Evolution Vs. Creationism

[McBell]

You are backpedaling. Either you have something to add or you don't. It just that simple. It isn't like you have to decide between tying your shoes and walking outside.

I would be back peddling had I offered to teach you and then refused.
I have not offered to teach you.
In fact, I refuse to take that particular test of patience.

Put me back on your ignore list please. It will save you the trouble of trying to have an intelligent debate or discussion.

Having an intelligent debate or discussion with you about evolution is most trying.

The problem is that you have not enough intelligence on the subject of evolution to have an intelligent discussion or debate with me.

 

[Gloone]

I would be back peddling had I offered to teach you and then refused.
I have not offered to teach you.
In fact, I refuse to take that particular test of patience.

This is a debate forum no is asking you to teach. You probably aren't qualified to be a teacher anyway.

Having an intelligent debate or discussion with you about evolution is most trying.

The problem is that you have not enough intelligence on the subject of evolution to have an intelligent discussion or debate with me.

Are you coming on to me?

 

[McBell]

This is a debate forum no is asking you to teach.

I never offered to teach.

You probably aren't qualified to be a teacher anyway.

Based on your posts, I am definitely more qualified to teach evolution than you are.

Are you coming on to me?

you wish.

 

[Gloone]

Based on your posts, I am definitely more qualified to teach evolution than you are.

At least if i taught evolution people would not be getting spoon fed.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

J

I see no similarities in something like a animal that I would consider to be living opposed to a plant, virus or bacteria. - They are non-living. … and that goes back to my repeated claim that evolutionist or people that follow evolution are stuck on generalizations and tend to overgeneralize everything.

You do realize bacteria and viruses are alive.....right?

 

[DeistPrimate]

You have not said anything to repudiate this article. Basically because you can’t, this is real science and you have actually agreed with some of it. You have only added to it being an accurate source of information. Evolution is not about the origins of life or how they evolve. It is about a quirky little term called organism which can mean just about anything anyone wants it to be. For one a living thing such as an animal is something that has the ability to interact with the world independently. They have brains, they can do different tasks like build houses out of their environment to live in, gather food, etc. Other organism such as plants can’t do that. They are pretty much stationary and rely on photosynthesis to grow. And require the interaction of other animals or the environment to spread seeds around so they can reproduce and re-grow in other places. That is nature not evolution.

Evolution is the nature of living organisms. The definition of an organism is an organic (hence "organism" and meaning carbon based) system which respires, converts nutrients to grow and reproduces.

I'm not sure how else to respond to your post since I honestly can't make much sense of it.

 

[DeistPrimate]

I see no similarities in something like a animal that I would consider to be living opposed to a plant, virus or bacteria. - They are non-living. … and that goes back to my repeated claim that evolutionist or people that follow evolution are stuck on generalizations and tend to overgeneralize everything.

Plants and bacteria are non-living?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Gloone]

J

You do realize bacteria and viruses are alive.....right?

That is not living. That is called feeding on the living like a parasite.

A virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms.

A pathogen, (from Greek: πάθος pathos "suffering, passion", and γ[FONT=&quot]ἰ[/FONT]γνομαι (γεν-) gignomai (gen-) "I give birth to") an infectious agent, or more commonly germ, is a biological agent such as a virus, bacteria, prion, or fungi that causes disease to its host.[1][2]

If viruses and bacteria were really living do you think they would be feeding on trees and animals.

 

[micrurus]

No because I know enough about plants, and bacteria to know that they are to dependent on their natural surroundings to be consider living.

:banghead3:bonk:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That is not living. That is called feeding on the living like a parasite.

A virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms.

A pathogen, (from Greek: πάθος pathos "suffering, passion", and γ[FONT=&quot]ἰ[/FONT]γνομαι (γεν-) gignomai (gen-) "I give birth to") an infectious agent, or more commonly germ, is a biological agent such as a virus, bacteria, prion, or fungi that causes disease to its host.[1][2]

If viruses and bacteria were really living do you think they would be feeding on trees and animals.

A big whopping and unconditional YES and NO...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe it is commonly understood that viruses are not alive per se. They are symbiotic. They need to interact with something in order to replicate. Bacteria is different. It can contain DNA or RNA. Bacteria is all around us and can thrive in a multitude of places needing no host to survive, reproduce etc.


What does biology mean to you? To me it means (to study that which is alive). Don't think just because man can reason and create and because animals eat and breath that they're the only things alive? you are sorely mistaken. Did you not learn this is biology class in grade school already. Information such as bacteria is usually the first subject covered before they move on to larger organisms.

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methane-eating bacteria alive and well in the deepest layer of Earth's crust

 

[LuisDantas]

If viruses and bacteria were really living do you think they would be feeding on trees and animals.

They do. But either way, you are using rather unusual definitions of "living beings".

 

[David M]

Okay well provide evidence that evolution is there to prove the origins of life.

By this I see that you have realised that your error lay in the words "or how they evolve", because that is exactly what evolution is about.

If viruses and bacteria were really living do you think they would be feeding on trees and animals.

If animals were really living do you think they would be feeding on trees and animals (see how silly that definition is). It looks like you have never heard of bacteria that do not feed on trees and animals such as the Chlorobiaceae.

 

[tumbleweed41]

At least if i taught evolution people would not be getting spoon fed.

He has no idea what biology entails, and he considers himself capable of teaching biological evolution.

 

[McBell]

He has no idea what biology entails, and he considers himself capable of teaching biological evolution.

The reason I let it drop and stopped replying was because I had to have a break from laughing.

 

[DeistPrimate]

That is not living. That is called feeding on the living like a parasite.

A virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms.

A pathogen, (from Greek: πάθος pathos "suffering, passion", and γ[FONT=&quot]ἰ[/FONT]γνομαι (γεν-) gignomai (gen-) "I give birth to") an infectious agent, or more commonly germ, is a biological agent such as a virus, bacteria, prion, or fungi that causes disease to its host.[1][2]

If viruses and bacteria were really living do you think they would be feeding on trees and animals.

Viruses are self replicating molecules, they are not unlike what the transitional systems were between non-living molecules and living ones. But bacteria are certainly alive and you're just nuts claiming they're not by any definition. Plants, which you also mentioned, are most certainly alive.

 

[Amill]

That is not living. That is called feeding on the living like a parasite.

If viruses and bacteria were really living do you think they would be feeding on trees and animals.

What exactly do we feed on? We really need to know what your definition of a living organism is.

 

[Autodidact]

Hold on a second, explain how evolution started then!

I'd be happy to. To begin with, do you know what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is?

Was it not linked with the Big Bang theory?

No, not at all, other than that they're both scientific theories. I will be happy to answer your question, but I think first you need to understand what ToE is. Would you like me to explain it to you?

after which bacteria started to "evolve" down to our day? Come on man...don't fool around with words. You knew exactly what I refer to!

Actually, I don't think you know what you refer to. Why is "evolve" in quotes? Do you think bacteria don't evolve?!?

 

[Autodidact]

You have not said anything to repudiate this article. Basically because you can’t, this is real science and you have actually agreed with some of it. You have only added to it being an accurate source of information. Evolution is not about the origins of life or how they evolve. It is about a quirky little term called organism which can mean just about anything anyone wants it to be. For one a living thing such as an animal is something that has the ability to interact with the world independently. They have brains, they can do different tasks like build houses out of their environment to live in, gather food, etc. Other organism such as plants can’t do that. They are pretty much stationary and rely on photosynthesis to grow. And require the interaction of other animals or the environment to spread seeds around so they can reproduce and re-grow in other places. That is nature not evolution.

This paragraph is gibberish. It has no content. It makes no sense. I don't know what you're driving at.

Is it your position that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect? If so, for starters, do you understand what it says?

 

[Autodidact]

What? Did you not read anything I posted or did you just have a hard time comprehending it?

I had a very hard time. I have no idea what you're driving at.

 

[Autodidact]

Okay well provide evidence that evolution is there to prove the origins of life.

Evolution is not about the origins of life. Would you like to learn what it is about, or do you prefer to remain confused and ignorant?