Why does evolution select against atheists?

[spidergoat]

Then where did RNA get the heredity? This is all speculation with the scientists, when trying to show an idea that has no evidence. The reason scientists, can not prove their ideas is because , you can prove something that isn't real.

RNA can copy itself. This isn't speculation, it has been demonstrated in the lab.

Here's how it works:

 

[hay_you]

What answers the question? How does creationism work?

Darwin knew that the fossils at his time, did not explain, the error that evolution would have to have. He hoped that in the future these types of fossils would be found. The problem is that they aren't found.

 

[hay_you]

RNA can copy itself. This isn't speculation, it has been demonstrated in the lab.

Where did the RNA get the ability to copy it's self? We already know that cells divide. Also this is still not life.

 

[spidergoat]

Darwin knew that the fossils at his time, did not explain, the error that evolution would have to have. He hoped that in the future these types of fossils would be found. The problem is that they aren't found.

You mean transitional fossils? They aren't errors, they are variations that survived. They are creatures with characteristics between the creatures (or plants) we are familiar with and have given names. When they get their own name, you will no longer consider them transitional.

Where did the RNA get the ability to copy it's self? We already know that cells divide. Also this is still not life.

From the inherent structure of it's molecules.

Just admit it, you don't know shit about evolution. You just want to maintain your stupidity and belief in an irrational and unscientific theory.

 

[hay_you]

You mean transitional fossils? They aren't errors, they are variations that survived. They are creatures with characteristics between the creatures (or plants) we are familiar with and have given names. When they get their own name, you will no longer consider them transitional.

many of the real transitional animals should have survived, because they would have to mature and reproduce for the mutation to be passed on. These would be in the millions compared to completed animals. But that is not what we find, in the fossil record.
The fossil record supports creation. Because in creation you would see completed life, without the transitional animals.
Combine that with the fact that cats produce cats and dogs dogs.
'Evolution' is really science fiction. There is no evidence for it.

 

[earth]

The evidence of life and of DNA ( instructions) and that humans have many traits that that are not necessary for life( survival) like music, creating, math, science, speech, discovery etc. This makes life interesting and pleasurable.
There is much more to human life than just physical science.

I'm not buying instead I'm sighing because you're denying the vast facts confirmed by brilliant minds over time.

You're not citing any sources and are misconstruing the overwhelming evidence science has discovered establishing the theory of natural selection and evolution.

 

[spidergoat]

Humans are transitional species.

 

[GeoffP]

The you is a creator. And the evidence is the creation.

This is circular; what happens if the creation fails? Am I then a creator? Let's be honest, here: you're implying God.

The design in the creation, and the inability for any of man's thing to prove anything other than creation. Scientists have tried and still don't know how life came about, and have tried to think of ways to show that no creator was need, but can not prove and have to go against the evidence.

Go against what evidence? We have quite a good idea how life came about; a staggeringly good one, given that we've only been studying evolution for 150 years or so.

Scientists say life started from a cell, and now we have cats and dogs, something had to turn into something else at some point.

Yes, but your implication was an old creationism jibe: that the cat my wife currently wastes money on will begin to change into a dog. I don't back away from the proposition that things changed into other things: they did.

Scientists do not know exactly what the first life form was, they assume it was some like a cell, but they don't know.

And? Do you know much about your great-great-great grandfather? How shall we know you ever had one?

Inheritance comes from previous life. The first life would not have had any inheritance. Or instructions in the DNA. So where did inheritance come from?

Simple reproduction of oligonucleotides. It's far from impossible, when we can generate amino acids in vitro in only a few months given the right starting materials and with no directed effort.

This is where creationist can really help scientists.

I don't wish to be rude, but I suspect this is false.

Scientists wonder about things that are not real.

Such as? Pick one thing from this list that scientists believe in that is not real:

1. Atoms.
2. Heredity.
3. Ion bonds.
4. Unicorns.

They assume no creation.

Rather, we have considered this proposition, and found it lacking. You might want to answer the question about the whale legs, for instance: what are they for? Why were they created?

 

[GeoffP]

many of the real transitional animals should have survived, because they would have to mature and reproduce for the mutation to be passed on. These would be in the millions compared to completed animals. But that is not what we find, in the fossil record.
The fossil record supports creation. Because in creation you would see completed life, without the transitional animals.
Combine that with the fact that cats produce cats and dogs dogs.
'Evolution' is really science fiction. There is no evidence for it.

Well, I'll tell you what: I've posted a link below. Attack, with all your unshorn diligence, any element therein and I shall defend it to the best of my ability, if I feel your criticism was in error:

http://www.vectorsite.net/taorgin.html

 

[hay_you]

I'm not buying instead I'm sighing because you're denying the vast facts confirmed by brilliant minds over time.

You're not citing any sources and are misconstruing the overwhelming evidence science has discovered establishing the theory of natural selection and evolution.

Scientists are smart people, but if you are trained from a young person in school to accept something and the rest of your life depends on that belief ( your career) and peer pressure , you also are going to think the same way. Also now scientists have stuck their necks out and declared 'evolution' as a fact, they have no choice but to stay the coarse.
Can you see scientists ripping up all the papers for the last 150 years. ( not that the science was bad, but just the interpretations scientists, use.)
I don't see scientists doing that, also because I think some of them really believe what they are saying.

 

[GeoffP]

I stick my neck out: evolution is a fact, or rather, a Law. (Ophiolite and I battled nastily over this liberty with the field. ) Simple mathematical inheritance. We've dillied about far too long on this.

Sure, I might indeed feel peer pressure were it widely known that I were a theist. But I also believe what I'm saying because it's fact. What should God have to do with this whole process? Shall we now put Him to your test?

 

[spidergoat]

Scientists are smart people, but if you are trained from a young person in school to accept something and the rest of your life depends on that belief ( your career) and peer pressure , you also are going to think the same way. Also now scientists have stuck their necks out and declared 'evolution' as a fact, they have no choice but to stay the coarse.
Can you see scientists ripping up all the papers for the last 150 years. ( not that the science was bad, but just the interpretations scientists, use.)
I don't see scientists doing that, also because I think some of them really believe what they are saying.

That's not true, nothing so far contradicts evolution, and nothing you have said certainly does so.

 

[hay_you]

I stick my neck out: evolution is a fact, or rather, a Law. (Ophiolite and I battled nastily over this liberty with the field. ) Simple mathematical inheritance. We've dillied about far too long on this.

Sure, I might indeed feel peer pressure were it widely known that I were a theist. But I also believe what I'm saying because it's fact. What should God have to do with this whole process? Shall we now put Him to your test?

People have the right to believe what they want. My only intention is to show that what scientists are say , have no foundation with facts. And that science to day is like may religions, it takes faith, that in the future they will be proved correct.

 

[Dywyddyr]

My only intention is to show that what scientists are say , have no foundation with facts.

No.
Your intention was to troll and lie while denying there are any facts.

And that science to day is like may religions, it takes faith, that in the future they will be proved correct.

Also wrong.
Science has already been shown to be correct.

 

[spidergoat]

...My only intention is to show that what scientists are say , have no foundation with facts. ...

When are you planning to do that?

 

[hay_you]

When are you planning to do that?

Ha Ha yea....

 

[earth]

My only intention is to show that what scientists are say , have no foundation with facts.

......................

.........................

 

[hay_you]

......................

.........................

Ha ha thas cute , which end was the face?

 

[James R]

hay you:

Transitional animals are all complete animals.

Only in scientists minds, because 'evolution' doesn't answer the question. Even Darwin knew that.

many of the real transitional animals should have survived, because they would have to mature and reproduce for the mutation to be passed on. These would be in the millions compared to completed animals. But that is not what we find, in the fossil record.
The fossil record supports creation. Because in creation you would see completed life, without the transitional animals.
Combine that with the fact that cats produce cats and dogs dogs.
'Evolution' is really science fiction. There is no evidence for it.

I have already explained to you how "transitional animals" work in another thread.

If you continue to repeat previously-debunked rubbish, you may be banned. This is your second and last warning.

 

[hay_you]

I have already explained to you how "transitional animals" work in another thread.

If you continue to repeat previously-debunked rubbish, you may be banned. This is your second and last warning.

No need to do that .
We have been over this quite a bit anyway.