Apostate Kate
There still is no science to back up the evolution of DNA to progress towards a more complex species.The Second LAW of Thermodynamics, Entropy, erases any chance for the theory of evolution to ever be proven.
As the link kindly provided by MaudDib shows, such an argument is based on what can politely be called a misunderstanding of the Law you quote.
When DNA mutates the greater percentage of times the mutation is detrimental to the organism.
Ah, a correct statement. I glow with happiness. Apart from the fact here you admit to DNA mutating... and elsewhere you insist it is set in stone, which is you contradicting yourself... in one post... cool...
When it is a good thing it will never change the DNA code, but can rearrange the genes.
Okay... genes are made of DNA... if the genes are rearranged, then the DNA is changed. How on god's green earth do you feel qualified to make pronouncements on evolution when you can make such a massive error on a fundamental?
Please, answer me that, I am curious.
I have asked a couple biochemists, in all sincerety, to be shown the theory has some kind of scientific validity. They come up with outrageous so called closed environment. In other words by dinking around with nature, they can manipulate organisms. and I ask...and this meeeaaans.....?
Please restaate the above in a way understandable by someone not inside your head. Or are you garbling their completely reasonable response that the 2nd Law does not apply to an OPEN system where ENERGY (from the sun) goes INTO the system and thus makes 2nd Law arguments about evolution 'rather' wrong?
Next, Joe the plumber and why Open heart surgery ain't never going to work... sorry for the sarcasm, but you earnt it.
I find Talk Origens to be very myopic.
Please expand on this, it will be fun... there was me thinking myopia was insisting fanciful contrived explanations of existence developed by primative cultures involving skymen are really real were the myopic points of view.
FD I may be blond and an apostate but I can read and reason.
Your hair colour has nothing to do with the arrogance of assuming that you, who have no education in this field and have obviously (from what you say) failed to comprehend what you have read up about the subject independently, can set the world of evolutioonary biology aright. I can imagine you in the Sistine Chapel telling Michaelangelo where he was going wrong on the basis of a Reader's Digest article you had read once, and managed to get quite a lot out of despite the fact it was in a language you didn't understand...
A ludicrous example? No... a 'blue-collar' expert who has his craftsmanship questioned and dismissed as wrong by a neonate who isn't clear on what end of the paint brush is which would join the rest of the world in laughing at them.
If it is a white collar expert every underinformed person with a keyboard feels equiped to set them to rights, and no doubt will whine at how unfair it is when they are laughed at by those who DO understand the argument.
There is no scientific evidence for the mutation of one species to mutate into another even with billions of years to work at it.
This is just wrong, further illustrating the position of profound ignorance from which you are making this argument.
I have a genetic disease that caused me to begin researching DNA. It is a code, written in stone. And of it were not we would not be here.
Oh PLEASE. One of my daughters has talapeis. This is a genetic disease, as it is hereditable, but it also can arrise spontaneously, which is how she got it. If DNA were 'written in stone' the development of YOUR genetic disease and hers would be impossible. Seriously, you are so amazingly off base and utterly wrong (about your statements regarding DNA as well as those regading evolution) it defies belief, although it makes hooberus look surprisingly well informed (in comparison) for once.
Can you explain Thamalsemia and Sickle Cell trait with your crack-pot theory of DNA written in stone? No you can't, but I doubt if you can even explain why those two examples show that you are profoundly wrong.
The universe would be one bizaar unstable place without DNA codes.
Wrong...
Where did they come from? Oh an accidental big bang from nothingness.
And your theory of abiogodesis is?
Then chemicals came from more nothingness.
Keep up will you? You just said the big bang happened, which means there isn't nothingness anymore. And if you want one small chance in a million to appear as though you know something you should use 'elements' in place of 'chemicals'
They mingled.
"How do you do" said H to He. "Oh, not too bad... I know Fe from our days back as Sun, where do you know him from?"
Then all known scientific rules were broken
If we are talking about the ones you know, then none were broken
and DNA codes mysteriously appeared out of nowhere....
And your theory of abiogodesis was?
sure..makes perfect sense...
Oooo... sarcasm... take it from an expert, only use sarcasm if you are really, like really sure you are right.
But let's not be too hard on poor little you, eh? I don't imagine for one moment you are doing anything other than parroting things you have read somewhere (note, parrotting and education are DIFFERENT).
Although you'll probably be pissed at us, the people who you should be pissed at are those whose lies about evolution you have eagerly swallowed.
hooberus
Comments such as the above are one reason why I try to no longer dialogue with the evolutionists here anymore. Thanks for the reminder.
And there was I thinking you'd gone and hidden under a rock because everytime you crawl out and bleat 'godidit', you are
- shown to be wrong
- are frequently quoting from commercialised Creationist sites run by people awarding themselves double the normal salary for such a 'charitable' instititution peddling unscientific clap-trap to the gullible and maing quite good money doing it
- are making run-on assertions based on things having happened when there is direct proof they could not have happened
- are attacking theories with vast levels of supporting evidence on the basis of single-point crticisims which do not undermine the underlying theory
- ignoring the fact you can't prove anything about your beliefs of the origin of the world
Either that or you had evolved slightly... hooberus, you ARE the missing link, goodbye... is it nice under there?
slacker911
Hail and well met. Nice to have someone else to fight the rising tides of the Ignorami (the real threat to the world - the Illuminati story is just a cover-up).
The basic principle here (as in hoob et. al) is the defence of literalism. They believe their interpretation of the Bible means god is their best buddy and most everyone else is bad. To defend this belief (based on a literal reading), they have to defend other literal readings. If they conceed that Genesis is NOT literal, then they have to concede they might not be god's best buddy and that they should stop looking down their nose at the world.
It's not about god, or love, or anything other than them expecting their unsupported opinions to be worshipped. Rampant egotism driving the chariots of ignorance forwards to inevitable disaster, just as has happened every time belief and knowledge go one-on-one.
And don't expect a response from hoob. He is disengenuous. He promnised to rebutt a post I did showing how dendrochronology and many ancient structures show the Flood was not literal, and has failed to do so for several YEARS. He says this is because I am mean to him (poor ickle diddums), but I reckon if he COULD rebutt my argument he'd not be able to stop himself, as afterall, it's all about the vindication of his opinion.
