What is abiogenesis?

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

So thinking that the Mona Lisa painting is "purposeful design" is pure speculation?

And I already tried explaining to you that it couldn't have.

Revinh

Because living things don't abide by "the rules of evolution" either. All that happens is replication. Humans always reproduce humans with slight modification with descent. But they still reproduce humans and they were never anything else. Bees produce bees. Oak trees remain oak trees generations after generations. Humans reproduce humans forever and ever and ever...

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

So thinking that the Mona Lisa painting is "purposeful design" is pure speculation?

And I already tried explaining to you that it couldn't have.

DeeJayInphinity

Because living things don't abide by "the rules of evolution" either. All that happens is replication. Humans always reproduce humans with slight modification with descent. But they still reproduce humans and they were never anything else. Bees produce bees. Oak trees remain oak trees generations after generations. Humans reproduce humans forever and ever and ever...

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]God doesnt make mistakes MAN DOES!SolidSnake35

I didn't say that, anyway how was that a mistake? And extinction has natural causes.

only because of the original sin. all humans inherited imperfection.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]It IS pure story telling. Its evidences are overwhelmingly pathetic.notconspiracy

Of course. There's overwhelming evidence of his works everywhere. The earth is full of his production.

I don't have to have seen it. Purposeful design is evident in them and that requires a Designer.

The earth shows purposeful design, plants and animals with their unique features and abilities shows intelligent design. your bodily system shows design (skeletal, muscular, nervous,..) shows design. It's evident everywhere..

Now that's personal incredulity.

That's like asking how does an HDTV show purposeful design??

second, you have not provided a SINGLE piece of tangible evidence for design.

Yeah, but excluding the replication difference, you're still "how" essentially the same way.

you on the other hand will look at a 5 digit hand and say it must have been designed without any real, tangible evidence for this conclusion

5 digits isn't really a strong example of design. Think about the digestive system, immune, the various organs performing incredible tasks.

Robosapien is designed. Now disregarding the fact that humans reproduce, doesn't the human body show design?

By the way, if I'm not mistaken bats and whales (which don't have fingers and limbs) are mammals.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]It IS pure story telling. Its evidences are overwhelmingly pathetic.Revinh

Of course. There's overwhelming evidence of his works everywhere. The earth is full of his production.

I don't have to have seen it. Purposeful design is evident in them and that requires a Designer.

The earth shows purposeful design, plants and animals with their unique features and abilities shows intelligent design. your bodily system shows design (skeletal, muscular, nervous,..) shows design. It's evident everywhere..

Now that's personal incredulity.

That's like asking how does an HDTV show purposeful design??

second, you have not provided a SINGLE piece of tangible evidence for design.

Yeah, but excluding the replication difference, you're still "how" essentially the same way.

you on the other hand will look at a 5 digit hand and say it must have been designed without any real, tangible evidence for this conclusion

5 digits isn't really a strong example of design. Think about the digestive system, immune, the various organs performing incredible tasks.

Robosapien is designed. Now disregarding the fact that humans reproduce, doesn't the human body show design?

By the way, if I'm not mistaken bats and whales (which don't have fingers) are mammals.

oh, and they still have digits

All you've given me is links to your other threads and links to scientists using reverse engineering on modern day animals, as if that somehow is proof of Intelligent Design.

Your 'complex, functional machines show purposeful design' is nonsensical as animals are not machines. You know this and are making inane comparisons.
Complex, functional organisms show efficient adaptation. Nowhere in there is there design. Even then, it is just an inference. An inference is not evidence.

Have you even watched these videos? I don't think you have, because yourself and 123625 keep saying the same incorrect things, which would then just mean you're being ignorant.

What's your next piece of evidence?Red-XIII

Yeah, animals can adapt. But how could an animal, spiders, frogs, an apple tree, a human, been anything else? I find it hard to believe that a series of adaptation created them. It makes more sense that they were intelligently designed and created and can adapt and can have variations.

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]All you've given me is links to your other threads and links to scientists using reverse engineering on modern day animals, as if that somehow is proof of Intelligent Design.

Your 'complex, functional machines show purposeful design' is nonsensical as animals are not machines. You know this and are making inane comparisons.
Complex, functional organisms show efficient adaptation. Nowhere in there is there design. Even then, it is just an inference. An inference is not evidence.

Have you even watched these videos? I don't think you have, because yourself and 123625 keep saying the same incorrect things, which would then just mean you're being ignorant.

What's your next piece of evidence?Revinh

Yeah, animals can adapt. But how could an animal, spiders, frogs, an apple tree, a human, been anything else? I find it hard to believe that a series of adaptation created them. It makes more sense that they were intelligently designed and created and can adapt and can have variations.

second, why are all animals, spiders, frogs, trees and humans, why are they all eucaryotes?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]It IS pure story telling. Its evidences are overwhelmingly pathetic.Revinh

Of course. There's overwhelming evidence of his works everywhere. The earth is full of his production.

I don't have to have seen it. Purposeful design is evident in them and that requires a Designer.

The earth shows purposeful design, plants and animals with their unique features and abilities shows intelligent design. your bodily system shows design (skeletal, muscular, nervous,..) shows design. It's evident everywhere..

Now that's personal incredulity.

That's like asking how does an HDTV show purposeful design??

second, you have not provided a SINGLE piece of tangible evidence for design.

Yeah, but excluding the replication difference, you're still "how" essentially the same way.

you on the other hand will look at a 5 digit hand and say it must have been designed without any real, tangible evidence for this conclusion

5 digits isn't really a strong example of design. Think about the digestive system, immune, the various organs performing incredible tasks.

Robosapien is designed. Now disregarding the fact that humans reproduce, doesn't the human body show design?

By the way, if I'm not mistaken bats and whales (which don't have fingers) are mammals.

oh, and they still have digits

No offense, but that just seems senseless of you.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]It IS pure story telling. Its evidences are overwhelmingly pathetic.notconspiracy

Of course. There's overwhelming evidence of his works everywhere. The earth is full of his production.

I don't have to have seen it. Purposeful design is evident in them and that requires a Designer.

The earth shows purposeful design, plants and animals with their unique features and abilities shows intelligent design. your bodily system shows design (skeletal, muscular, nervous,..) shows design. It's evident everywhere..

Now that's personal incredulity.

That's like asking how does an HDTV show purposeful design??

second, you have not provided a SINGLE piece of tangible evidence for design.

Yeah, but excluding the replication difference, you're still "how" essentially the same way.

you on the other hand will look at a 5 digit hand and say it must have been designed without any real, tangible evidence for this conclusion

5 digits isn't really a strong example of design. Think about the digestive system, immune, the various organs performing incredible tasks.

Robosapien is designed. Now disregarding the fact that humans reproduce, doesn't the human body show design?

By the way, if I'm not mistaken bats and whales (which don't have fingers) are mammals.

oh, and they still have digits

No offense, but that just seems senseless of you.

lol...there's no use in me explaining to you and giving examples of design...

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]It IS pure story telling. Its evidences are overwhelmingly pathetic.Revinh

Of course. There's overwhelming evidence of his works everywhere. The earth is full of his production.

I don't have to have seen it. Purposeful design is evident in them and that requires a Designer.

The earth shows purposeful design, plants and animals with their unique features and abilities shows intelligent design. your bodily system shows design (skeletal, muscular, nervous,..) shows design. It's evident everywhere..

Now that's personal incredulity.

That's like asking how does an HDTV show purposeful design??

second, you have not provided a SINGLE piece of tangible evidence for design.

Yeah, but excluding the replication difference, you're still "how" essentially the same way.

you on the other hand will look at a 5 digit hand and say it must have been designed without any real, tangible evidence for this conclusion

5 digits isn't really a strong example of design. Think about the digestive system, immune, the various organs performing incredible tasks.

Robosapien is designed. Now disregarding the fact that humans reproduce, doesn't the human body show design?

By the way, if I'm not mistaken bats and whales (which don't have fingers) are mammals.

oh, and they still have digits

No offense, but that just seems senseless of you.

lol...there's no use in me explaining to you and giving examples of design...

so, do you have any tangible evidence for design?

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Red-XIII"]All you've given me is links to your other threads and links to scientists using reverse engineering on modern day animals, as if that somehow is proof of Intelligent Design.

Your 'complex, functional machines show purposeful design' is nonsensical as animals are not machines. You know this and are making inane comparisons.
Complex, functional organisms show efficient adaptation. Nowhere in there is there design. Even then, it is just an inference. An inference is not evidence.

Have you even watched these videos? I don't think you have, because yourself and 123625 keep saying the same incorrect things, which would then just mean you're being ignorant.

What's your next piece of evidence?notconspiracy

Yeah, animals can adapt. But how could an animal, spiders, frogs, an apple tree, a human, been anything else? I find it hard to believe that a series of adaptation created them. It makes more sense that they were intelligently designed and created and can adapt and can have variations.

second, why are all animals, spiders, frogs, trees and humans, why are they all eucaryotes?

no, argument from what makes sense

second, their being eucaryotes don't mean there was a eucaryotic ancestor. It's just cIassification. common ancestor/descent comes in because your personal overwillingness to believe.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Red-XIII"]All you've given me is links to your other threads and links to scientists using reverse engineering on modern day animals, as if that somehow is proof of Intelligent Design.

Your 'complex, functional machines show purposeful design' is nonsensical as animals are not machines. You know this and are making inane comparisons.
Complex, functional organisms show efficient adaptation. Nowhere in there is there design. Even then, it is just an inference. An inference is not evidence.

Have you even watched these videos? I don't think you have, because yourself and 123625 keep saying the same incorrect things, which would then just mean you're being ignorant.

What's your next piece of evidence?Revinh

Yeah, animals can adapt. But how could an animal, spiders, frogs, an apple tree, a human, been anything else? I find it hard to believe that a series of adaptation created them. It makes more sense that they were intelligently designed and created and can adapt and can have variations.

second, why are all animals, spiders, frogs, trees and humans, why are they all eucaryotes?

no, argument from what makes sense

second, their being eucaryotes don't mean there was a eucaryotic ancestor. It's just cIassification. common ancestor/descent comes in comes in because your personal overwillingness to believe.

tell me, why are all mammals, mammalian? why are mammals the only animals with unique mammalian features?

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]It IS pure story telling. Its evidences are overwhelmingly pathetic.notconspiracy

Of course. There's overwhelming evidence of his works everywhere. The earth is full of his production.

I don't have to have seen it. Purposeful design is evident in them and that requires a Designer.

The earth shows purposeful design, plants and animals with their unique features and abilities shows intelligent design. your bodily system shows design (skeletal, muscular, nervous,..) shows design. It's evident everywhere..

Now that's personal incredulity.

That's like asking how does an HDTV show purposeful design??

second, you have not provided a SINGLE piece of tangible evidence for design.

Yeah, but excluding the replication difference, you're still "how" essentially the same way.

you on the other hand will look at a 5 digit hand and say it must have been designed without any real, tangible evidence for this conclusion

5 digits isn't really a strong example of design. Think about the digestive system, immune, the various organs performing incredible tasks.

Robosapien is designed. Now disregarding the fact that humans reproduce, doesn't the human body show design?

By the way, if I'm not mistaken bats and whales (which don't have fingers) are mammals.

oh, and they still have digits

No offense, but that just seems senseless of you.

lol...there's no use in me explaining to you and giving examples of design...

so, do you have any tangible evidence for design?

*facepalm*

what part of "there's no use" do you not understand??

I'll give you loads of evidence of design, or actually they're evident in aspects of biology, and you'll just keep saying "how is it designed?"

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Red-XIII"]All you've given me is links to your other threads and links to scientists using reverse engineering on modern day animals, as if that somehow is proof of Intelligent Design.

Your 'complex, functional machines show purposeful design' is nonsensical as animals are not machines. You know this and are making inane comparisons.
Complex, functional organisms show efficient adaptation. Nowhere in there is there design. Even then, it is just an inference. An inference is not evidence.

Have you even watched these videos? I don't think you have, because yourself and 123625 keep saying the same incorrect things, which would then just mean you're being ignorant.

What's your next piece of evidence?notconspiracy

Yeah, animals can adapt. But how could an animal, spiders, frogs, an apple tree, a human, been anything else? I find it hard to believe that a series of adaptation created them. It makes more sense that they were intelligently designed and created and can adapt and can have variations.

second, why are all animals, spiders, frogs, trees and humans, why are they all eucaryotes?

no, argument from what makes sense

second, their being eucaryotes don't mean there was a eucaryotic ancestor. It's just cIassification. common ancestor/descent comes in comes in because your personal overwillingness to believe.

tell me, why are all mammals, mammalian? why are mammals the only animals with unique mammalian features?

Because they're mammals. Simply just that.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]It IS pure story telling. Its evidences are overwhelmingly pathetic.Revinh

Of course. There's overwhelming evidence of his works everywhere. The earth is full of his production.

I don't have to have seen it. Purposeful design is evident in them and that requires a Designer.

The earth shows purposeful design, plants and animals with their unique features and abilities shows intelligent design. your bodily system shows design (skeletal, muscular, nervous,..) shows design. It's evident everywhere..

Now that's personal incredulity.

That's like asking how does an HDTV show purposeful design??

second, you have not provided a SINGLE piece of tangible evidence for design.

Yeah, but excluding the replication difference, you're still "how" essentially the same way.

you on the other hand will look at a 5 digit hand and say it must have been designed without any real, tangible evidence for this conclusion

5 digits isn't really a strong example of design. Think about the digestive system, immune, the various organs performing incredible tasks.

Robosapien is designed. Now disregarding the fact that humans reproduce, doesn't the human body show design?

By the way, if I'm not mistaken bats and whales (which don't have fingers) are mammals.

oh, and they still have digits

No offense, but that just seems senseless of you.

lol...there's no use in me explaining to you and giving examples of design...

so, do you have any tangible evidence for design?

*facepalm*

what part of "there's no use" do you not understand??

I'll give you loads of evidence of design, or actually they're evident in aspects of biology, and you'll just keep saying "how is it designed?"

YOU DO NOT GET POINTS FOR EVIDENCE NOT PRESENTED

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Red-XIII"]All you've given me is links to your other threads and links to scientists using reverse engineering on modern day animals, as if that somehow is proof of Intelligent Design.

Your 'complex, functional machines show purposeful design' is nonsensical as animals are not machines. You know this and are making inane comparisons.
Complex, functional organisms show efficient adaptation. Nowhere in there is there design. Even then, it is just an inference. An inference is not evidence.

Have you even watched these videos? I don't think you have, because yourself and 123625 keep saying the same incorrect things, which would then just mean you're being ignorant.

What's your next piece of evidence?Revinh

Yeah, animals can adapt. But how could an animal, spiders, frogs, an apple tree, a human, been anything else? I find it hard to believe that a series of adaptation created them. It makes more sense that they were intelligently designed and created and can adapt and can have variations.

second, why are all animals, spiders, frogs, trees and humans, why are they all eucaryotes?

no, argument from what makes sense

second, their being eucaryotes don't mean there was a eucaryotic ancestor. It's just cIassification. common ancestor/descent comes in comes in because your personal overwillingness to believe.

tell me, why are all mammals, mammalian? why are mammals the only animals with unique mammalian features?

Because they're mammals. Simply just that.

I'll give you loads of evidence of design, or actually they're evident in aspects of biology, and you'll just keep saying "how is it designed?"Revinh

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]All you've given me is links to your other threads and links to scientists using reverse engineering on modern day animals, as if that somehow is proof of Intelligent Design.

Your 'complex, functional machines show purposeful design' is nonsensical as animals are not machines. You know this and are making inane comparisons.
Complex, functional organisms show efficient adaptation. Nowhere in there is there design. Even then, it is just an inference. An inference is not evidence.

Have you even watched these videos? I don't think you have, because yourself and 123625 keep saying the same incorrect things, which would then just mean you're being ignorant.

What's your next piece of evidence?Revinh

Yeah, animals can adapt. But how could an animal, spiders, frogs, an apple tree, a human, been anything else? I find it hard to believe that a series of adaptation created them. It makes more sense that they were intelligently designed and created and can adapt and can have variations.

The combination of abiogenesis, natural selection and the theory of evolution all explain how they all could have been something else.

How is it hard to believe adaptations create them? An animal adapts, it reproduces, passes on the genes, its offspring adapt, reproduce, pass on their genes. It's constantly happening.

If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]It IS pure story telling. Its evidences are overwhelmingly pathetic.notconspiracy

Of course. There's overwhelming evidence of his works everywhere. The earth is full of his production.

I don't have to have seen it. Purposeful design is evident in them and that requires a Designer.

The earth shows purposeful design, plants and animals with their unique features and abilities shows intelligent design. your bodily system shows design (skeletal, muscular, nervous,..) shows design. It's evident everywhere..

Now that's personal incredulity.

That's like asking how does an HDTV show purposeful design??

second, you have not provided a SINGLE piece of tangible evidence for design.

Yeah, but excluding the replication difference, you're still "how" essentially the same way.

you on the other hand will look at a 5 digit hand and say it must have been designed without any real, tangible evidence for this conclusion

5 digits isn't really a strong example of design. Think about the digestive system, immune, the various organs performing incredible tasks.

Robosapien is designed. Now disregarding the fact that humans reproduce, doesn't the human body show design?

By the way, if I'm not mistaken bats and whales (which don't have fingers) are mammals.

oh, and they still have digits

No offense, but that just seems senseless of you.

lol...there's no use in me explaining to you and giving examples of design...

so, do you have any tangible evidence for design?

*facepalm*

what part of "there's no use" do you not understand??

I'll give you loads of evidence of design, or actually they're evident in aspects of biology, and you'll just keep saying "how is it designed?"

YOU DO NOT GET POINTS FOR EVIDENCE NOT PRESENTED

YOU DO NOT GET ANYTHING I'VE PRESENTED

[QUOTE="Revinh"]I'll give you loads of evidence of design, or actually they're evident in aspects of biology, and you'll just keep saying "how is it designed?"DeeJayInphinity

:lol:

Abiogenesis could easily have come about from the massive amount of UV rays and heat in the early Earth. Buy a biology book, I recommend Cambells biology sixth edition, it has a pretty good explanationTermite551

If I'm not mistaken, UV rays destroys amino acids..

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Revinh"]I'll give you loads of evidence of design, or actually they're evident in aspects of biology, and you'll just keep saying "how is it designed?"C_Town_Soul

:lol:

If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Red-XIII

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Revinh"]I'll give you loads of evidence of design, or actually they're evident in aspects of biology, and you'll just keep saying "how is it designed?"DeeJayInphinity

:lol:

:P

*facepalm*

YOU DO NOT GET ANYTHING I'VE PRESENTED

Revinh

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Revinh

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

Oh, so believing God made life out of inanimate matter is ok, but scientists showing how the origin of life formed from inanimate matter through the laws of chemistry is hogwash? Another double standard.

The fossil record is extremely diverse. If you bothered to watch the video on Evolution Made Easy then you'd see that there is no such thing as a transitional form. Scientists don't make up the animals in the complex evolutionary trees. Each one of those different species is from a fossil. I don't see how it is a 'desperate attempt' when it is well documented and well supported.

Because Evolution is a gradual change within each generation, there is no defining point when one animal becomes another. Each animal is a transition of the one that came before it in to the one that comes after it.
Just like you don't see yourself changing when you look at yourself in the mirror every day.

Now if you haven't seen the video, I suggest you do. At least it would help you understand the argument here.

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Revinh

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

Explain why modern whales have vestige hind legs and humans have an appendix. Those are signs of transition.

Also, evolution is not a smooth process. It is a long series of trial and error where only traits that improve reproductive potential (number of offspring, survivability, etc...) are selected for.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Red-XIII

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

Oh, so believing God made life out of inanimate matter is ok, but scientists showing how the origin of life formed from inanimate matter through the laws of chemistry is hogwash? Another double standard.

The fossil record is extremely diverse. If you bothered to watch the video on Evolution Made Easy then you'd see that there is no such thing as a transitional form. Scientists don't make up the animals in the complex evolutionary trees. Each one of those different species is from a fossil. I don't see how it is a 'desperate attempt' when it is well documented and well supported.

Because Evolution is a gradual change within each generation, there is no defining point when one animal becomes another. Each animal is a transition of the one that came before it in to the one that comes after it.
Just like you don't see yourself changing when you look at yourself in the mirror every day.

Now if you haven't seen the video, I suggest you do. At least it would help you understand the argument here.

Of course it's ok. It's just logical that the intricate cell was consciously formed. And it's logical that a living God breadth life into the form and gave it life since life only comes from preexisting life and not nonliving matter came to life.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?thehandsread730

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

Explain why modern whales have vestige hind legs and humans have an appendix. Those are signs of transition.

Also, evolution is not a smooth process. It is a long series of trial and error where only traits that improve reproductive potential (number of offspring, survivability, etc...) are selected for.

The appendix plays a role in the immune system and whales hind "legs" probably have a use that you we just don't know.

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Revinh

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

[QUOTE="thehandsread730"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Revinh

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

Explain why modern whales have vestige hind legs and humans have an appendix. Those are signs of transition.

Also, evolution is not a smooth process. It is a long series of trial and error where only traits that improve reproductive potential (number of offspring, survivability, etc...) are selected for.

The appendix plays a role in the immune system and whales hind "legs" probably have a use that you we just don't know.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

So thinking that the Mona Lisa painting is "purposeful design" is pure speculation?

And I already tried explaining to you that it couldn't have.

Revinh

Because living things don't abide by "the rules of evolution" either. All that happens is replication. Humans always reproduce humans with slight modification with descent. But they still reproduce humans and they were never anything else. Bees produce bees. Oak trees remain oak trees generations after generations. Humans reproduce humans forever and ever and ever...

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="thehandsread730"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?C_Town_Soul

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

Explain why modern whales have vestige hind legs and humans have an appendix. Those are signs of transition.

Also, evolution is not a smooth process. It is a long series of trial and error where only traits that improve reproductive potential (number of offspring, survivability, etc...) are selected for.

The appendix plays a role in the immune system and whales hind "legs" probably have a use that you we just don't know.

Isn't vestigal a feature that has no use?

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="thehandsread730"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Revinh

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

Explain why modern whales have vestige hind legs and humans have an appendix. Those are signs of transition.

Also, evolution is not a smooth process. It is a long series of trial and error where only traits that improve reproductive potential (number of offspring, survivability, etc...) are selected for.

The appendix plays a role in the immune system and whales hind "legs" probably have a use that you we just don't know.

Isn't vestigal a feature that has no use?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Revinh"]It IS pure story telling. Its evidences are overwhelmingly pathetic.Revinh

Of course. There's overwhelming evidence of his works everywhere. The earth is full of his production.

I don't have to have seen it. Purposeful design is evident in them and that requires a Designer.

The earth shows purposeful design, plants and animals with their unique features and abilities shows intelligent design. your bodily system shows design (skeletal, muscular, nervous,..) shows design. It's evident everywhere..

Now that's personal incredulity.

That's like asking how does an HDTV show purposeful design??

second, you have not provided a SINGLE piece of tangible evidence for design.

Yeah, but excluding the replication difference, you're still "how" essentially the same way.

you on the other hand will look at a 5 digit hand and say it must have been designed without any real, tangible evidence for this conclusion

5 digits isn't really a strong example of design. Think about the digestive system, immune, the various organs performing incredible tasks.

Robosapien is designed. Now disregarding the fact that humans reproduce, doesn't the human body show design?

By the way, if I'm not mistaken bats and whales (which don't have fingers) are mammals.

oh, and they still have digits

No offense, but that just seems senseless of you.

lol...there's no use in me explaining to you and giving examples of design...

so, do you have any tangible evidence for design?

*facepalm*

what part of "there's no use" do you not understand??

I'll give you loads of evidence of design, or actually they're evident in aspects of biology, and you'll just keep saying "how is it designed?"

I just see this as you thinking;

lack of evidence for creationism >> evolutionary evidence

YOU DO NOT GET ANYTHING I'VE PRESENTED

Revinh

Parhaps that's why. Notably this is exactly why creationists are not taken seriously, they don't present any evidence while simultaneously choosing to disregard science for something which has no evidence. In the end one side presents evidence, while creationists arguments just account forlittle more than whining.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="thehandsread730"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?C_Town_Soul

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

Explain why modern whales have vestige hind legs and humans have an appendix. Those are signs of transition.

Also, evolution is not a smooth process. It is a long series of trial and error where only traits that improve reproductive potential (number of offspring, survivability, etc...) are selected for.

The appendix plays a role in the immune system and whales hind "legs" probably have a use that you we just don't know.

Right, the appendix is intended for digesting complex carbohydrates like cellulose. However, it's role has been limited as our diets changed.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?C_Town_Soul

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

The Flood maybe.

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Revinh

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

Oh, so believing God made life out of inanimate matter is ok, but scientists showing how the origin of life formed from inanimate matter through the laws of chemistry is hogwash? Another double standard.

The fossil record is extremely diverse. If you bothered to watch the video on Evolution Made Easy then you'd see that there is no such thing as a transitional form. Scientists don't make up the animals in the complex evolutionary trees. Each one of those different species is from a fossil. I don't see how it is a 'desperate attempt' when it is well documented and well supported.

Because Evolution is a gradual change within each generation, there is no defining point when one animal becomes another. Each animal is a transition of the one that came before it in to the one that comes after it.
Just like you don't see yourself changing when you look at yourself in the mirror every day.

Now if you haven't seen the video, I suggest you do. At least it would help you understand the argument here.

Of course it's ok. It's just logical that the intricate cell was consciously formed. And it's logical that a living God breadth life into the form and gave it life since life only comes from preexisting life and not nonliving matter came to life.

I was being cynical. Once again, you prove that you're here to stroke your own ego. No one else's beliefs are right but yours? Get over yourself. So much for your humility as a Christian. I'm sure you've made Jesus proud.

Everything I've presented to you is scientifically sound and logical, whether it be ultimately true or not and you can't even accept that. How is the natural flow of chemicals and biology make less sense than an invisible being making everything out of magic?

And even then, if you watch the series on Youtube about the Fundamental Falsehoods of Creationism, you'd know that a majority of scientists who study Evolution are Christians. Even the Pope declared that Evolution is true but also a work of God.

You're living in the Dark Ages.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

YOU DO NOT GET ANYTHING I'VE PRESENTED

yoshi-lnex

Parhaps that's why. Notably this is exactly why creationists are not taken seriously, they don't present any evidence while simultaneously choosing to disregard science for something which has no evidence. In the end one side presents evidence, while creationists arguments just account forlittle more than whining.

I can say the same thing. You haven't presented any while simultaneously disregarding arguments from creation and you're just whining.

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Revinh

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

The Flood maybe.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

YOU DO NOT GET ANYTHING I'VE PRESENTED

Revinh

Parhaps that's why. Notably this is exactly why creationists are not taken seriously, they don't present any evidence while simultaneously choosing to disregard science for something which has no evidence. In the end one side presents evidence, while creationists arguments just account forlittle more than whining.

I can say the same thing. You haven't presented any while simultaneously disregarding arguments from creation and you're just whining.

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Revinh

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

The Flood maybe.

The Permian-Triassic extinction happened 250 million years ago. Man wasn't in the equation for... well, another 250 million years. Noah wasn't putting animals on the ark 250 million years ago. We are but blips on the geological time scale.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Red-XIII"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?Red-XIII

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

Oh, so believing God made life out of inanimate matter is ok, but scientists showing how the origin of life formed from inanimate matter through the laws of chemistry is hogwash? Another double standard.

The fossil record is extremely diverse. If you bothered to watch the video on Evolution Made Easy then you'd see that there is no such thing as a transitional form. Scientists don't make up the animals in the complex evolutionary trees. Each one of those different species is from a fossil. I don't see how it is a 'desperate attempt' when it is well documented and well supported.

Because Evolution is a gradual change within each generation, there is no defining point when one animal becomes another. Each animal is a transition of the one that came before it in to the one that comes after it.
Just like you don't see yourself changing when you look at yourself in the mirror every day.

Now if you haven't seen the video, I suggest you do. At least it would help you understand the argument here.

Of course it's ok. It's just logical that the intricate cell was consciously formed. And it's logical that a living God breadth life into the form and gave it life since life only comes from preexisting life and not nonliving matter came to life.

I was being cynical. Once again, you prove that you're here to stroke your own ego. No one else's beliefs are right but yours? Get over yourself. So much for your humility as a Christian. I'm sure you've made Jesus proud.

Everything I've presented to you is scientifically sound and logical, whether it be ultimately true or not and you can't even accept that. How is the natural flow of chemicals and biology make less sense than an invisible being making everything out of magic?

And even then, if you watch the series on Youtube about the Fundamental Falsehoods of Creationism, you'd know that a majority of scientists who study Evolution are Christians. Even the Pope declared that Evolution is true but also a work of God.

You're living in the Dark Ages.

How the heck was I "stroking my own ego"? Never did I say no one's belief is right but mine. You're making things up in your head. I was just saying what's logical and I've explained how it's logical.

i don't have to share the Pope's or other Christian's beliefs.

You are living in the Dark Ages. Seriously, nonliving matter becoming alive (even if chemicals stick together)? Man came from ape-like ancestors? Snap out of it.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

YOU DO NOT GET ANYTHING I'VE PRESENTED

C_Town_Soul

Parhaps that's why. Notably this is exactly why creationists are not taken seriously, they don't present any evidence while simultaneously choosing to disregard science for something which has no evidence. In the end one side presents evidence, while creationists arguments just account forlittle more than whining.

I can say the same thing. You haven't presented any while simultaneously disregarding arguments from creation and you're just whining.

Again, I can say the same..there is nothing to disregard because you haven't presented any evidence.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If we were intelligently designed and the fossil records are false, then every few million years God must have wiped out thousands of animals and replaced them all with different ones out of thin air, fully formed. How does that make sense?thehandsread730

It's out of dust, not thin air.

The fossil record shows exactly that. Sudden appearances of fully formed creatures* with no connection to ones that previously came. And rare fossilization isn't a valid excuse because there should still be plenty of "transitional forms" if they really did exist but the majority of the record shows that*. The ones presented by evolutionists are just desperate attempts to make them fit the theory.

And extinction has natural causes, it doesn't necessarily mean he wiped them out.

The Flood maybe.

The Permian-Triassic extinction happened 250 million years ago. Man wasn't in the equation for... well, another 250 million years. Noah wasn't putting animals on the ark 250 million years ago. We are but blips on the geological time scale.

Well then God could've created more animals...