Idiots saw a physical similarity between humans and monkeys and stupidly surmised that humans evolved from monkeys. That is not science - it is stupidity.
You will own nothing
- Thread starter Gary K
- Start date
Evolution cannot explain how early life forms created the process of thinking or how early 'elementary' life forms evolved into 'higher' life forms without adding new information to the genetic code which we know is scientifically impossible. How can evolutionists explain thinking or instinct? Are thought processes simply chemical or electrical reactions? No, that idea is stupid.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Abiogenesis is a separate entity to the ToE. The latter doesn't explain or describe how life itself came into being, it never has. It's a basic mistake that's often repeated by people who don't seem to have an understanding of it. Still, if name calling makes you feel better then have at it I guess...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It certainly isn't science and it would be stupid if that's what was posited. Good thing it isn't. Your ignorance on the subject is pretty remarkable actually.
Evolution theory supposes life evolves by mutations that create additional DNA codes in 'elementary life forms' in order to produce 'higher life forms.' That, of course, is not something that has been demonstrated can possibly happen, but that does not deter Darwinists who believe that humans evolved from monkeys because Darwinism never had anything to do with microbiology anyway.
Secularists cannot explain the origin of life. Crick won the Nobel Prize for his studies in DNA and he assured us that life could not possibly have originated on earth spontaneously in any known scientific scenario. His resulting Panspermia Theory surmised that aliens came to the earth's atmosphere in spaceships and sprinkled biologic dust there to seed original lie on earth. Even the smartest people on earth will believe some of the stupidest things in efforts to deny the existence of Gd
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys. This is laughable. Furthermore, there's plenty of believers who accept evolution and have faith. The two aren't mutually exclusive unless you're tied to a belief system that by its very nature has to deny science.
Abiogenesis is a myth that secularists refuse to let go of, realizing that only God can explain the miracle of the origin of life on earth apart from abiogenesis speculations. Abiogenesis is scientifically impossible which is why secularists have so much difficulty trying to defend its foolishness.
Right Divider
Body part
No, not fact... fantasy.
Science supports plants and animals reproducing their own kind. It's not some free-for-all.
Right Divider
Body part
Evolutionists claim that humans evolved from some single celled organism in the distant past. Now THAT is laugable.
So what? They are confused and yet you like to use them to somehow support "evolution" as true?
God created kinds. All life does NOT share a single common ancestor. That is just scientifically silly.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
If it was real science it would be reproducible.
Right Divider
Body part
That's really funny coming from you.
You do not understand it either.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If it was "laughable" or "silly" it wouldn't be a theory.
They're not "confused" at all. Alate & Barb schooled the likes of yourself in painstaking detail and with the patience of saints into the bargain.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Sure I do. For example, the scientific method doesn't start with an immutable conclusion which then tries to fit data into it by way of.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Nope.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Reproducibility - the defining characteristic of the scientific method.
Right Divider
Body part
It doesn't even come up to the level to qualify as a theory.
Nonsense, but you will continue to repeat the lie.
You don't even understand how science works. You are a parrot.
Right Divider
Body part
Yep. Do you know of a case were a cat does not have kittens? Or a dog that does not have puppies? Please do show us.
Right Divider
Body part
You sure are confused.
You don't even understand the difference between operational science (i.e., the kind that is repeatable and verifiable; and can produce technological advancements) and origins science that is filled with highly speculative and unverifiable conjecture (like a single common ancestor of all life on earth).
Who are Alate and Barb and why do you have such a high opinion of the excellence of their opinions?
Evolution does not start with the assumption that life was created by God and that the various genetic makeups of creatures today have been maintained by the genetic code since God created the various species thousands of years ago. Evolution begins with the assumption that God did not create life on earth and that elementary life forms must have therefore begun in some other miraculous way and developed into more advanced forms over millions of years. Take away the assumption of biogenesis and evolution falls to pieces. Take away the assumption of millions of years and evolution falls to pieces. Take away the ability of unknown, untestable, and assumed natural forces to create new genetic information out of thin air, and evolution falls to pieces.