6K years or 13.7B years?
First Prev
of 9
Next Last
LGK

Mitcham, UK

#162 Jul 11, 2012
Nothing to read, just muppets & no-one reads that!

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#163 Jul 11, 2012
LGK wrote:
Nothing to read, just muppets & no-one reads that!
Well, there is that simple decay problem that you're to damned ignorant to solve.

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#164 Jul 12, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are rock layers all over the globe not flood deposits & why do they contain fossils i.e. rapidly buried animals?
Then explain the fossils, like I asked.

Why would you never, ever find ONE dinosaur fossil above the KT boundary?

Why would I not find ONE lion buried in the Mesozoic? Why does the layers the date differently then?

You don't get it - Evolution explains every animal that has ever been found alive or in the fossil record. Almost. Whatever twisted theory you have, must do the same.

Why are there koalas in Australia only? How did they get there?
Why are their anacondas in South America only? How did they get there? I can do that for every animal on this planet, and you will have no answer. Evolution answers IT ALL.
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the evidence that amino acids were produced in water in the ancient past? Surely you are not referring to Stanley Miller’s experiments which were intelligently designed. Stanley Miller later distanced himself from using this as an explanation for the origin of life.
It's not an explanation, but it does give insight to it.
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize Chemist describes such chemical origin of life theories as “worse than magic.”
Fallacy: False appeal to authority
Fallacy: Quote mining.

Here is a bit more about the person you attempted to quote mine:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_de_Duv...

****
In 1962 de Duve joined the faculty of what is now Rockefeller University in New York City, dividing his time between New York and Leuven. He took emeritus status at Université catholique de Louvain in 1985 and at Rockefeller in 1988, though he continued to conduct research. Amongst other subjects, de Duve studied the distribution of enzymes in rat liver cells using rate-zonal centrifugation. De Duve's work on cell fractionation provided an insight into the function of cell structures.

In 1960, de Duve was awarded the Francqui Prize for Biological and Medical Sciences. He was awarded the shared Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1974, together with Albert Claude and George E. Palade, for describing the structure and function of organelles (lysosomes and peroxisomes) in biological cells. His later years have been mostly devoted to origin of life studies, which he admits is still a speculative field (see thioester).

His work has contributed to the emerging consensus that the endosymbiotic theory is correct; this idea proposes that mitochondria, chloroplasts, and perhaps other organelles of eukaryotic cells originated as prokaryote endosymbionts, which came to live inside eukaryotic cells.

De Duve proposes that peroxisomes may have been the first endosymbionts, which allowed cells to withstand the growing amounts of free molecular oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Since peroxisomes have no DNA of their own, this proposal has much less evidence than the similar claims for mitochondria and chloroplasts.
****

Please see third paragraph. The source you cited's work "has contributed to the *emerging consensus that the endosymbiotic theory is correct*; this idea proposes that mitochondria, chloroplasts, and perhaps other organelles of eukaryotic cells originated as prokaryote endosymbionts, which came to live inside eukaryotic cells."

Emphasis added
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t know if you are aware but it's possible using radio-isotopes to tell which amino acids were in living things which weren’t. Using that, virtually all carbonaceous deposits were once living i.e. life started at with origin of carbon compounds with no precursor deposits. If you believe there really was a soup, where was it?
I dunno. What do you think these people are researching?
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
My question was how science explains the ORIGIN (not the operation) of natural laws. So, how? Pick any natural law you like.
Silly question
LGK

Mitcham, UK

#165 Jul 12, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Then explain the fossils, like I asked.
Why would you never, ever find ONE dinosaur fossil above the KT boundary?
Why would I not find ONE lion buried in the Mesozoic? Why does the layers the date differently then?
You don't get it - Evolution explains every animal that has ever been found alive or in the fossil record. Almost. Whatever twisted theory you have, must do the same.
Why are there koalas in Australia only? How did they get there?
Why are their anacondas in South America only? How did they get there? I can do that for every animal on this planet, and you will have no answer. Evolution answers IT ALL.
<quoted text>
It's not an explanation, but it does give insight to it.
<quoted text>
Fallacy: False appeal to authority
Fallacy: Quote mining.
Here is a bit more about the person you attempted to quote mine:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_de_Duv...
****
In 1962 de Duve joined the faculty of what is now Rockefeller University in New York City, dividing his time between New York and Leuven. He took emeritus status at Université catholique de Louvain in 1985 and at Rockefeller in 1988, though he continued to conduct research. Amongst other subjects, de Duve studied the distribution of enzymes in rat liver cells using rate-zonal centrifugation. De Duve's work on cell fractionation provided an insight into the function of cell structures.
In 1960, de Duve was awarded the Francqui Prize for Biological and Medical Sciences. He was awarded the shared Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1974, together with Albert Claude and George E. Palade, for describing the structure and function of organelles (lysosomes and peroxisomes) in biological cells. His later years have been mostly devoted to origin of life studies, which he admits is still a speculative field (see thioester).
His work has contributed to the emerging consensus that the endosymbiotic theory is correct; this idea proposes that mitochondria, chloroplasts, and perhaps other organelles of eukaryotic cells originated as prokaryote endosymbionts, which came to live inside eukaryotic cells.
De Duve proposes that peroxisomes may have been the first endosymbionts, which allowed cells to withstand the growing amounts of free molecular oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Since peroxisomes have no DNA of their own, this proposal has much less evidence than the similar claims for mitochondria and chloroplasts.
****
Please see third paragraph. The source you cited's work "has contributed to the *emerging consensus that the endosymbiotic theory is correct*; this idea proposes that mitochondria, chloroplasts, and perhaps other organelles of eukaryotic cells originated as prokaryote endosymbionts, which came to live inside eukaryotic cells."
Emphasis added
<quoted text>
I dunno. What do you think these people are researching?
<quoted text>
Silly question
A dinosaur in a rock is neither age of dinosaur or rock layer. It makes no difference what layers have what dinosaurs. You have to assume the age 1st, then see in the layers.

Evolution tells a creation story in scientific language sounding as if it's actually true. It's never been observed except in textbooks.

Where animals are found is not evidence of how they got there let alone arose. Evolutionism answers ALL because that’s what a theory that answers nothing does. Too big means it evolved that way & too small also means it evolved that way.

Miller’s experiments give us insight into how much intelligence it takes to make an amino acid, a PhD student at least.

De Duve's theories say nothing about how we got chloroplasts in the 1st place. He knows that.

The truth about the soup is that it exists in the textbook. Its origin can be traced to creation myths e.g. Nordic. The people researching it to find life's naturalistic origin are chasing a pipe dream.

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#166 Jul 13, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
A dinosaur in a rock is neither age of dinosaur or rock layer. It makes no difference what layers have what dinosaurs. You have to assume the age 1st, then see in the layers.
Sigh.

Then explain the fact that dinosaurs are found in their own layer, seperated from mammals. How would this happen? Why is there, below dinosaurs, a layer of archosaurs? And below them, a layer of amphibians?

That is why I asked you, have you any idea what flood deposit look like? Do you think animals die in neat, ordered patterns?

Fail
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution tells a creation story in scientific language sounding as if it's actually true. It's never been observed except in textbooks.
Wrong.

Evolution of wolf to dog. Happened in a few thousand years.

Fail again.
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Where animals are found is not evidence of how they got there let alone arose.
You fail to explain the origin of the species

Fail
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionism answers ALL because that’s what a theory that answers nothing does. Too big means it evolved that way & too small also means it evolved that way.
Wrong. Theories make predictions as well. Evolution does and those predictions are damn accurate. You fail.
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Miller’s experiments give us insight into how much intelligence it takes to make an amino acid, a PhD student at least.
Hahaha! You are a blithering idiot, if you believe that! Okay, so if I prove by means of an experiment that gravity exists, that means Gravity only functions when an intelligent person observes??

Haha. Epic fail. But a good laugh
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
De Duve's theories say nothing about how we got chloroplasts in the 1st place. He knows that.
Why should it?

Fail - and it was a source you introduced
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth about the soup is that it exists in the textbook. Its origin can be traced to creation myths e.g. Nordic. The people researching it to find life's naturalistic origin are chasing a pipe dream.
Okay.

Then explain why koalas are in Australia and panthers in Australia.

Explain why I will never ever find a single dinosaur with an elephant. Or a lion. Or a Dunkleostus
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#167 Jul 13, 2012
LGK wrote:
Nothing to read, just muppets & no-one reads that!
What's the "code", Gonzo?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#168 Jul 13, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
A dinosaur in a rock is neither age of dinosaur or rock layer. It makes no difference what layers have what dinosaurs. You have to assume the age 1st, then see in the layers.
The layers make EVERY difference. That's why you won't see T-Rexes in the upper layers with contemporary animals. The age is not the assumption, it's the hypothesis.

You keep deflecting from ever explaining your "creationist hydraulic sorting". That have anything to do with the fact it's just Goddidit with magic perchance?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 80,034
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Dogen 163,784
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) Sat Dogen 571
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sat ChromiuMan 222,780
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Fri River Tam 32,582
What's your religion? Fri Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
More from around the web