Why do evolutionist lie?
Moderator: Moderators
Why do evolutionist lie?
Post #1I really don't understand why evolutionist lie, short of trying to keep their bogus theory alive. How can anyone belive in evolution(macro)? Please enlighten me.
Post #21
You will have to define "macro evolution". If you mean the common meaning of "speciation", then I have already answered this.upnorthfan wrote:I will ask a fifth time, advances of mankind as a result of macro evolution please. Then we can move forward.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
Post #22
New scientist Sept. 6, 1997 page 23
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 520984.700
That article only mentions "Gray's Anatomy", which was first published in 1918. Hardly a recent book, is it? It's still published because it seems to be considered a classic, but i don't think anyone claims it to be up to date. I also question if it's used in schools.
Please name one which is used in schools, and in which particular school. Then we can contact that school and find out why they use it.It is in hundreds of different school books. So I gather you agree that if what I am saying is true, you then agree that is in fact a lie, correct? If any of you have children, go look in their science books. Thousands of public schools.
Post #24
Where does macroevolution say we came from a rock?2. Macro: No scientic evidence, not provable. You have to take by faith that something happened. Says we came from a rock.
How about Cytochrome C, ERVs, telomeres in the middle of chromosomes? All these are evidence for macroevolution, and there is more.
Post #25
That's evidence of micro evolution, which has advanced mankind. Macro has done nothing.
It says that the torrential rains came down for millions of years, and washed sediments into the ocean, and out of the state of nothingness, molecules formed, and so on and so on. Hence, we came from a rock....
...From "rock" to multicellular being in several separate steps.
Anorganic matter -> nucleotides and amino-acids -> proteins and RNA (the precursor of DNA) -> viruses -> single cellular life -> multicellular life.
The four nucleotides that form our DNA were present before life began. So where the amino-acids that proteins are comprised of.
(Of course, we can't go back in time to get samples, but pre-life conditions can be re-created in a lab, and the necessary nucleotides and amino-acids always appear.)
From these building blocks came virus-like molecules: these were (are) able to reproduce themselves, but do not have their own metabolism. They are not considered life-forms yet.
As time passed, these viruses got more advanced - because they were competing against each other, and the "fitter" ones had a better chance of reproducing.
Eventually some of them evolved into single-cell organism, out of which multi-cellular organisms such as humans would evolve.
====
I mean, if you want to believe that nonsense great, love ya. But don't call it science. So, if you believe in the theory of evolution, you believe or at least accept the fact we came from a rock.
It says that the torrential rains came down for millions of years, and washed sediments into the ocean, and out of the state of nothingness, molecules formed, and so on and so on. Hence, we came from a rock....
...From "rock" to multicellular being in several separate steps.
Anorganic matter -> nucleotides and amino-acids -> proteins and RNA (the precursor of DNA) -> viruses -> single cellular life -> multicellular life.
The four nucleotides that form our DNA were present before life began. So where the amino-acids that proteins are comprised of.
(Of course, we can't go back in time to get samples, but pre-life conditions can be re-created in a lab, and the necessary nucleotides and amino-acids always appear.)
From these building blocks came virus-like molecules: these were (are) able to reproduce themselves, but do not have their own metabolism. They are not considered life-forms yet.
As time passed, these viruses got more advanced - because they were competing against each other, and the "fitter" ones had a better chance of reproducing.
Eventually some of them evolved into single-cell organism, out of which multi-cellular organisms such as humans would evolve.
====
I mean, if you want to believe that nonsense great, love ya. But don't call it science. So, if you believe in the theory of evolution, you believe or at least accept the fact we came from a rock.
Post #26
Something that is evidence for shared anchestry of humans with other primates is only evidence for microevolution?That's evidence of micro evolution, which has advanced mankind.
Please define macroevolution then.
That's abiogenesis, and is unrelated to evolution - to both microevolution and macroevolution.The four nucleotides that form our DNA were present before life began. So where the amino-acids that proteins are comprised of.
(Of course, we can't go back in time to get samples, but pre-life conditions can be re-created in a lab, and the necessary nucleotides and amino-acids always appear.)
From these building blocks came virus-like molecules: these were (are) able to reproduce themselves, but do not have their own metabolism. They are not considered life-forms yet.
As time passed, these viruses got more advanced - because they were competing against each other, and the "fitter" ones had a better chance of reproducing.
Eventually some of them evolved into single-cell organism, out of which multi-cellular organisms such
Furthermore, it's simply wrong that way. Abiogenesis doesn't hypothesize that viruses or something alike are somehow our ancestors. Viruses aren't able to reproduce by themselves in first instance, different to what you described above.
The real abiogenesis thing, grossly simplified, is rather polymers->replicating polymers->hypercycles->protobiont->cell.
Post #28
You enjoy moving the goalposts around, don't you?upnorthfan wrote:I agree I gave you the simplified version. But no matter how you slice it, we came from a freakin rock. If not, please explain to me the theory you believe says on how life began.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
Post #29
I really don't know what that means. I believe you are being evasive with your answers.perfessor wrote:You enjoy moving the goalposts around, don't you?upnorthfan wrote:I agree I gave you the simplified version. But no matter how you slice it, we came from a freakin rock. If not, please explain to me the theory you believe says on how life began.
Post #30
Not just simplified...upnorthfan wrote:I agree I gave you the simplified version. But no matter how you slice it, we came from a freakin rock. If not, please explain to me the theory you believe says on how life began.
However, saying that abiogenesis states that we came from a rock isn't any more meaningful than saying that digestion says we came from a rock - plants take up nutrients and minerals from the ground, i.e. from rocks, we then eat the plants.
At some point the materials that abiogenesis may have happened with certainly were bound in a rock, yes - but that's not a part of the theory. Abiogenesis doesn't care about where these initial atoms came from, it makes no statement whatsoever about it.
Perhaps you would like not to evade the question how ERVs and Cytochrome C and so on are only evidence for microevolution and not macroevolution.I believe you are being evasive with your answers.
