Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...



wollery said:
Nice try, but so wrong it's painful.
Click to expand...


If it is wrong then what would be right.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
If it is wrong then what would be right.
Click to expand...

DOC, seriously, do some research

This is a forum dedicated to critical thinking

Your arguments from incredulity and ignorance do not substantiate any of your woo

As long as you wilfully avoid any critical thinking, it's highly unlikely that you will benefit from any rational, factual, evidence-based explanations
 
DOC said:
If it is wrong then what would be right.
Click to expand...

Look in Genesis.

It's the bit where it says:

"And God created the bacteria, archaea, eukaryotes and viruses."

What! Not in your version?
Bronze-age goatherds didn't know about them?
I'm shocked!!!

Maybe those birds that we call bats ate them all.

Or maybe the women or slaves knew but nobody was allowed to listen to them.
.
 
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) *snip*
Click to expand...

No. I suggest you read up on single-celled and primitive multicelled organisms. You see, there are still plenty of them around.

Single-celled organisms are not dependent on sex for reproduction, but they ARE dependent on sex for replenishing their gene pool (and if they are all created after their kind, why should they need to do that?). For single-celled non-sexual creatures, the act of sex is called syzygy. Two organisms couple together and exchange DNA material.

To my knowledge, there only exists asexual single-celled organisms, so sex is for the multicelled. Still looking at more primitive extant forms, we find that many are heterogenous, or hermaphrodies. No doubt that was the way for a long time. We still see it in most but not all plants. This explains how individual sexes could evolve: In a species of hermaphrodites, versions with a single sex could survive and prosper, provided there was some advantage to having only one sex (such as saving ressources ot better specialization).

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
No. I suggest you read up on single-celled and primitive multicelled organisms. You see, there are still plenty of them around.

Single-celled organisms are not dependent on sex for reproduction, but they ARE dependent on sex for replenishing their gene pool (and if they are all created after their kind, why should they need to do that?). For single-celled non-sexual creatures, the act of sex is called syzygy. Two organisms couple together and exchange DNA material.

To my knowledge, there only exists asexual single-celled organisms, so sex is for the multicelled. Still looking at more primitive extant forms, we find that many are heterogenous, or hermaphrodies. No doubt that was the way for a long time. We still see it in most but not all plants. This explains how individual sexes could evolve: In a species of hermaphrodites, versions with a single sex could survive and prosper, provided there was some advantage to having only one sex (such as saving ressources ot better specialization).

Hans
Click to expand...
Don't forget that many of those single celled organisms can share organelles as well. Sort of an early precursor to sex. Exchanging enhance population variation and therefore improve adaptability.

But, again, DOC really doesn't care about the details.
He only asked his question, becuase he thought he had a "gotchya" point. I noticed he has completely abandoned his whole, "increased Oxygen explains methusala" argument. When I pointed out how stupid this is, he switched to arguing for another totally unrelated mechanism. It was a perfect demonstration of a person who has a conclusion and will attempt to justify that conclusion by any means required. Superficially his actions look like that of a scientist, but it really is like a toddler parroting the motions of mommie cooking.
 
Last edited:
I see DOC is ingoring my substantive and informative posts again. Probably because he thinks I'm as phony as a 3 dollar bill while his 12 threads have 70,000 hits... but anyway...

UnrepentantSinner said:
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..
Click to expand...

DOC, leave microbes behind for a moment and explain to us why, if God created all species male and female that Bdelloid rotifers and Whip-tailed lizards are only female and that the latter engages in lesbian sex in order to stimulate ovulation.

Why do parthenogenetic species exist if you think the development of male/female sexes is such a problem for evolution and such a compelling evidence for the Bible?
 
wollery said:
You missed the point, that account was his strawman attempt at what evilutionists believe.
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting me right. I forget that DOC is a living, breathing illustration of Poe's Law.
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
DOC, seriously, do some research

This is a forum dedicated to critical thinking

Your arguments from incredulity and ignorance do not substantiate any of your woo

As long as you wilfully avoid any critical thinking, it's highly unlikely that you will benefit from any rational, factual, evidence-based explanations
Click to expand...

Another general derogatory non-informative statement with no example. Any troll who has not read one post of my 1100 posts could say something similar.

I'm going to start numbering these empty non-informative statements. I would estimate in the 11 months I've been on this system there have been at least 100 of these so I start with this one.

EMPTY NON-INFORMATIVE GENERAL STATEMENT WITH NO EXAMPLE # 101
 
Last edited:
You might include your own previous post, DOC, and make that #102.

Also, I highly doubt that you only posted 100 empty/troll/non-informative posts so far.
 
wahrheit said:
You might include your own previous post, DOC, and make that #102.

Also, I highly doubt that you only posted 100 empty/troll/non-informative posts so far.
Click to expand...

No, the actual number is there, under his username. :)
 
H3LL said:
Look in Genesis.

It's the bit where it says:

"And God created the bacteria, archaea, eukaryotes and viruses."

What! Not in your version?
Bronze-age goatherds didn't know about them?
I'm shocked!!!
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be, they didn't have microscopes or electron microscopes so it would be impossible to see bacteria, archaea, eukaryotes and viruses." That's why they got the simplified version of creation. The one the illiterate desert wanderers could understand.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
You shouldn't be, they didn't have microscopes or electron microscopes so it would be impossible to see bacteria, archaea, eukaryotes and viruses."
Click to expand...
and that's why when MEN wrote the bible, they didn't think of adding things that they had no clue about.
 
DOC said:
EMPTY NON-INFORMATIVE GENERAL STATEMENT WITH NO EXAMPLE # 102
Click to expand...
EMPTY NON-INFORMATIVE GENERAL STATEMENT WITH NO EXAMPLE # 103

ETA: Why should anyone answer your posts with substance? You ignore substantial posts when it proves you wrong. Since you are incapable of admitting error, all of these substantial posts go unanswered.

So again, Why should anyone answer your posts with substance?
remember DOC, you reap what you sow.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom