Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

How so? You need more than an unevidenced declaration.

Really? And so do you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, and btw, the evidence is in the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? And so do you.

You made the first claim. You need to support it. I do have evidence, but until you provide some there is no real need for me to provide any.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, and btw, the evidence is in the evidence.

You have demonstrated multiple times that you do not understand the concept.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have demonstrated multiple times that you do not understand the concept.

lol, I think I do. I think you are making things up, at least about me. I obviously am not as knowledgeable as you are about the theories (that's plural because there are so many of them involved in the concept), but I also think you have nothing to offer about the "evidence" regarding the complexity of dna. Instead, you and some others just keep insulting me.
Would you like to tell me how you think (or scientists think--) dna evolved? Please...of course, no proof is necessary, just your belief and scientific concepts. That's all, I suppose, that's necessary.

 

[YoursTrue]

You made the first claim. You need to support it. I do have evidence, but until you provide some there is no real need for me to provide any.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

The DNA itself is the proof AND the evidence. Naturally (oh, I am beginning to dislike that word) you probably would not agree because you think and believe dna came about by some sort of natural evolving process without an intelligent force (take intelligent as meaning thoughtful and personal) behind it. Anyway, when I worked for a chemistry professor at a college of science, the class had test tubes, propped up the test tubes with stands, used calibration methods, had liquids in vials. Put them together by formulation. Nothing was 'done' without someone putting it together. Of course, we can always go on to explosions -- but fortunately, no accidents happened while I was there. Oh yes, and monkeys did not "evolve" to the point they built universities and had labs with chemical elements for experimentation. But as far as you're concerned, that's evolution! Or, as the old song went, "That's life!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, I think I do. I think you are making things up, at least about me. I obviously am not as knowledgeable as you are about the theories (that's plural because there are so many of them involved in the concept), but I also think you have nothing to offer about the "evidence" regarding the complexity of dna. Instead, you and some others just keep insulting me.
Would you like to tell me how you think (or scientists think--) dna evolved? Please...of course, no proof is necessary, just your belief and scientific concepts. That's all, I suppose, that's necessary.

Where has anyone insulted you? No one has called you stupid or belittled your intelligence. You merely lack an education in this matter and are far too confident considering how little you know. You could always learn. No one has said that you cannot learn.

When someone makes ignorant claims or comments it is not an insult to point those out. That is going to happen in a debate. The solution is to learn so that others can no longer make those claims.

There are areas where I am very ignorant. If I pretended to be an expert or even know anything in those areas those that did would quickly put me in my place. That would not be an insult either when they did it to me. I try to be aware of what areas I am ignorant in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The DNA itself is the proof AND the evidence. Naturally (oh, I am beginning to dislike that word) you probably would not agree because you think and believe dna came about by some sort of natural evolving process without an intelligent force (take intelligent as meaning thoughtful and personal) behind it. Anyway, when I worked for a chemistry professor at a college of science, the class had test tubes, propped up the test tubes with stands, used calibration methods, had liquids in vials. Put them together by formulation. Nothing was 'done' without someone putting it together. Of course, we can always go on to explosions -- but fortunately, no accidents happened while I was there. Oh yes, and monkeys did not "evolve" to the point they built universities and had labs with chemical elements for experimentation. But as far as you're concerned, that's evolution! Or, as the old song went, "That's life!"

Nope. You are now trying to use your claim as evidence. That is merely circular reasoning. You have not presented any evidence yet.

And of course in a laboratory a chemist has to put chemicals together. Does he have to do so in the field to get a tree to grow or will the tree grow on its own? That was an amazingly poor argument on your part.

I am sill waiting for evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope. You are now trying to use your claim as evidence. That is merely circular reasoning. You have not presented any evidence yet.

And of course in a laboratory a chemist has to put chemicals together. Does he have to do so in the field to get a tree to grow or will the tree grow on its own? That was an amazingly poor argument on your part.

I am sill waiting for evidence.

Yes, why bother offering your opinion? Insofar as your question regarding a tree--what happens to the seed when it's planted?
And--DNA. According to one explanation, Humans share around 60% of DNA with bananas, 50% of our DNA with trees, 70% with slugs, 44% with honey bees, and even 25% with daffodils.
See now, it goes to offer the following explanation (scientific?)
"So there you have it! DNA similarities exist primarily because DNA is an influential chemical building block that makes up a huge portion of the genetic material shared by all living organisms."
Right. An "influential chemical building block," etc. Now I go back to my earlier days when I would say, "man, oh man..." And then I was an atheist.
P.S. The evidence is the evidence. Of DNA. That's the evidence that there is -- a creative, intelligent process behind the mechanics. No wonder the handwriting is on the wall. Just like the chemistry elements chart we had to learn.
Cool Tree Facts: Do Trees and Plants have DNA? (meetatree.com)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, why bother offering your opinion? Insofar as your question regarding a tree--what happens to the seed when it's planted?
And--DNA. According to one explanation, Humans share around 60% of DNA with bananas, 50% of our DNA with trees, 70% with slugs, 44% with honey bees, and even 25% with daffodils.
See now, it goes to offer the following explanation (scientific?)
"So there you have it! DNA similarities exist primarily because DNA is an influential chemical building block that makes up a huge portion of the genetic material shared by all living organisms."
Right. An "influential chemical building block," etc. Now I go back to my earlier days when I would say, "man, oh man..." And then I was an atheist.
P.S. The evidence is the evidence. Of DNA. That's the evidence that there is -- a creative, intelligent process behind the mechanics. No wonder the handwriting is on the wall. Just like the chemistry elements chart we had to learn.
Cool Tree Facts: Do Trees and Plants have DNA? (meetatree.com)

Sorry, you still have no evidence. To even have any evidence one needs a falsifiable hypothesis.

What is your falsifiable hypothesis?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, you still have no evidence. To even have any evidence one needs a falsifiable hypothesis.

What is your falsifiable hypothesis?

about DNA -- I don't play with hypotheses like you do. You are proving you have no proof. Your proof is your imagination. I see that. That is figurative seeing, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, you still have no evidence. To even have any evidence one needs a falsifiable hypothesis.

What is your falsifiable hypothesis?

I didn't say that because plants and humans "share" some DNA that means that evolution is false. It means that plants and humans have some similar DNA. It proves that plants and humans have some similar DNA in their organisms. Now -- you, of course, might like to argue about 24 hour days and the creative days in your mind and many others of that same mindset as you were taught in your early church, may be of 24 hour periods, even though the 7th day is not said to have closed yet -- and, of course, you falsify that by saying, "Oh, that's not true!" Just like you may play and say, "DNA is an evolved construction...with no intelligent constructor behind the process. It happened by -- something we can't really figure out yet...because if scientists concluded that there must be LOGICALLY an intelligent composing originator of DNA, that would mean -- um -- well, it just can't be."

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone See you later maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

about DNA -- I don't play with hypotheses like you do. You are proving you have no proof. Your proof is your imagination. I see that. That is figurative seeing, of course.

How may times must you be corrected on your false beliefs about "proof". In the sense that you use the word evolution has been proven. Your inability to understand that does not change reality.

And all there is in the sciences is evidence. You have none. And there are literally mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution.

You are merely keeping yourself blind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say that because plants and humans "share" some DNA that means that evolution is false. It means that plants and humans have some similar DNA. It proves that plants and humans have some similar DNA in their organisms. Now -- you, of course, might like to argue about 24 hour days and the creative days in your mind and many others of that same mindset as you were taught in your early church, may be of 24 hour periods, even though the 7th day is not said to have closed yet -- and, of course, you falsify that by saying, "Oh, that's not true!" Just like you may play and say, "DNA is an evolved construction...with no intelligent constructor behind the process. It happened by -- something we can't really figure out yet...because if scientists concluded that there must be LOGICALLY an intelligent composing originator of DNA, that would mean -- um -- well, it just can't be."

Why the false claims? Why you are wrong has been explained to you countless times. And as I said, there is plenty of evidence for the evolution of DNA. I am merely waiting for you to admit the obvious, that you have no evidence.

I will gladly go over the concept of scientific evidence with you once again. When dealing with the sciences it is the only standard for evidence that makes any sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why the false claims? Why you are wrong has been explained to you countless times. And as I said, there is plenty of evidence for the evolution of DNA. I am merely waiting for you to admit the obvious, that you have no evidence.

I will gladly go over the concept of scientific evidence with you once again. When dealing with the sciences it is the only standard for evidence that makes any sense.

Here is what I am saying: DNA is so complex and miniscule that to think it appeared by magic (i.e., the forces of evolution) rather than a Creator in the mechanics is beyond reach. Anyway --

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is what I am saying: DNA is so complex and miniscule that to think it appeared by magic (i.e., the forces of evolution) rather than a Creator in the mechanics is beyond reach. Anyway --

DNA itself is very simple. Only four nucleotides make up most of it and it is understood how they cause different proteins to be mad.

By the way, complex science often looks like magic to those that do not understand it.

 

[Valjean]

Here is what I am saying: DNA is so complex and miniscule that to think it appeared by magic (i.e., the forces of evolution) rather than a Creator in the mechanics is beyond reach. Anyway --

Why do you say DNA's complex? It's a relatively simple polymer, with a simple four-letter code. Like most polymers, it can grow to great lengths, but that doesn't make it complex. It's the same four nucleotides, or two base pairs, over and over.
Is a chain with ten links more complex than a chain with a hundred?

Appeared by magic?
Evolution is the opposite of magic. It's a handful of understood, commonsense, observable, testable, predictable, mechanisms.
It's Creationism that posits magic; the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures, with no observable mechanism or explanation.

 

[rational experiences]

I'm human you're human.

Law says species one is human.

Human life natural on planet earth.

Pretty basic advice for liars. Theists con artists sophists word coercion...stories.

So you simply say all science is banned. Go about your human life and you do.

Nothing you've ever said as that human is real. Reality is you live until you die.

Baby humans now adults have sex as baby humans history microbial bodies humans only DNA equals human. Origin parents skeletal bone dust only in scientific human data.

A daffodil doesn't have any human DNA it has daffodil DNA.

You choose as a God term as I'm a scientist human in human science to study the daffodil. You human god compare the daffodil to your own body! A theist pretending you invented the daffodil as you don't accept its natural position is first.

Do God man please wave your magic wand and make all things disappear so you can create each single billions upon of anything yourself ..please demonstrate your God powers.

Wait a minute no he doesn't he's God he'd never hurt his owned body cells. Just a man human.

Yet to make us all disappear so he creates all things carbon would about do it.

Do you behave as a God?

Yes. I removed all jewels metals earth ever produced I now own it. I also own planetary energy power. I'm a man god.

Which you in fact relate by human only behaviours is our humans warning.

A healthy human says not quite but nearly I own and have healed my human biology from past science technologies attack. In human animal nature gardens mutations.

I studied the atmospheric gas mass it cooled. As ice mass returned each year remassing.It changed pressures. That kept water both cooled and returned lots of single celled microbes that water as water once supported cooled.

Our biology nearly water. So of course water changed so would life cells.

That a heated CH methane Christ heavens had heated...I caused said God men...I'm the theist who states all stories.

If I didn't put a number position on anything... I cannot explain details without using a number system myself. To anyone who'd listen about what I identified to teach as the human man theist and not as a God.

 

[gnostic]

Here is what I am saying: DNA is so complex and miniscule that to think it appeared by magic (i.e., the forces of evolution) rather than a Creator in the mechanics is beyond reach. Anyway --

Magic is like Genesis 2:7, where man is created from non-living “dust on the ground”, all “fully-grown” and alive. That’s magic.

Creating all the animals from the ground (2:19). That’s magic.

Man (Adam) being about to name every animals (2:19-20), without learning & education. That’s more magic.

And creating a “fully-grown” woman from Adam’s rib. Guess what, YoursTrue? Yes, again, more magic.

In life, especially humans, no one is born an adult or born “fully-grown”. That’s the fact of life. Genesis 2, the creation of Adam & Eve, all “fully-grown”, can only happened in myths, and with the nonexistent magic.

There are nothing “natural” within the whole Genesis 2 chapter. The whole event is unnatural and highly improbable. Humans and animals simply don’t pop out of ground.