• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
But logically speaking isn't it be easier to believe that a living creature that was alive once could come back to life then it would be to believe that something that was "never alive" could come to life (as science believes happened to the first living thing).
Click to expand...

No.

For evidence, I point to my 13,500+ posts.




What? He likes to use his post count as evidence for...whatever. Why can't I?
 
joobz said:
Can your logical fallacies save you from Glagnotox?
Click to expand...
Pfft...that's silly, joobz. Everyone knows that Glagnotox is immune to even the most horrific logical fallacies. It takes frumunda cheese. Lots and lots of frumunda cheese.



So you are back to "You must believe to believe!" argument?
Click to expand...
Really, does she have any other argument?
 
DOC said:
But logically speaking isn't it be easier to believe that a living creature that was alive once could come back to life then it would be to believe that something that was "never alive" could come to life (as science believes happened to the first living thing).
Click to expand...
No. It isn't logical, it is juvenile and shows an inherent lack of understanding.

If a complex organism dies; it is dead. End of story.
 
DOC said:
But (in science) the first female organism must have come from the side of something that wasn't female,
Click to expand...
No. You really need to read up gene transfer and early sexual reproduction. The most basic does not require a "male" or "female" since the organism can be "both".

Are you claiming that Adam was a Hermaphrodite or not male?
 
DOC said:
But logically speaking isn't it be easier to believe that a living creature that was alive once could come back to life then it would be to believe that something that was "never alive" could come to life (as science believes happened to the first living thing).
Click to expand...
Why would you think this is logical?

I have witnessed in the lab the basic processes that support evolution and chemical evolution. I can see how simple chemicals can organize into ordered structures and that these ordered structures persist better than other structures. So, basically, the concept of chemical abiogenesis is quite feasible and logical based upon observation of evidence.

However, for a human, once a person is dead, they can not come back.
Now, there are many instances of people being mistakenly called dead, and these people "came back to life".
 
DOC said:
But (in science) the first female organism must have come from the side of something that wasn't female,
Click to expand...

kmortis said:
Why? Since, for the most part, it's the female that bears the young, it seems more logical that it's us males that are the adaptation. Besides, in the case of asexual ants, it's the females that exist, not the males.

I don't think it's even possible to sex a bacterium.
Click to expand...

But don't you agree that the first female of anything must have come from the side of something. If not how then do you propose the first female of anything came into being.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
But don't you agree that the first female of anything must have come from the side of something. If not how then do you propose the first female of anything came into being.
Click to expand...
So, now you are claiming that adam and eve were protosexual sponges?
 
DOC said:
But (in science) the first female organism must have come from the side of something that wasn't female,
Click to expand...

kmortis said:
Why? Since, for the most part, it's the female that bears the young, it seems more logical that it's us males that are the adaptation. Besides, in the case of asexual ants, it's the females that exist, not the males.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase my earlier response -- Don't you agree that the "first" female ever to exist in the universe must have come from the side of something not female.
 
DOC said:
Let me rephrase my earlier response -- Don't you agree that the "first" female ever to exist in the universe must have come from the side of something not female.
Click to expand...

Many have already answered. The answer is "no". Genetically "female" is the default position; "male" is the "degenerate" something that arose from "female" (female makes sense only from the viewpoint of males developing, so it would never be correct even to postulate the female arises from an asexual creature); and it makes no sense -- in the organisms where sexual reproduction arose -- to speak of "side".

Now what difference does it make? Genesis has the first female human arising from the side of the first human male?
 
Posted by DOC

Let me rephrase my earlier response -- Don't you agree that the "first" female ever to exist in the universe must have come from the side of something not female.

Ichneumonwasp said:
Many have already answered. The answer is "no". Genetically "female" is the default position;...
Click to expand...

What is your source; and the phrase "default position" should be in the source?

"male" is the "degenerate" something that arose from "female" (female makes sense only from the viewpoint of males developing, so it would never be correct even to postulate the female arises from an asexual creature);...
Click to expand...

what is your source the male is the "degenerate something" (whatever that means), and what is your source that female makes sense only from the viewpoint of males developing?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
But logically speaking isn't it be easier to believe that a living creature that was alive once could come back to life then it would be to believe that something that was "never alive" could come to life (as science believes happened to the first living thing).
Click to expand...
Logical? It's not even grammatical.

DOC said:
But (in science) the first female organism must have come from the side of something that wasn't female,
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by "come from the side of"?
 
DOC said:
What is your source and the phrase "default position" should be in the source.



what is your source the male is the "degenerate something" (whatever that means), and what is your source that female makes sense only from the viewpoint of males developing.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Pick up any freakin' biology or genetics book for crying out loud.

Do you know what happens when a genetic male is born without testosterone receptors?

For goodness sakes, just google "evolution of sex" and read something. There are so many sources that it makes a mockery of your very question for a source.
 
DOC said:
What is your source and the phrase "default position" should be in the source.
Click to expand...
Genetics
what is your source the male is the "degenerate something" (whatever that means), and what is your source that female makes sense only from the viewpoint of males developing.
Click to expand...
Y and X chromosomes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom