SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So are you an evolutionist of any kind and what kind of evolutionist are you then?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can anyone explain the origin of any gene? Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
LMAO!
Yes, you are totally right....... in Cloud Cuckoo Land
That's hilarious, that's such a denial of reality
You forgot to mention that Elephants live in trees......
But of course, just because you said it it's true!
By "facts" you mean ancient fable and by "real science" you mean lies and fantasy
You're not on Planet Earth, you're in a creationist fantasy world
You don't even know what science is
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What was the first living thing and what were its features?
I know you're not really asking a question and are just being wilfully ignorant and trying desperately to distract from the fact you are totally wrong
But you may find this edifying:
Early Life on Earth – Animal Origins
Learn what fossil evidence reveals about the origins of the first life on Earth, from bacteria to animals, including the phyla we know today.
Truth is nobody knows exactly because we cannot go back in time and have a look but we have a rough idea, it would have been a microbe, such things are still alive today and they probably have a stronger sense of reality than you
But this in no way falsifies evolution and the idea that it does is stupid
And creationists don't know either so it's hypocritical to say that science not knowing exactly is invalidated by that
What goes for the goose goes for the gander
Science has a much better idea than you do
Your tactic is dishonest and a sign of desperation
a self replicating molecule made of nucleic acids in conjunction with a natural membrane
Har Har
Your answer will of course be ignoreda self replicating molecule made of nucleic acids in conjunction with a natural membrane
And she or he will no doubt "ask" the same question yet again, at some point in the future when they get desperate
Some people just don't want to know
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. I can show where they have to swear not to follow the scientific method. Of course if you want me to show you that you have to learn what the scientific method is yourself.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a non sequitur. And it has been answered many many times for you.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And don't forget it had a subscription to the New York Times. Or was that another "Stanley"?a self replicating molecule made of nucleic acids in conjunction with a natural membrane
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There has never been a rational answer given by any evolutionist.
You don't even know what the word "rational" means
It is evident you are unfamiliar with reason and are unable to abide by it
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So give a rational answer to the following question.
What was the first living thing and what features did it have?
That's a question of facts not of reason
It would have been some kind of microbe
I gave you a link to an article that explained this in detail
You obviously did not read it
You're a time waster
You're not asking questions in good faith you are using them as a part of your shoddy and dishonest sophistry
You don't know what exactly the first creature was so it is hypocritical for you to deride others for not knowing
But then you're a funie so I'd expect such blatant hypocrisy
You don't have a clue what the first lifeform would have been like so don't deride others for not knowing
And in the future if I give you a link PLEASE READ IT
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Dude, you cannot reason rationally so you would not know if that is true or not. I have tried to go over the basics with you but you keep running away. Probably because you know that you are wrong.
I have a theory that he or she learnt they were wrong a long time ago and are now just trying to save face
But then perhaps that's terribly optimistic
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Like many complex events the first life was almost certainly an emergent process. And that would mean for several reasons that there was no single "first cell". Part of the problem is that People cannot even come to an agreement of what is "alive" and what is not "alive". For example, are viruses alive? There are clearly dead viruses. Those are sometimes used in vaccines. But a virus does not meet all the standards for life. For example there could have been a very early cell that merely consisted of self replicating RNA in a natural lipid vesicle. Some would say yes and some would say no since it lacks a metabolism. Add that demand to life and the question arises of how much metabolism is needed?
The only thing that we know for sure is that its name was Stanley
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I can reason very rationally.
You in the area of origins cannot.
McBell
Unbound
If this true then you deserve an academy award for your posts here on RF.
Well, you said it so it must be true
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you clearly can't. And even you know that you can't. If you could you would take up people on their various challenges to you that would require you to learn just a little bit. Instead you run away all of the time.