Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

Michael, it will never be clear enough for them because they are reprobate to the things of God. As with destruction, reprobation has no remedy. You are wasting your time.

Clearly what would be a waste of time would be attempting to hold a rational discussion with you.

 

[Cross Reference]

Oh the irony is too much sometimes.

:rotfl:

You have been shown your error in regard to your understanding of asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction, yet you continue to repeat the error. And that is only one example.

The amazing thing is that you do not even seem to recognize your deceit.

You think too highly of yourself.

We live in a world where there is both male and female exhibited in all God creatures. You can't explain that.. That doesn't make you a very bright person.

 

[alwight]

You wouldn't receive it as you haven't received Him.

:yawn:

 

[alwight]

You think too highly of yourself.

We live in a world where there is both male and female exhibited in all God creatures. You can't explain that.. That doesn't make you a very bright person.

Some creatures have remained asexual.

Some creatures today will start off as one sex and become the other, would you like to explain that?

 

[noguru]

We live in a world where there is both male and female exhibited in all God creatures. You can't explain that.. That doesn't make you a very bright person.

I have explained the proposed scenario based on empirical evidence several times. Here it is again in more detail. Let's see if you correct your errors here.

If, as evidence indicates, sexual reproduction arose very early in eukaryotic evolution, the essential features of meiosis may have already been present in the prokaryotic ancestors of eukaryotes.

Evolution of sexual reproduction

So the model proposes that sexual reproduction in hermaphroditic organisms is the precursor to gender specific sexual reproduction.

A good example of hermaphroditic organisms that reproduce sexually is earthworms. They have both male and female sex organs, but they transfer sperm from one to another organism in reproduction. They do not self fertilize.

Hermaphrodites

Sexual dimorphism is a later development, and gender specific sexual reproduction is the precursor to that.

Sexual dimorphism

 

[rstrats]

MichaelCadry,
re: "The virgin birth is the claim that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit."


To add to noguru's comment, the Immaculate Conception is a term that is used by the Catholic Church to refer to their notion that the Messiah's mother was free from original sin from the beginning of her conception in the womb of her mother. However, it is frequently incorrectly used to refer to the conception of the Messiah.

 

[noguru]

Some creatures have remained asexual.

Some creatures today will start off as one sex and become the other, would you like to explain that?

There is difference between asexual reproduction and hermaphroditic sexual reproduction. Asexual is a type of reproduction, though humans have used it to describe androgynous people. Sexual reproduction most likely began among organisms that were hermaphroditic. Gender specific sexual reproduction appears to be a later development.

But you are correct. Some fish species start off life as females, but then become males later. I think there is one species where the opposite is true.

 

[Cross Reference]

I have explained the proposed scenario based on empirical evidence several times. Here it is again in more detail. Let's see if you correct your errors here.



Evolution of sexual reproduction

So the model proposes that sexual reproduction in hermaphroditic organisms is the precursor to gender specific sexual reproduction.

A good example of hermaphroditic organisms that reproduce sexually is earthworms. They have both male and female sex organs, but they transfer sperm from one to another organism in reproduction. They do not self fertilize.

Hermaphrodites

Sexual dimorphism is a later development, and gender specific sexual reproduction is the precursor to that.

Sexual dimorphism

Necessity is the mother of invention. Where was the need for male and female if all you say worked by accident? How was male and female determined? Was it a mistake; an accident as well?

 

[Cross Reference]

There is difference between asexual reproduction and hermaphroditic sexual reproduction. Asexual is a type of reproduction, though humans have used it to describe androgynous people. Sexual reproduction most likely began among organisms that were hermaphroditic. Gender specific sexual reproduction appears to be a later development.

But you are correct. Some fish species start off life as females, but then become males later. I think there is one species where the opposite is true.

Maybe, could be, appears to be. That is good science?? Is that your "empirical evidence"??

Are you asexual?? How come?

 

[rstrats]

noguru,
re: "You two are incompetent morons."

So you're saying that they aren't performing up to the standards of a moron? Or are you simply being repetitiously redundant?

 

[noguru]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

And dogmatic commitment to a static pre scientific view of the world over science is the mother of deceit and oppression.

Where was the need for male and female if all you say worked by accident?

That is an inaccurate question. There is not accident, there is cause and effect. When you educate yourself a little better perhaps you will understand more clearly.

How was male and female determined?

Sexual reproduction offered a reproductive advantage to an organism so it continued and evolved further into gender specific sexual organisms.

Was it a mistake; an accident as well?

You are an idiot. How's that?

 

[noguru]

noguru,
re: "You two are incompetent morons."

So you're saying that they aren't performing up to the standards of a moron? Or are you simply being repetitiously redundant?

Good question.

Repetitiously redundant, I hope.

 

[alwight]

There is difference between asexual reproduction and hermaphroditic sexual reproduction. Asexual is a type of reproduction, though humans have used it to describe androgynous people. Sexual reproduction most likely began among organisms that were hermaphroditic. Gender specific sexual reproduction appears to be a later development.

Yes it seems that sexual reproduction speeds up evolution, which is its main benefit and the probable reason for its existence. Passing on genetic material between individuals could have been simple chance originally.

 

[Cross Reference]

Yes it seems that sexual reproduction speeds up evolution, which is its main benefit and the probable reason for its existence. Passing on genetic material between individuals could have been simple chance originally.

Could have?? Do you think that is that sufficient reason to believe for evolution?

 

[Hedshaker]

God is not a flying spaghetti monster only to someone treating Him irreverently and you know it Hedshaker. I can't believe how you are talking. What joy do you get out of speaking blasphemies about God?

For crying out loud Michael I do not believe in your God. Please get that through you thick skull. I'm not angry with your God or anything like that. I simply do not believe it is real any more than the flying spaghetti monster is real, hens the comparison.

All creatures evolved, that's why it's called evolution. Humans share a common ancestor with the great apes. It's not that difficult to understand.

All creatures did not evolve! That's why evolution is just a big farce. And God created Humans separately from those great apes. You should know better. You're going to have to come up with something good when you face God, which you will. He will not like what you've been doing.

Michael, your ignorance of science has been well and truly exposed on this thread so you will excuse me if I take what you have to say on the matter with a pinch of salt. And you can relax, no one will be facing your God since its existence hasn't been established any more than the flying spaghetti monster has, and your bald assertions do nothing to change that. (ETA: duly noted that you are back to the nasty threats. I thought you were over that but apparently not.)

I love you Hedshaker, but not your awful talk against my God.

Talk is cheap Michael. But what about your awful talk against the flying spaghetti monster. I guess you'll be sorry when you meet him, huh?

He'll get a Nobel prize before you will!!

Well let us know when he gets his Nobel for being a science ignoramus. That will be novel!

 

[noguru]

Maybe, could be, appears to be. That is good science?? Is that your "empirical evidence"??

I will review the fundamentals in the philosophy of science one more time for the mentally challenged here.

In science we have empirical evidence. With that empirical evidence we do a few things. We develop a theoretical model and/or a formalized hypothesis based on that empirical evidence. We then test (verify/falsify) those models/hypotheses with further investigation. If the model is not falsified then it remains a valid scientific explanation.

The YEC model for biodiversity has been falsified at the historically (im)possible level about 180 years ago, prior to Darwin's publication about biodiversity. It was falsified by the geological evidence. The remaining theoretical models in biodiversity and geology are still valid.

 

[noguru]

Could have?? Do you think that is that sufficient reason to believe for evolution?

It is certainly better reason than to accept anything you are proposing regarding science.

 

[alwight]

Could have?? Do you think that is that sufficient reason to believe for evolution?

Yes I think it's the best rational conclusion there is.
Why not?
Should I believe instead that angels, demons, hell, heaven are much more rational things to put my belief in?

 

[Cross Reference]

And dogmatic commitment to a static pre scientific view of the world over science is the mother of deceit and oppression.

All in the eyes of the one who would have no god over him.

That is an inaccurate question. There is not accident, there is cause and effect.

Great!! What was the cause?????

When you educate yourself a little better perhaps you will understand more clearly.

<snot> What's wrong? You finding out you can handle simple questions?

Sexual reproduction offered a reproductive advantage to an organism so it continued and evolved further into gender specific sexual organisms.

Who told you that?

Offered!! you say???? An advantage, you say?? And by your guess-timation, it evolved into something greater than itself?? How do you reconcile that nonsense with the second law of thermodynamics, Huh??

You are an idiot. How's that?

Thank you. I'll take that as compliment.

 

[Cross Reference]

I will review the fundamentals in the philosophy of science one more time for the mentally challenged here.

In science we have empirical evidence. With that empirical evidence we do a few things. We develop a theoretical model and/or a formalized hypothesis based on that empirical evidence. We then test (verify/falsify) those models/hypotheses with further investigation. If the model is not falsified then it remains a valid scientific explanation.

The YEC model for biodiversity has been falsified at the historically (im)possible level about 150 years ago. The remaining theoretical model is still valid.

Get this through your thick head!! You have no empirical evidence!!!!