Originally posted by VoidSpiritI studied Chemistry and Physics already in College. But Biology is a different matter. I would like you to explain how the information got into the DNA molecule without an intelligent source. Information scientists argue against such a thing happening without an intelligent source. Can you explain how it can happen?
if you want to be able to understand the physics of it, you'll have to return to school, starting at elementary level, around grade 2, and work yourself up to college level.
but i doubt your intellect is capable of understanding since you can't even pick up the very basic concepts of evolution even after those concepts have been explained to you many times.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritBit of a reductionist hole here. "Most of" is a useful qualification. The properties of systems are not reducible to those of its constituents. Chess is just a collection of wooden pieces on a flat board. No chemist or physicist will explain the game despite the fact that no laws of physics or chemistry are broken.
your question is as meaningless as asking "how may people believe this process was created by some intelligent being?"
what people believe and how many there are is irrelevant. what is relevant is what can be demonstrated.
most of what is happening in the leukocyte extravasation is chemistry and physics at work.
These guys have had the arguments over and over so let's just remind them. Evolution does not state that complex organisms arise by random chance, as in the assembly of a plane by a hurricane in a junk yard. The emergence of complex living organisms is the product of systematic, non random adaptations over a very long time by species that are diverse to an environment that is continually changing.
One example of a complicated organism described in exquisite detail does not prove this wrong. Lots and lots of different examples do not prove it wrong. The fact that these guys cannot get their heads around it does not prove it wrong. The fact that these guys are propogating fundamentalist claptrap does not prove it wrong. Lots and lots of repetitions do not make any difference to the argument. It is futility cubed.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by finneganIt's amazing how pig headed people can be about evolution, reminds me of the first telescopes where people would look up at a star with just their eyes (back in the 1600's) and see a single star but when looking at the same star though the primitive scopes of the day and they see now two stars, they would say, your optics are flawed. Even though looking at other stars in the same image field shows single stars and some of the fundamentalists of the day would not even dare look through the telescope at all, I guess fearing the whole telescope thing was a product of the devil or some such rot.
Bit of a reductionist hole here. "Most of" is a useful qualification. The properties of systems are not reducible to those of its constituents. Chess is just a collection of wooden pieces on a flat board. No chemist or physicist will explain the game despite the fact that no laws of physics or chemistry are broken.
These guys have had the arguments over ...[text shortened]... ts and lots of repetitions do not make any difference to the argument. It is futility cubed.
Here it is 400 years later and we have exactly the same mind set in the fundies.
Not a great resume for the supposed high level of intelligence of the human race in general, eh.
Originally posted by finneganIf you guys would get your head out of your arse you would be able to easily see and understand that the theory of evolution is WRONG. Information has never been shown to come about by any source that was not began by some sort of intelligence. The theory of evolution can not account for it. Only creation can account for it, numbnuts.
Bit of a reductionist hole here. "Most of" is a useful qualification. The properties of systems are not reducible to those of its constituents. Chess is just a collection of wooden pieces on a flat board. No chemist or physicist will explain the game despite the fact that no laws of physics or chemistry are broken.
These guys have had the arguments over ts and lots of repetitions do not make any difference to the argument. It is futility cubed.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsplease explain how it happened with intelligence. the onus is on you since you are claiming special knowledge.
I studied Chemistry and Physics already in College. But Biology is a different matter. I would like you to explain how the information got into the DNA molecule without an intelligent source. Information scientists argue against such a thing happening without an intelligent source. Can you explain how it can happen?
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you can repeat indefinitely the same blather then I can repeat ad nauseam the same informative response.
If you guys would get your head out of your arse you would be able to easily see and understand that the theory of evolution is WRONG. Information has never been shown to come about by any source that was not began by some sort of intelligence. The theory of evolution can not account for it. Only creation can account for it, numbnuts.
These guys have had the arguments over and over so let's just remind them. Evolution does not state that complex organisms arise by random chance, as in the assembly of a plane by a hurricane in a junk yard. The emergence of complex living organisms is the product of systematic, non random adaptations over a very long time by species that are diverse (which arises by chance and is easily demonstrated) to an environment that is continually changing (effectively by chance and easily demonstrated).
Information is here used to refer to a property of a complex organism, specifically the information in genes that programmes their reproduction. As such it is in no way whatever a new attribute that requires a new explanation, but simply an interesting way to describe a property of an organism that has already been accounted for through Evolution by Natural Selection.
Nothing you repeat is new or interesting.
29 Jun 12
Originally posted by finneganYou guys exhibit stupidity and stubborness to the MAX!
If you can repeat indefinitely the same blather then I can repeat ad nauseam the same informative response.
[quote] These guys have had the arguments over and over so let's just remind them. Evolution does not state that complex organisms arise by random chance, as in the assembly of a plane by a hurricane in a junk yard. The emergence of complex living ...[text shortened]... unted for through Evolution by Natural Selection.
Nothing you repeat is new or interesting.
29 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThat has nothing to do with truth, it is only assertions. You can't just say 'the bible is holy' and therefore the bible is holy.
The Holy Bible is not myth nor is the creation account.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/326-is-the-bible-creation-account-a-myth
If your god actually showed up, only it could verify the holiness of your bible. Otherwise it is just people asserting holiness which doesn't mean squat. Just like your pathetic arguments about evolution and origins of life.
29 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYou can't just say that the Holy Bible isn't holy, that is only an assertion. It says Holy Bible right there on the Cover. That should be proof enough for any reasonable person of its holiness. Your just saying my agruments about evolution and the origin of life is pathetic does not make it so. Your assertions don't mean squat. 😏
That has nothing to do with truth, it is only assertions. You can't just say 'the bible is holy' and therefore the bible is holy.
If your god actually showed up, only it could verify the holiness of your bible. Otherwise it is just people asserting holiness which doesn't mean squat. Just like your pathetic arguments about evolution and origins of life.
HalleluYah !!! Holy, Holy, Holy! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God!
29 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSo is the Quran holy?
You can't just say that the Holy Bible isn't holy, that is only an assertion. It says Holy Bible right there on the Cover. That should be proof enough for any reasonable person of its holiness. Your just saying my agruments about evolution and the origin of life is pathetic does not make it so. Your assertions don't mean squat. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Holy, Holy, Holy! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God!
29 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou espouse belief in the bible. Everything you say is nonsense, therefore one may safely conclude that the bible is also nonsense. Proved.
You can't just say that the Holy Bible isn't holy, that is only an assertion. It says Holy Bible right there on the Cover. That should be proof enough for any reasonable person of its holiness. Your just saying my agruments about evolution and the origin of life is pathetic does not make it so. Your assertions don't mean squat. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Holy, Holy, Holy! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God!
29 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsyou still haven't explained the process in which it was intelligently made. i'll just have to assume that you're an ignorant douche who knows nothing about the process and ergo, you opinion on whatever claims made by the myths you uphold as truth are irrelevant.
The Holy Bible is not myth nor is the creation account.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/326-is-the-bible-creation-account-a-myth