Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
Here is a site by 2 PHD's that says evolutionary biologists have serious problems with regard to the origin of male and female.

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

"The evolution of sex (and its accompanying reproductive capability) is not a favorite topic of discussion in most evolutionary circles, because no matter how many theories evolutionists conjure up (and there are several), they still must surmount the enormous hurdle of explaining the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male necessary to begin the process. In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:

‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’[1]"
Click to expand...

Ah, as I see you added some quotes to your post.

What about this quote from the link:

The highly complex and intricate manner in which the human body reproduces offspring is not a matter of mere chance or a “lucky role of the dice.” Rather, it is the product of an intelligent Creator. Albert Einstein said it well when he stated: “God does not play dice with the universe.”
Click to expand...

For this paragraph alone and the never ending abuse of Einstein quotes they should be shot to the moon, one way.
 
DOC - Exactly how many Lies for Jesus do you think we need?

Do you seriously think that if you keep posting lies and links to lies that someone is going to be convinced and ignore the subsequent rebuttals?

Do you seriously think that using logical fallacies in just about every post is going to convince anyone here?

Why not post somewhere else where you will not be questioned and there will be others that share your delusions?

Surely you will get more Heaven Points that way.

.
 
DOC said:
wollery said:
That presupposes that the "neither male nor female" one celled organism was, ummm, male. Which makes no sense. Male and female evolved at the same time. Having one sex precede the other is about as illogical as it's possible to get.
Click to expand...
Do you have any scientific evidence or reference for any of this?
Click to expand...

Evidence? What good would that do all of a sudden?

Oh well... we live in hope:

OK. Evidence:

  • Put down your favourite work of fiction

  • Pick up a dictionary - typically a similarly large tome but with editors that are less inclined to fudge bits that don't make sense and readily acknowledge revisions

  • Look up 'asexual'

  • Look up 'sexual'
    If, at this point, a grown-up (one less than full of the infinite joys of never-never-land) notices and threatens and/or abuses you, tell them you're doing 'research'

  • Look up 'research'

  • Look up all of the other big words you get stuck on trying to get your head around the definitions of 'asexual' and 'sexual'

  • Return to this thread and admit you were wrong about every damn thing you have ever believed
 
Last edited:
wollery said:
No. That presupposes that the "neither male nor female" one celled organism was, ummm, male. Which makes no sense. Male and female evolved at the same time. Having one sex precede the other is about as illogical as it's possible to get.
Click to expand...

DOC said:
Do you have any scientific evidence or reference for any of this?
Click to expand...
Would you care to explain how it is possible to have a male creature (i.e. one that cannot reproduce asexually) without a female creature with which it can reproduce?

If you can explain that you'll have successfully redefined sexual and asexual reproduction.
 
DOC said:
Do you have any scientific evidence or reference for any of this?
Click to expand...
DOC, would evidence change your mind?
Would you admit error and apologize?
Has any of the evidence anyone ever presented to you changed your mind?


All evidence here indicates that if evidence is presented to you, you will ignore it and change subjects. You'd rather believe your lies than admit error. Remember, you just recently ignored my critique of your oxygen claim. You were wrong, but you failed to admit it. remember?

So do you really want evidence, or do you ask for it thinking you'll stump the evil scientists?
 
DOC said:
...about the correlations of Genesis and Science, I was wondering why did Moses say God made woman out of the side of Adam. That would seem like something totally ridiculous. Why not just say God made man and woman at the same time...
Click to expand...


Actually as I recall the bible does say they were made at the same time. In addition to the rib story. There are two contradictory creation stories. Please explain how they are both correct simultaneously.
 
H3LL said:
Are you trying to be funny?

Exactly those two different stories are in Genesis.

Both together in Genesis 1.
Rib story in Genesis 2.

.
Click to expand...


I see I am late to the party again. I really should read to the end of the thread before posting!
 
joobz said:
DOC, would evidence change your mind?
Would you admit error and apologize?
Has any of the evidence anyone ever presented to you changed your mind?


All evidence here indicates that if evidence is presented to you, you will ignore it and change subjects. You'd rather believe your lies than admit error. Remember, you just recently ignored my critique of your oxygen claim. You were wrong, but you failed to admit it. remember?

So do you really want evidence, or do you ask for it thinking you'll stump the evil scientists?
Click to expand...

So, joobz, have you lost your youthful enthusiasm about DOC yet? Finally figured out that he really IS a Liar for Jeezus and he won't stop until we all accept the Loving Lord Jeebus as our personal Lord and Saviourtm (now with 30% extra saving). Until he starts an honest debate, he is worth nothing more than ridicule.
 
kmortis said:
So, joobz, have you lost your youthful enthusiasm about DOC yet? Finally figured out that he really IS a Liar for Jeezus and he won't stop until we all accept the Loving Lord Jeebus as our personal Lord and Saviourtm (now with 30% extra saving). Until he starts an honest debate, he is worth nothing more than ridicule.
Click to expand...
Over DOC, yes. I am willing to give anyone a fair shake and will always error on the side of forgiveness. It is my nature. I believe in the decency of humanity. DOC, however, has squandered all hopes. The obvious joy he takes in gloating over my errors, instead of graciously accepting apology is a clear indication that he is a clear indication that being religious doesn't make one a good person. The fact that he does so while committing even greater errors is just icing on the hatecake that is DOC.
 
According to my watch, it's time for DOC to start another thread wherein he asserts another non-existant "historical fact". You know, just putting a "fact" out there, what we do with it is up to us. He's only trying to help edumicate us, after all.
 
As a kid, I loved everything Margaret Edith Weiss wrote, The Death Gate Cycle, Dragonlance, The Star of the Guardians, but now when I look at them, the books are full of paper thing characters, heavily religious overtones, and plodding plots.
 
wollery said:
Would you care to explain how it is possible to have a male creature (i.e. one that cannot reproduce asexually) without a female creature with which it can reproduce?

If you can explain that you'll have successfully redefined sexual and asexual reproduction.
Click to expand...

DOC will have a real problem with Bdelloid rotifers and Whip-tailed lizards since neither species had males. Even more disturbing, the lezzie lizards, while parthenogenetic have been observed engaging in male role play in order to stimulate ovulation.

DOC, if all species were created male and female, why are there parthenogenetic species?

Let me guess.. the Fall..
 
Posted by wollery
No. That presupposes that the "neither male nor female" one celled organism was, ummm, male. Which makes no sense. Male and female evolved at the same time. Having one sex precede the other is about as illogical as it's possible to get.


Posted by DOC
Do you have any scientific evidence or reference for any of this?


wollery said:
Would you care to explain how it is possible to have a male creature (i.e. one that cannot reproduce asexually) without a female creature with which it can reproduce?
Click to expand...

Translation -- There is no evidence. Only the theory that I assume would be this.

There was a time when the first male (amoeba let's say) evolved and came into being. And simultaneously {since you said male and female evolved at the same time) on the other side of the swamp pool the first female evolved and came into existence. Now these simultaneously evolved male and female found each other. Then they got it on for the first time in the history and instead of reproducing asexually as had been done for eons the female amoeba made the first egg. This egg hatched in the swamp pool and was the first sexually created amoeba. Later in life this male or female amoeba found a mate (and they too got it on)and from these exact two amoebas came all the plants and animals in the history of the world including blue whale, dinosaurs, penguins, insects, roses, redwood forests mushrooms, anteaters, not to mention Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and all your friends and relatives. Interesting theory, and I guess if your a atheistic evolutionist that's pretty much what you believe.

This thread goes more into this issue:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Translation -- There is no evidence. Only the theory that I assume would be this.

There was a time when the first male (amoeba let's say) evolved and came into being. And simultaneously {since you said male and female evolved at the same time in post 656) on the other side of the swamp pool the first female evolved and came into existence. Now these simultaneously evolved male and female found each other. Then they got it on for the first time in the history and instead of producing asexually as had been done for eons the female amoeba made the first egg. This egg hatched in the swamp pool and was the first sexually created amoeba. Later in life this male or female amoeba found a mate (and they too got it on)and from these exact two amoebas came all the plants and animals in the history of the world including blue whale, dinosaurs, penguins, insects, roses, redwood forests mushrooms, anteaters, not to mention Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and all your friends and relatives. Hmm, interesting theory, and I guess if your a atheistic evolutionist I guess that's pretty much what you believe.
Click to expand...
Nice try, but so wrong it's painful.

Care to have another go?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
There was a time when the first male (amoeba let's say) evolved and came into being. And simultaneously {since you said male and female evolved at the same time) on the other side of the swamp pool the first female evolved and came into existence.
Click to expand...

Wasn't your point that the female budded off the male such that it proves Genesis? Now, you're changing your tune only to try to dispute a fairly (to me) obvious point. How could a single gender exist only to bud off a different gender? It's against all known genetics, for one. It also makes no friggin' sense whatsoever.

So, let's have it again. How does what you posted above mirror the idiocies in Genesis? :confused:
 
Slimething said:
Wasn't your point that the female budded off the male such that it proves Genesis? Now, you're changing your tune only to try to dispute a fairly (to me) obvious point. How could a single gender exist only to bud off a different gender? It's against all known genetics, for one. It also makes no friggin' sense whatsoever.

So, let's have it again. How does what you posted above mirror the idiocies in Genesis? :confused:
Click to expand...
You missed the point, that account was his strawman attempt at what evilutionists believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom