Ro.1:18-20... rendering
every person " without excuse. "
So I am guessing:
You just know what is right. You have no need to rethink your position
because you know it is right beyond doubt. Because God told you so. And
he tells you in giving you a feeling about what is right.

Yet there is no evidence that any god is involved in that process.

So I am asking you: Where does this "cognizance" come from? Isn't it
right that god gives it to people?
Now I'm not an expert at Evolution, it's just a hobby to learn a little
bit about it. But even with this little knowledge I can immedietaly see
where creationists go wrong when they present the Theory of Evolution.
I can also see that this "cognizance" isn't worth much because many
people claim to have it yet it tells them very different things. It seems
clear to me that even if it is there then it is not more than wishful
thinking and self-suggestion.
b***@gmail.com
2011-04-20 14:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
One common link between both belief camps.(Those that believe "he"
exists,and those that believe 'he' doesnt.)

The believers in evolution recognise that life didnt exist (on earth)
before the planet cooled down, after its early molten stage (before it
"evolved" to a life supporting system...yes consisting of the the
elements you refer to.) Of course the word evolved could be replaced
'progressed to', but still an observable provable process of inanimate
objects.

What do both sides know? During part of the process, life appeared
resulting in the complexity that exists today. Both camps have a
belief of how this came about. The common proof that this happened is
self evident.One side believes it started with single cell organisms,
the other where man spontaneously appears.

We can demonstrate how single cells divide and follow the mysterious
dna code, forming organisms up to the human level (mysterious to
religious believers also...why the need for dna if man spontaneously
appeared?), but we cannot create spontaneous life.

Both sides rationalise their belifs, and of course, some come from
both camps.

Of course, there is the spiritual view, being life it eternal (all of
the religions imply that), and science also recognises that energy
cannot be created or destroyed.

Just different "cognizant" views and interpretations of the same
reality.

BOfL
Ken
2011-04-20 14:21:05 UTC
Permalink
And a Senile Old Troll is He
Ben Kaufman
2011-04-20 15:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Does trolling make your life worth living?
Davej
2011-04-20 15:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
earth which are not alive.
Evolution is not abiogenesis. Learn the difference or be labeled
ignorant.

Evolution is the process by which species change over many
generations, just as domestic animals are bred to have specific
characteristics.
Wombat
2011-04-20 16:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davej
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
earth which are not alive.
Evolution is not abiogenesis. Learn the difference or be labeled
ignorant.
I fear you are too late. OMJ seems beyond all aid. It is uncertain
if he reads the refutations of his never changing spew, since he very,
very, very rarely replies.

Wombat
Post by Davej
Evolution is the process by which species change over many
generations, just as domestic animals are bred to have specific
characteristics.
Christopher A. Lee
2011-04-20 16:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davej
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
earth which are not alive.
Evolution is not abiogenesis. Learn the difference or be labeled
ignorant.
Too late.
Post by Davej
Evolution is the process by which species change over many
generations, just as domestic animals are bred to have specific
characteristics.
Just like every returning troll he has had this explained more times
than should have been necessary.
Kevin
2011-04-20 16:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Evolution means we actually do care about lessor evolved life forms in
their desire to be more like us humans.
Wombat
2011-04-20 16:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Evolution means we actually do care about lessor evolved life forms in
their desire to be more like us humans.
You do know the Great Ladder of Life was abandoned more than a century
ago, unless of course, your tongue was forming a bulge in your cheek.

Wombat
Mark Evans
2011-04-20 17:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
SNIP

Bzzt. Incorrect statement at the start, entire arguement
invalidated. Thank you for playing and let not the door strike you on
the way out.

Mark Evans
All Seeing I
2011-04-20 23:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
SNIP
Bzzt.  Incorrect statement at the start, entire arguement
invalidated.
Nope. In order to make the claim that evolution effects life,
evolution needs a defination of what life is.



 Thank you for playing and let not the door strike you on
the way out.
Mark Evans
Ralph
2011-04-21 00:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Seeing I
Post by Mark Evans
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
SNIP
Bzzt. Incorrect statement at the start, entire arguement
invalidated.
Nope. In order to make the claim that evolution effects life,
evolution needs a defination of what life is.
No it doesn't, you simple shit.
Mark Evans
2011-04-21 03:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Seeing I
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
SNIP
Bzzt.  Incorrect statement at the start, entire arguement
invalidated.
Nope. In order to make the claim that evolution effects life,
evolution needs a defination of what life is.
 Thank you for playing and let not the door strike you on
the way out.
Mark Evans- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Lloyd, Lloyd, Lloyd, your lack of an education is becoming ever more
painfully apparent. You seem to have lost what simple undestanding of
English you had. I do not need to define life to state that the OP
had made an invalid statement. I made no statement about evolution
affecting life. I merely claimed that the OP had made an invalid
statement about the ToE. The validity of the ToE was not the issue
but you, in your seemingly endless depths of sheer stupidity, jumped
in and made an observation that was entirely at odds with the
discussion at this point.

Do let the door hit you on the way out. Perhaps the sharp jolt to
your brain will cause a few neurons to fire.

Still waiting for answers from you.

Mark Evans
Budikka666
2011-04-22 22:52:05 UTC
Permalink
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes

HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes

HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes

HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes

In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN

Budikka
AllSeeing-I
2011-04-23 04:18:21 UTC
Permalink
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Budikka
Dream on
Devils Advocaat
2011-04-23 08:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Budikka
Dream on
Try and keep up, you claimed that chimp and human hox genes are on
different chromosomes.

The actual evidence of where the hox gene clusters are located in both
the chimp and human genomes show your claim to be false.

Therefore when Budikka calls you a liar, Budikka is not wrong.
AllSeeing-I
2011-04-23 08:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Budikka
Dream on
Try and keep up, you claimed that chimp and human hox genes are on
different chromosomes.
The actual evidence of where the hox gene clusters are located in both
the chimp and human genomes show your claim to be false.
Therefore when Budikka calls you a liar, Budikka is not wrong.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I said nothing about HOXA,B,C,D
Devils Advocaat
2011-04-23 08:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Budikka
Dream on
Try and keep up, you claimed that chimp and human hox genes are on
different chromosomes.
The actual evidence of where the hox gene clusters are located in both
the chimp and human genomes show your claim to be false.
Therefore when Budikka calls you a liar, Budikka is not wrong.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I said nothing about HOXA,B,C,D
These are the names of the HOX gene clusters maddy.

Surely you aren't so ignorant that you could see these as not being
the same thing as HOX genes?
AllSeeing-I
2011-04-23 22:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Budikka
Dream on
Try and keep up, you claimed that chimp and human hox genes are on
different chromosomes.
The actual evidence of where the hox gene clusters are located in both
the chimp and human genomes show your claim to be false.
Therefore when Budikka calls you a liar, Budikka is not wrong.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I said nothing about HOXA,B,C,D
These are the names of the HOX gene clusters maddy.
Surely you aren't so ignorant that you could see these as not being
the same thing as HOX genes?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
evidence?
Devils Advocaat
2011-04-24 05:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colanth
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Budikka
Dream on
Try and keep up, you claimed that chimp and human hox genes are on
different chromosomes.
The actual evidence of where the hox gene clusters are located in both
the chimp and human genomes show your claim to be false.
Therefore when Budikka calls you a liar, Budikka is not wrong.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I said nothing about HOXA,B,C,D
These are the names of the HOX gene clusters maddy.
Surely you aren't so ignorant that you could see these as not being
the same thing as HOX genes?
evidence?
Are you really asking me for evidence of your ignorance?
Ralph
2011-04-24 21:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by Colanth
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Budikka
Dream on
Try and keep up, you claimed that chimp and human hox genes are on
different chromosomes.
The actual evidence of where the hox gene clusters are located in both
the chimp and human genomes show your claim to be false.
Therefore when Budikka calls you a liar, Budikka is not wrong.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I said nothing about HOXA,B,C,D
These are the names of the HOX gene clusters maddy.
Surely you aren't so ignorant that you could see these as not being
the same thing as HOX genes?
evidence?
Are you really asking me for evidence of your ignorance?
That's what the stupid ass is doing:-)))))).

Andrew
2011-04-23 12:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Budikka666
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Without a creation by a Creator, you have no DNA with chromosomes and genes
to begin with. Therefore creationism wins, and Budikka has lost again and awaits
the final Day when he will meet his Maker to answer for his rebellion against the
abundant evidence for a creation by an all powerful Creator.
Post by Budikka666
Budikka
Free Lunch
2011-04-23 16:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Budikka666
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Without a creation by a Creator, you have no DNA with chromosomes and genes
to begin with. Therefore creationism wins, and Budikka has lost again and awaits
the final Day when he will meet his Maker to answer for his rebellion against the
abundant evidence for a creation by an all powerful Creator.
What nonsense you spew.

Why do you insist that there must be a creator when there isn't any
evidence at all pointing to such an idea, but you refuse to countenance
the question about where the creator came from. You seriously need to
take a class in remedial logic and critical thinking.
Immortalist
2011-04-23 17:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by Andrew
Post by Budikka666
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Without a creation by a Creator, you have no DNA with chromosomes and genes
to begin with. Therefore creationism wins, and Budikka has lost again and awaits
the final Day when he will meet his Maker to answer for his rebellion against the
abundant evidence for a creation by an all powerful Creator.
What nonsense you spew.
Why do you insist that there must be a creator when there isn't any
evidence at all pointing to such an idea, but you refuse to countenance
the question about where the creator came from. You seriously need to
take a class in remedial logic and critical thinking.
Speculative reason will be mis-applied beyond the limits of possible
experience while considering such topics. The contradiction arises
because valid arguments can be made in favour of both views. If
unresolved this antimony could lead to 'the euthanasia of pure
reason' (AKA skepticism).

They are contradictory, but validly proven pairs of claims that reason
is compelled toward. The contradictory claims could both be proven
because they both shared the mistaken metaphysical assumption that we
can have knowledge of things as they are in themselves, independent of
the conditions of our experience of them.

An antinomy produces a self-contradiction by accepted ways of
reasoning. It establishes that some tacit and trusted pattern of
reasoning must be made explicit and henceforward be avoided or
revised.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=antinomy+kant
Free Lunch
2011-04-23 18:24:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:37:22 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
Post by Immortalist
Post by Free Lunch
Post by Andrew
Post by Budikka666
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Without a creation by a Creator, you have no DNA with chromosomes and genes
to begin with. Therefore creationism wins, and Budikka has lost again and awaits
the final Day when he will meet his Maker to answer for his rebellion against the
abundant evidence for a creation by an all powerful Creator.
What nonsense you spew.
Why do you insist that there must be a creator when there isn't any
evidence at all pointing to such an idea, but you refuse to countenance
the question about where the creator came from. You seriously need to
take a class in remedial logic and critical thinking.
Speculative reason will be mis-applied beyond the limits of possible
experience while considering such topics. The contradiction arises
because valid arguments can be made in favour of both views. If
unresolved this antimony could lead to 'the euthanasia of pure
reason' (AKA skepticism).
They are contradictory, but validly proven pairs of claims that reason
is compelled toward. The contradictory claims could both be proven
because they both shared the mistaken metaphysical assumption that we
can have knowledge of things as they are in themselves, independent of
the conditions of our experience of them.
An antinomy produces a self-contradiction by accepted ways of
reasoning. It establishes that some tacit and trusted pattern of
reasoning must be made explicit and henceforward be avoided or
revised.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=antinomy+kant
That is why logic by itself is useless. Without a grasp of reality and
an ability to sift and winnow wheat from chaff, you have nothing but a
perfectly respectable argument based on totally useless assumptions.
Immortalist
2011-04-23 23:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:37:22 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
Post by Immortalist
Post by Free Lunch
Post by Andrew
Post by Budikka666
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Without a creation by a Creator, you have no DNA with chromosomes and genes
to begin with. Therefore creationism wins, and Budikka has lost again and awaits
the final Day when he will meet his Maker to answer for his rebellion against the
abundant evidence for a creation by an all powerful Creator.
What nonsense you spew.
Why do you insist that there must be a creator when there isn't any
evidence at all pointing to such an idea, but you refuse to countenance
the question about where the creator came from. You seriously need to
take a class in remedial logic and critical thinking.
Speculative reason will be mis-applied beyond the limits of possible
experience while considering such topics.  The contradiction arises
because valid arguments can be made in favour of both views. If
unresolved this antimony could lead to 'the euthanasia of pure
reason' (AKA skepticism).
They are contradictory, but validly proven pairs of claims that reason
is compelled toward. The contradictory claims could both be proven
because they both shared the mistaken metaphysical assumption that we
can have knowledge of things as they are in themselves, independent of
the conditions of our experience of them.
An antinomy produces a self-contradiction by accepted ways of
reasoning. It establishes that some tacit and trusted pattern of
reasoning must be made explicit and henceforward be avoided or
revised.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=antinomy+kant
That is why logic by itself is useless. Without a grasp of reality and
an ability to sift and winnow wheat from chaff, you have nothing but a
perfectly respectable argument based on totally useless assumptions.
Are you claiming you can prove or disprove that this god exists? My
response was about problems that have no evidence to determine them
either true or false. To claim either creates confusion because there
is no evidence. If there is no evidence either way the issue is
useless, like arguing about unicorns when one hasn't been seen yet
except in fantasy stories.
Devils Advocaat
2011-04-23 18:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Budikka666
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Without a creation by a Creator, you have no DNA with chromosomes and genes
to begin with. Therefore creationism wins, and Budikka has lost again and awaits
the final Day when he will meet his Maker to answer for his rebellion against the
abundant evidence for a creation by an all powerful Creator.
Poor lil Andrew.

Still unable to explain why DNA is evidence for any alleged creator.

Let alone the one he is supposed to believe in.
Post by Andrew
Post by Budikka666
Budikka
AllSeeing-I
2011-04-23 22:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by Andrew
Post by Budikka666
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Without a creation by a Creator, you have no DNA with chromosomes and genes
to begin with. Therefore creationism wins, and Budikka has lost again and awaits
the final Day when he will meet his Maker to answer for his rebellion against the
abundant evidence for a creation by an all powerful Creator.
Poor lil Andrew.
Still unable to explain why DNA is evidence for any alleged creator.
Let alone the one he is supposed to believe in.
The complexity of DNA alone demands a creator as an explanation.
Unless you actually believe a hurricane can assemble a 747 by simply
passing over a junkyard, which you probably do believe since you also
believe an ape can magically change into a human.
Devils Advocaat
2011-04-24 05:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by Andrew
Post by Budikka666
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Without a creation by a Creator, you have no DNA with chromosomes and genes
to begin with. Therefore creationism wins, and Budikka has lost again and awaits
the final Day when he will meet his Maker to answer for his rebellion against the
abundant evidence for a creation by an all powerful Creator.
Poor lil Andrew.
Still unable to explain why DNA is evidence for any alleged creator.
Let alone the one he is supposed to believe in.
The complexity of DNA alone demands a creator as an explanation.
Are you sure of that? Or is it your ignorance of DNA's structure that
makes you want a creator to be involved?

Let's not forget your precious Bible fails utterly to mention DNA.
Post by AllSeeing-I
Unless you actually believe a hurricane can assemble a 747 by simply
passing over a junkyard, which you probably do believe since you also
believe an ape can magically change into a human.
No one who favours evolution over creationism believes that 747
nonsense to be true, nor do they believe magic is involved in
evolution either.
wf3h
2011-04-24 12:48:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:12:14 -0700 (PDT), AllSeeing-I
<***@usa.com> wrote:

.
Post by AllSeeing-I
The complexity of DNA alone demands a creator as an explanation.
Unless you actually believe a hurricane can assemble a 747 by simply
passing over a junkyard, which you probably do believe since you also
believe an ape can magically change into a human.
this makes no sense. and this is why:

1. those who say it requires a creator used the SAME explanation to
explain nature BEFORE DNA was discovered. this 'creator' explanation
had NO role in the discovery of DNA. none. it took SCIENCE to discover
what the creationists could not

so how can creationists now use DNA to confirm their beliefs when
their own belief system had NO ROLE whatsoever in understanding the
very existence of DNA??

2. creationists DENY the existence of physical and chemical principles
that cause DNA to exist

so how can they use these principles to confirm their beliefs when
they REJECT these principles??
Davej
2011-04-20 17:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
[...]
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
And yet lots of people take "dead vitamins."
JohnN
2011-04-20 17:53:51 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 20, 8:18 am, old man joe <***@themarketplace.com> wrote:
...
Post by old man joe
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
On the internet, no one knows if the elements are alive or not.

JohnN
MarkA
2011-04-20 20:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
earth which are not alive.
Wow. Wrong on the very first sentence! Ever hear the term,
"abiogenesis"?
--
MarkA

If you are reading this, you can stop now.
Michael Gordge
2011-04-20 20:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Was god made from living or dead elements?

MG
Pepsi
2011-04-20 22:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
earth which are not alive.
1: The factuality of evolution does not depend on the claims, doubts or
questions from someone who does not know their ass from a hole in the
ground.
Evolution could fail every test yOU can throw at it - but it would still be
right. Your stupidity means nothing.

2: Because of your ignorance, your "straw man" arguments and claims mean
absolutely nothing.
Post by old man joe
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our
world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life. call names as the evolutionists
do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come
out of elements that are
not alive.
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
???? Evolutino didn't happen - because the chemicals that comprise a human
being can be found on the internet?
Post by old man joe
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
No one eever claimed they were.
(Your assertion only proves a complete lack of anything pertaining to
Chemistry ... too.
Post by old man joe
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys they logically need
to prove where the monkey
came from. and what made itself into a monkey... and before that, and
before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.
Evolutionists never claimed we evolved from monkeys

Hell with it - you've been told about reality before, yet, for some sick
reason, you opt to remain totally ignorant and mentally corrupt.
Conan the bacterium
2011-04-20 22:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Yes, and?

I am alive, and my body is composed of atoms which individually
are not alive. Your point?
Post by old man joe
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.  call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
..
Post by old man joe
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
..
Post by old man joe
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
A molecule of water is not wet. Assembages of
water molecule are wet.

An atom of copper is not a conductor of electricity.
Assemblages of copper atoms conduct electricity

An atom of gold is not yellow. Assemblages
of god atoms are yellow

An atom does not undergo entropy. Assemblages
of atoms undergo entropy.

Atoms of CHONPS are not alive. Some assemblages
of atoms of CHNPS are alive.

You really might want to read up on "emergent
properties".

Life is not a pile of atoms; life is a process.

conan
Post by old man joe
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys  they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from.  and what made itself into a monkey...  and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.
and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !
well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe in God that He created living things...
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth.
that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
just shows you are trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy
language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking about...
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.
the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God in His image and every cognizant
person knows full well there is the Living God who created all things because God Himself made
Himself evident to everyone with cognizance just as He says in Ro.1:18-20... rendering every person
" without excuse. "
Don Kresch
2011-04-20 22:35:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:18:36 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
No, it doesn't.

So....if life can only come from life, god must be alive.
Ergo, god came from somewhere. God can't always have been alive or
you're a hypocrite. Which is it? My guess is hypocrite.



Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
s***@cox.net
2011-04-21 00:16:36 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:18:36 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.
Why is it that if you break down the human body into its basic
form, you get nothing but elements? I don't see any exotic or unknown
elements or a god element.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

"Well.. if we run on electricity, why don't get electrocuted when we
take a shower?" Favorite christian rebuttal.
Immortalist
2011-04-21 02:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:18:36 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.
   Why is it that if you break down the human body into its basic
form, you get nothing but elements? I don't see any exotic or unknown
elements or a god element.
Motions and interactions of these elements are like the spirit. In
this way the "self" is probably not the brain but only the -
activities- of a brain.
Post by raven1
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
"Well.. if we run on electricity, why don't get electrocuted when we
take a shower?"  Favorite christian rebuttal.
Immortalist
2011-04-21 02:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life
coming from the elements of the
earth which are not alive.
Your taking an attribute of a whole or a class and assuming that it
must also necessarily be true of each part or member. That is a
mistaken way to present your argument. You are making implied
arguments that the origin of life cannot happen by chance on this
planet, and secondly that a particular God did it. But please be clear
and get rid of this strange comparison of parts and wholes. You must
eliminate the possibility that life came about by combinations of
elements over time in a natural way.

The Fallacy of Division takes the form of:

1. X has property P. Therefore, all parts of X have this property P.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_division.htm

A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something
true of a thing must also be true of at least some of its
constituents.

An example:

1. A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean

2. If a Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean, then one of its
jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean.

3. One of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

Here are the arguments that you need to make impossible before you can
be certain that this God created life or it is just the weaker theory
on the evidence.

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is the
formation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily
used to refer to the chemical origin of life, such as from a
'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most
probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living
but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis)...

...In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on
Earth", suggested that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-
less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he
suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are
dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse
with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original.
This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and
metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the
structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes.

Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-
biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would
have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the
building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called
biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from
self-replicating but nonliving molecules....

...[The] Clay hypothesis (sometimes called clay theory) has been
presented by Graham Cairns-Smith as a possible solution of the problem
of origin of life from inorganic non-living matter. It is based on the
assumption that original living organisms were low-complexity "naked
genes", whose shape and chemical properties influenced their survival
chances; the transition from inorganic lifeforms to DNA-based
organisms was a "genetic takeover".

Cairns-Smith suggests crystals as original naked genes, and in
particular clays. Clays can also include other atoms and molecules in
their structures, and perhaps evolved including more and more complex
structures, until DNA-related molecules would have taken control of
the organism, becoming the genetic driver of its life...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

The iron-sulfur world theory is a hypothesis for the origin of life
advanced by Günter Wächtershäuser, a Munich chemist and patent lawyer,
involving forms of iron and sulfur. Wächtershäuser proposes that an
early form of metabolism predated genetics. Metabolism here means a
cycle of chemical reactions that produce energy in a form that can be
harnessed by other processes. The idea is that once a primitive
metabolic cycle was established, it began to produce ever more complex
compounds.

A key idea of the theory is that this early chemistry of life occurred
not in bulk solution in the oceans, but on mineral surfaces (e.g. iron
pyrites) near deep hydrothermal vents. This was an anaerobic, high-
temperature (near 100°C), high-pressure environment. The first 'cells'
would have been lipid bubbles on the mineral surfaces.

Wächtershäuser has hypothesized a special role for acetic acid, a
simple combination of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen found in vinegar.
Acetic acid is part of the citric acid cycle that is fundamental to
metabolism in cells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory

RNA world hypothesis states that RNA was, before the emergence of the
first cell, the dominant, and probably the only, form of life. The
phrase "The RNA World" was first used by Walter Gilbert in 1986.

This hypothesis is supported by RNA's ability to participate in the
storage, transmission, and duplication of genetic information,
similarly to DNA, coupled with its ability to act as a ribozyme
(similar to an enzyme), catalyzing certain reactions. From the point
of view of reproduction, molecules exist for two basic purposes: self-
replication and catalysis assisting self-replication. DNA is capable
of self-replication, but only assisted by proteins. Proteins are
excellent catalysts, but fail to catalyze processes complex enough to
recreate themselves, individually. RNA is capable of both catalysis
and self-replication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
Devils Advocaat
2011-04-21 07:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Okay now, if I took some of your blood and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then took a lump of haematite and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then mixed all those iron atoms up, would you be able to
distinguish the iron atoms that came from your blood by any quality
that the iron atoms from the haematite don't possess?
old man joe
2011-04-22 09:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Okay now, if I took some of your blood and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then took a lump of haematite and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then mixed all those iron atoms up, would you be able to
distinguish the iron atoms that came from your blood by any quality
that the iron atoms from the haematite don't possess?
off topic... where life really comes from is the topic... life if not found in any form of iron.
life comes from the Living God...

" And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life; and man became a living soul. " Gen.2:7

the " dust of the ground " is the non-living elements of the earth while the " breath of life "
which only God has is not of this earth since the Living God is not of this earth...

" And he ( Jesus Christ ) said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this
world; I am not of this world. " Joh 8:23
Les Hellawell
2011-04-22 09:44:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 05:24:21 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Okay now, if I took some of your blood and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then took a lump of haematite and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then mixed all those iron atoms up, would you be able to
distinguish the iron atoms that came from your blood by any quality
that the iron atoms from the haematite don't possess?
off topic... where life really comes from is the topic... life if not found in any form of iron.
life comes from the Living God...
Do you wish us to accept this assertion just on your say-so?
Post by old man joe
" And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life; and man became a living soul. " Gen.2:7
Do you wish us to accept this assertion from an unkown author from a
past far more ignorant that we are know just on his say-so? For
example the anonymous author could not have known that the human body
is almost 40% water (hydrogen and Oxygen), not the sort of thing you
find in a dry and dusty desert region is it?
Post by old man joe
the " dust of the ground " is the non-living elements of the earth while the " breath of life "
which only God has is not of this earth since the Living God is not of this earth...
" And he ( Jesus Christ ) said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this
world; I am not of this world. " Joh 8:23
Do you wish me to accept this asserion by Joh (whoever Joh is) just on
his say-so?

You seem to be wanting us to accept a lot of assertion simply on the
say so of others some of whom are not even identified. If I make an
assertion, such as, 'you are a prat' would you accept it from me just
on my say-so?


Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
Yorkshire -The White Rose County
Devils Advocaat
2011-04-22 12:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Okay now, if I took some of your blood and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then took a lump of haematite and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then mixed all those iron atoms up, would you be able to
distinguish the iron atoms that came from your blood by any quality
that the iron atoms from the haematite don't possess?
off topic... where life really comes from is the topic... life if not found in any form of iron.
life comes from the Living God...
"  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life; and man became a living soul. "  Gen.2:7
the " dust of the ground " is the non-living elements of the earth while the " breath of life "
which only God has is not of this earth since the Living God is not of this earth...
"  And he ( Jesus Christ ) said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this
world; I am not of this world. "  Joh 8:23
You clearly don't understand what I posted.

Iron from haematite and iron from your body.

Can you demonstrate that they are different in any way?
raven1
2011-04-22 15:48:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 05:24:21 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Okay now, if I took some of your blood and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then took a lump of haematite and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then mixed all those iron atoms up, would you be able to
distinguish the iron atoms that came from your blood by any quality
that the iron atoms from the haematite don't possess?
off topic... where life really comes from is the topic...
Which has nothing to do with evolution.
Free Lunch
2011-04-22 15:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Hellawell
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 05:24:21 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Okay now, if I took some of your blood and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then took a lump of haematite and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then mixed all those iron atoms up, would you be able to
distinguish the iron atoms that came from your blood by any quality
that the iron atoms from the haematite don't possess?
off topic... where life really comes from is the topic...
Which has nothing to do with evolution.
But joe has no understanding of science, so he confuses things easily.
He refuses to understand that his religious doctrines are not related to
anything in the real world.
Devils Advocaat
2011-04-22 15:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Okay now, if I took some of your blood and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then took a lump of haematite and removed the iron atoms from
it, and then mixed all those iron atoms up, would you be able to
distinguish the iron atoms that came from your blood by any quality
that the iron atoms from the haematite don't possess?
off topic... where life really comes from is the topic... life if not found in any form of iron.
life comes from the Living God...
"  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life; and man became a living soul. "  Gen.2:7
the " dust of the ground " is the non-living elements of the earth while the " breath of life "
which only God has is not of this earth since the Living God is not of this earth...
"  And he ( Jesus Christ ) said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this
world; I am not of this world. "  Joh 8:23
Evasion noted.
Colanth
2011-04-22 22:49:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 05:24:21 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
where life really comes from is the topic... life if not found in any form of iron.
life comes from the Living God...
Objective evidence?
--
"I drank WHAT?????" - Socrates
Immortalist
2011-04-23 22:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Sentences depend upon one thing, words and letters none of which carry
the meaning of a sentence with its subject/verb/object.
Post by old man joe
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life.  call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
Do you have an example of evolutionists name calling and harrasing
atoms and molecules because they do not display certain qualities of
life? Who is claiming that if life then atoms must be alive?
Post by old man joe
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.
So what. Are you trying to claim that a combination of elements and
their activities of cannot be something that is alive unless each
elements is alive? Please provide some evidence for your claims.
Post by old man joe
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys  they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from.  and what made itself into a monkey...  and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.
Evolutionary theory is supported by evidence that all life came from
cells and plants. There is much support also for theories about how
the first metobolic molocules and cells came about from just the
elements present on earth with no need for other theories which depend
upon something else.
Post by old man joe
and the evolutionists call those whom God causes to believe Him, stupid !
That is not a very good premise for supprting your theory about life
not possibly coming from non-life. The circumstances of scientists
have little to do with the truth or falsity of their claims. If the
evolutionists were nicer and one of these nasty bugger claimed that
2+2=4 that it wuld be truer than if they were mean when they claimed
it?
Post by old man joe
well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe in God that He created living things...
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth.
Evolutionary theory is based upon explanations about observations;
evidence. Science and evolution are "provisional" or they can be
revised if new data comes in. The reason much religion got so far
behind the times was because it is not provisional but is dogmatic or
resists even new evidence if it conflicts with the religious belief
system.
Post by old man joe
that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
just shows you are trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy
language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking about...
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.
Science and religion are not on the same level in reference to
evolution. Evolutionists can present evidence for their beliefs but
the religionists do not seem to be able to provide any evidence. Your
comparing apple and oranges and claiming they are both oranges.
Post by old man joe
the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God in His image and every cognizant
person knows full well there is the Living God who created all things because God Himself made
Himself evident to everyone with cognizance just as He says in Ro.1:18-20... rendering every person
" without excuse. "
So the reason that we should believe there is a living god is because
this living god made itself evident and this evidence is the bible?
Then can you provide evidence for why the bible is true or false since
your entire argument depends upon its truth?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...