Has nature ever created a code?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@ J N Vanderbilt III
Ultimately, if you care to go back to school and study the Theory of Evolution, we evolved from an Archæan bacteria. Stay in high school young child. And QUIT SKIPPING CLASSES! Quit going to church. It ain't a school.
Already am. It is called Concept Visions, LLC.
Yeah it was little tough for me and Concept Visions, LLC to eugenically and genetically alter the DNA to get that one. After I found my dead wife's notes though, it was rather simple.
If you care to study chemistry while you are in high school and NOT SKIPPING CLASSES, you will learn those chemicals do not heat up until they are mixed AFTER they are ejected from actually twin nozzles.
Well I thought it up. See above.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat. Remember what this means?
And I still challenge you unless you are too much of a COWARD to read this post. Most liars are also cowards.
Formal Challenge: Either provide objective hard empirical evidence to back up your claim that DNA was formed by an intelligent entity, or admit you are wrong.
And remember this: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it is not evidence.
rmfr
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ,,,,, And the option? Some magician was playing in the mud that he magically produced by waggling his fingers and then made a little mad-man. Whatever you;re selling, we aren't buying. You would not even sound like such a lunatic if you adopted the general Christian view that God did it through evolution. We have evidence for evolution. You got evidence for your little mud-man making deity? I would love to see it.
Evolution is a scientific fact, accepting it is hardly comparable to your blind unevidenced faith in fantasies like virgin births, talking snakes, and magic apples. "
Advantageous mutations in evolution are ones that increase the chances of reproduction. The other mutations die out quickly for the same reason, with natural selection as the mechanism that drives it. Only a cretin with no understanding of evolution would use the misnomer that species survive through lucky mutations, this a classic almost cliched creationist error. One of many you have parroted.
Now demonstrate objective evidence and explain how a deity created a fully formed living human from clay? Go one enthral us with your acumen? Don't forget to include a talking snake and magic apples. Now that hilarious, almost as hilarious as someone who believes that garbage denying a scientific fact established with objective evidence over 160+ years of the most intense scientific scrutiny. Do you think it is an accident the RCC with all it's money and power has accepted evolution as a fact?
You are literally talking utter nonsense now!
So I guess you just think a god that you cannot demonstrate exists at all, magically pinged everything into existence.
Utter bollocks.
Actually more like:
((((((Utter^∞)^∞)^∞)^∞)^∞)^∞)...
I know. Well played and off to Time Out with me...
***tree shuffles off with a sad bow to its boughs***
rmfr
He has been from the start, if past experience is anything to go by this melt down is indicative he is entering his endgame.
The deeper that scientists go into observing and taking a closer look into the observed matter that makes up our world - - the more they are finding that there is no natural or law or consistent order to the matter that makes up the world.
Here is a very interesting study / experiment that has been ongoing for some time now - I am sure that you will find it very interesting https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+double+slit+experiment+
Sorry. There is law, order, and consistency but maybe it is not what we expect. Every time you carry out the double slit experiment you get the same result so it tells us that the duality wave/particle always happen, that it is a consistent feature of the matter at that level.
About the katydid when it started to look EXACTLY like a leaf, what a blessing for that to happen, what are the odds?
Are they worse than a shipwrecked stranger approaching me on a deserted island with chicken liver Provençal just as I was saying to myself “ I could really go for chicken livers provencal” ?
You seem hung up on Bush crickets for some reasons, all creatures evolve to adapt to their environments.
Moths in England went from one colour to a dark shade almost black during the industrial revolution in order to survive.
They are now the ones that are killed quickest these days as the industry era is over and there are no overly sooty areas.
Humans do it, look at the children born to Elizabeth Fritzl in her father's basement.
Eyes adapting to the dank environment and so fourth...
This simply compounds the theory.
Give some actual evidence against evolution, or offer evidence that supports your bullshit magical view of how life came to be.
You are just demonstrating an arguement from your own personal ignorance.
There you go again with your evidence, your facts, and your iron clad logic, how is that fair in response to creationist verbiage.
You could just pray and get your fictional deity to magic into existence for you. Give it a try next time your hungry, another hapless created staves to death, ironically your end would be almost Darwinian, as someone too stupid to be fit for survival is killed by their stupidity.
You still peddling The debunked peppered moth evolution story?
Adaptation does not new body plans make, variation is built into the genome.
For the katydid to look EXACTLY like a leaf is something you’re going to have to explain , What LUCK!!!!!!! How come it didn’t mutate to look like Santa Claus?
"Adaptation does not new body plans make,"
Oh wait, I didn't realise speciation and macro evolution had been falsified, when did that happen? I can't find anything online, or any mention of it on any news network? Even the largest christian church on the planet seem to have missed this and still accepts evolution is a scientific fact?
https://www.vaticannews.va/en.html
Hmm I'm going with the liar liar pants on fire rebuttal here. Unless you can link the scientific research that has falsified this fact of course? Come on Bullwinkle, tempus fugit...
Still no evidence to support his bullshit narrative....
Just another, "I don't know so it can't be true!"
Yes, we gather that you're thick as pig shit... but come on... tell us how it all happens?
Macro evolution/ new body plans= never observed, just a dream
How does all life come to be then numb nuts? Come on... we're waiting....
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies are not designed to answer questions, only make unevidenced assertions based no one have a contrary explanation. Creatards don't trouble themselves with the simple fact that even in the incredibly unlikely event evolution were utterly falsified, creationist would remain nothing more than a puerile unevidenced bronze age superstitious fairy tale.
Macro evolution starts at speciation level, this has been observed by multiple research studies, and you have has links demonstrated multiple times in this very thread. You have lied about this, and about macro evolution not involving speciation, and about what defines speciation.
Your duplicity is also compounded by your hypocrisy in demanded something being observed, whilst believing bronze age superstitious myths no one can be shown to have objectively observed.
Ipso facto, you are a liar and a hypocrite. Quite an endorsement of your fictional beliefs...
J N Vanderbilt III
"Macro evolution/ new body plans= never observed, just a dream"
That's not an accurate definition of macro evolution, as you have told and are still dishonestly omitting from your definition, macro evolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with micro evolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population. No amount of repetition will validate your lie. Speciation has also been observed in multiple research programmes, all linked in this thread, so again you are lying.
We can all see you have changed your claim, rewording it to shift the goalposts after your claim that macro evolution had not been observed was refuted by the aforementioned links to research. So now you are claiming humans exist for mere decades have never directly witnessed a process that takes millennia. Such an asinine claim only a creationist would need the stupidity of it explained.
However this too has been observed many times in the evidence of the fossil record. Here is a link to 55 million years of evolution of the horse, showing step by step complete fossilised record of the changes that include of course your denial of the formation of "new body plans".
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm
Find a new gap for your fictional deity, as the ones you are pointing to don't exist. We can't help but notice you're already shifting your verbiage into claims about abiogenesis, all too predictable.
You just need to realize that no new body plans , like fish becoming human ever observed. (Over time)I sense you do realize it
Stop beating around the bush, demonstrate your mechanism for how life has come to be.
We are still waiting?
Evidence your claim.
Still a straw man lie as no one has claimed this on here, and again a glowing endorsement of the morality of your superstitious beliefs that you would lie like this.
"You just need to realize that no new body plans , like fish becoming human ever observed"
Since I never remotely made any such claim in my post, this just another of your desperate lies.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/has-nature-ever-create...
There is a link and here it is again verbatim, so every can see how much of a dishonest liar you really are.
"Macro evolution starts at speciation level, this has been observed by multiple research studies, and you have has links demonstrated multiple times in this very thread. You have lied about this, and about macro evolution not involving speciation, and about what defines speciation.
Your duplicity is also compounded by your hypocrisy in demanded something being observed, whilst believing bronze age superstitious myths no one can be shown to have objectively observed.
Ipso facto, you are a liar and a hypocrite. Quite an endorsement of your fictional beliefs..."
Wow! jnv3 has gone completely wonko.
rmfr
Yep, wondering why 'we' haven't observed huge physiological changes (Which is not macroevolution, unless you are irretrievably retarded)...
... I don't know? Perhaps it could be that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that life started roughly 4 billions years ago... Humans (homo-sapiens) have only been about for 100,000 years, of which we have only been documenting things for a few thousand years and have known of evolution for a few hundred years.
It's almost like it's a fucking long time... it's almost like, i dunno... we've been around for sod all of it....
It's weird isn't it?!?!?!
It's almost like our short history and life spans may have limited us?!?!
It's crazy!!!!
Time won’t solve your problem, way to many obstacles for a fish to eventually become a philosopher, and nobody has witnessed any new body part forming ever, unless mutant
Anyone for chicken livers provencal?
So you're saying it can't happen, unless it happens? That sounds like a tautology to me.
Argument from incredulity fallacy as well...his irrational verbiage is relentless, and I look forward to him claiming again that he is being logical.
J N Vanderbilt III "way to many obstacles"
Well if you have an intellect that can't differentiate between to and too, then I suspect we are at the route of the problem.
"a fish to eventually become a philosopher,"
Again, please quote a single post claiming this happened? You are a liar that is so stupid you seem to imagine repetition justifies that lie. This again speaks volumes about the morality of your vapid superstitious beliefs.
"Anyone for chicken livers provencal?"
I think "chicken liver" sums your posts up pretty succinctly. Do you know SFT by any chance?
Pages