For the fake postmodern profit. LOL

PostmodernProphet said:
why do macro-evolutionists hate science......
Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be responsive?

You claim that every multi celled organism began as a single cell and that the change (within days) is not even noteworthy to its classification. Yet you maintain that it is some unpassable barrier for life over 3 billion years. Can you explain how it is you can justify two such ignorant and contradictory positions?

Those who embrace science don't even use terms like "macro-evolution" as if it is some separate process or theory. It's just evolution. Only stupid and dishonest creationists use that term.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
hey, I made no claim they were fast......shucks, I'd be surprised if you were smart enough to climb out of a mud puddle even today......
Click to expand...

The point here is that you DID claim that abiogenesis explains life crawling, squiggling or squirming out of a mud puddle and therefore extends over a 3 billion year period in the history of life. It does not. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Is this supposed to be responsive?

You claim that every multi celled organism began as a single cell and that the change (within days) is not even noteworthy to its classification. Yet you maintain that it is some unpassable barrier for life over 3 billion years. Can you explain how it is you can justify two such ignorant and contradictory positions?
Click to expand...
none of those sound even vaguely familiar.....can you remind me where I made those claims?....

Those who embrace science don't even use terms like "macro-evolution." It's just evolution. Only stupid and dishonest creationists use that term.
Click to expand...

nope...."just evolution" is 37,000 species of beetles evolving from earlier beetles.....that is proven by science......macro-evolution is the claim that humans evolved from single celled organisms......that is not science......that is silliness.....you can't even provide evidence that single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms, let alone proof that they evolved into humans......
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
The point here is that you DID claim that abiogenesis explains life crawling, squiggling or squirming out of a mud puddle and therefore extends over a 3 billion year period in the history of life. It does not. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

unless you can show multiple episodes of life crawling out of mud puddles, you're limited to a single instance of abiogenesis, not a 3 billion year period......thus, its your claim, not mine...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
none of those sound even vaguely familiar.....can you remind me where I made those claims?....



nope...."just evolution" is 37,000 species of beetles evolving from earlier beetles.....that is proven by science......macro-evolution is the claim that humans evolved from single celled organisms......that is not science......that is silliness.....you can't even provide evidence that single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms, let alone proof that they evolved into humans......
Click to expand...

In the abortion debates. You claim the single celled zygote is a human life.

No, "just evolution" explains all the diversification of life. Macroevolution includes the diversity of beetles or any change above the species level. Microevolution includes only change within a species.

PostmodernProphet said:
unless you can show multiple episodes of life crawling out of mud puddles, you're limited to a single instance of abiogenesis, not a 3 billion year period......thus, its your claim, not mine...
Click to expand...

Again, abiogenesis does not cover a SINGLE crawling creature. I thought we covered this already? Let me repeat for the slow...

Abiogenesis claims that life as simple cells developed from simple organic compounds. It does not cover anything that could be said to crawl, squiggle or squirm and certainly not a land animal as your image of something crawling out of a mud puddle implies. That is explained by 3,000,000,000 years of evolution or five hundred thousand times the amount of time your silly book uses to explain the existence of everything.

No, abiogenesis is not limited to a single instance but as I HAVE EXPLAINED in correcting YOUR CLAIM, it certainly did not take place over 3 billion years. The science suggests it would have ended well before anything approached the ability to crawl.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
In the abortion debates. You claim the single celled zygote is a human life.
Click to expand...
that is true....but the development of an embryo has nothing to do with evolution......

No, "just evolution" explains all the diversification of life. Macroevolution includes the diversity of beetles or any change above the species level. Microevolution includes only change within a species.
Click to expand...
if not macro-evolution, what do YOU call the claim that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?.......




No, abiogenesis is not limited to a single instance but as I HAVE EXPLAINED in correcting YOUR CLAIM, it certainly did not take place over 3 billion years.
Click to expand...
not my claim....first and foremost because I would never claim that your silly, unscientific fantasy resulted in anything.....secondly because no one would ever believe it could happen twice....
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_05

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
Click to expand...

you just want to avoid the fact that you cannot prove a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism, let alone prove that they evolved into human beings.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that is true....but the development of an embryo has nothing to do with evolution......

if not macro-evolution, what do YOU call the claim that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?.......

not my claim....first and foremost because I would never claim that your silly, unscientific fantasy resulted in anything.....secondly because no one would ever believe it could happen twice....
Click to expand...

Development of the embryo has a lot to do with evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology


As always, you are avoiding the point. You claim the single celled to multi celled change is some impossible barrier for life to cross over 3 billion years and yet that every embryo does it within days and it is not even significant enough to change its classification.

Yes, the diversity of beetles is macro evolution in real science. I just provided you with a link. Anything above the species is macro.

Yes it was your claim. You said...

PostmodernProphet said:
well, granted I don't believe that life spontaneously crawled out of a puddle of mud, I don't believe human beings and sphagnum moss have a common ancestor, and I don't believe gravity caused dust to form into suns and planets which then created gravity.....but other than that, I don't know why you have to call my cosmology ridiculous....../grins....
Click to expand...

When I told you that was not an accurate representation of the science you said...

PostmodernProphet said:
of course its accurate.....what do you think abiogenesis claims if not that exact thing....
Click to expand...

And then I explained to you what abiogenesis claims, twice.

No one claims anything spontaneously crawled out of the mud. You are lying about the science just as you lie about what the Bible says.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude, you're amusing.....at least we agree life has never crawled spontaneously out of mud or anything else....
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of the science would be amusing but the truth is you are just a lying scumbag. Again, no one claims that anything spontaneously crawled out of the mud. NO ONE! Not just you and me.

NO ONE!

It's just a ridiculous strawman.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
That's not what you stated. You are moving the goalposts. What you said was...
Click to expand...

????.......I've never said anything except that the development of an embryo has nothing to do with evolution.....why would you think otherwise?......

You are wrong. It has a lot to do with evolution.
Click to expand...

don't be silly.....evolution is the development of one life form into a different life form......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????.......I've never said anything except that the development of an embryo has nothing to do with evolution.....why would you think otherwise?......
Click to expand...

You did say something different. You said...

PostmodernProphet said:
the development of an embryo is not evolution.....sorry, "scientist".....
Click to expand...


Are you unaware of the fact that saying "the development of an embryo is not evolution" and that "development of an embryo has nothing to do with evolution" are different propositions? Are you and usf at the same level of moron or are you the bigger one?

PostmodernProphet said:
don't be silly.....evolution is the development of one life form into a different life form......
Click to expand...

Evolution is change in the gene pool over successive generations. The development of the embryo is very much related to or has a lot to do with evolution. That is not to say it is evolution.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
The development of the embryo is very much related to or has a lot to do with evolution.
Click to expand...

lol.....no.....it doesn't....it's just that you aren't very bright and don't understand what the reproductive cycle actually is........

Are you unaware of the fact that saying "the development of an embryo is not evolution" and that "development of an embryo has nothing to do with evolution" are different propositions?
Click to expand...

that "fact" isn't immediately apparent, but in any event, both statements are true......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....no.....it doesn't....it's just that you aren't very bright and don't understand what the reproductive cycle actually is........



that "fact" isn't immediately apparent, but in any event, both statements are true......
Click to expand...

The development of the embryo is very much related to or has a lot to do with evolution. There is an entire field of biologists studying the relationship. I have provided you with sources and all you have is your 3rd grade dropout opinions, Jethro.

The fact is immediately apparent. Even a third grader should be able to tell you those are two different statements.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
however, it apparently takes an idiot to think they are the same thing as the Ten Commandments.....
Click to expand...

If you cant see the comparisons, the only idiot is you. 1) Many(if not all) supposed laws of god existed prior to Moses(especially the Mosaic laws). 2) they were written on stone tablets just like the 10 commandments. 3) most of the "Mosaic laws" were given to Moses by a Midian High priest Jethro.:)

The god of the jews is equivalent to ancestral worship. :) the god of the jews is a mortal. The god of the jews is a butcher, is not an all knowing god, and his laws are NOT everlasting. We can see most of the laws became obsolete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top