[Tj3]

Nice try - but the big bang theory (which has not been proven either) says that all matter (that includes electrons) came together in a large highly compressed black hole that exploded. the electrons were already there, according to the theory.

This does show that you know nothing of the origin of the universe. The big bang was not an explosion as in a bomb going off. It also wasn't a black hole or the like.

I should start a science class on here. First michaelb thinks that macroevolution is a word created by "fundies" and now you think that the big bang created matter and both of you seem to think that anyone who posts information from science on here does not know anything. Let's see what scientists think:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.
(Source: THE BIG BANG )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said to Michael, before you start making derogatory remarks about others, you'd be well advised to take the time to get your facts straight.

[davers]

Nice try to dodge my question, how do you know you are right and all the others are wrong?

[Tj3]

Nice try to dodge my question, how do you know you are right and all the others are wrong?

No dodge. You made a claim contrary to what current scientific thought is and I provided a validated rebuttal.

What others are you speaking about? You are the only one making that claim. And so far you have not done so much as validate it, though I did validate my position.

And, I might add, I did it without posting abuse about those who disagree (hint, hint).

BTW, talking about dodging questions, I see that you have nicely dodged dealing the topic of the thread (see the OP).

[JoeT777]

Where is the link for what you state?

How do you get from fatty acids to nucleic acids [ genetic material ] and proteins [ what the genetic material is translated into ] ?

How did the first functioning genetic code happen? to be in a cell ? and that cell have the means [ amino acids, ribosomes ] to put that genetic code to use? Where did all the enzymes and proteins necessary for this genetic code to be used, come from and happen to be in the right cell at the right time?

Add to that is whether this is RNA or DNA

[michealb]

Just because they define the word doesn't mean it's a good term or they came up with it.

Macro-evolution was first used by Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko in 1927 who by the way was an ID fan.
It also depends on how you want to use this word as to whether it exist or not. If you use the Berkly definition it exists. If you use fundy definitions it's used to confuse.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which step in the process I laid out is impossible an why? So far I've disputed all of your claims. I'm still waiting for you to point out one process that life does that isn't a chemical reaction just one that's all it will take to prove life isn't a series of chemical reactions.

[Tj3]

Just because they define the word doesn't mean it's a good term or they came up with it.

Nice attempt at backtracking, but let's re-read what it was that you said:

"Your right macro-evolution doesn't exist. It's a term made up by fundies to mislead people that don't know anything about evolution."

Heh heh heh. Miachael, you should give up at this and just stick with validated facts. I did not post this again to embarrass you, but rather in the hopes that perhaps you will lay off trying to put down others, and spend your time more productively by doing some research and getting your facts straight; and perhaps even being willing to actually answer the questions.

Bottom line - whether you like it or not, the tern is in common use amongst all scientists, both those who adhere to the beliefs of evolution and those who adhere to the intelligent design theory.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which step in the process I laid out is impossible an why? So far I've disputed all of your claims.

No, in fact I have seen very few responses (at least not on the topic) to my rebuttals. As for which "step", I will address that when you provide your hypothesis. Since you have yet to do so, I will not attempt mind-reading.

[michealb]

Fine you got me on this one. I was using the fundy definition of macro-evolution while you were using the scientific one. My mistake. I still don't like the word because I don't like talking species when I talk about evolution because it confuses people into thinking there is some special barrier that makes something one species versus another one. When we are all the same just diversified.

However using the scientific definition macro-evolution is still simply evolution with enough change to call something a new species. There is no special species barrier that prevents micro-evolution from changing a species into what we would call a new species. Even the old argument that mutation could not add genetic material has been proven false in lab experiments.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
So your argument about evolution falls apart. Since the experiment proves complex new traits can arise though evolution.

[inthebox]

My proof is the fact that you can't name one process that life does that can't be broken down to a chemical reaction.

Love

Morality - the idea of good an bad / evil

Alturism

Charity

Jealousy

Most of psychology

Intelligence

To name a few




... Where are the exact genes for this? We are more than the sum of our chemicals - thus the whole nature vs nurture argument.

[Tj3]

Fine you got me on this one. I was using the fundy definition of macro-evolution while you were using the scientific one.

I love it - you always have an excuse, and a way to attack those who don't agree with you, without addressing the issue.

My mistake. I still don't like the word because I don't like talking species when I talk about evolution because it confuses people into thinking there is some special barrier that makes something one species versus another one. When we are all the same just diversified.

Except there has never been a single case shown where a species evolved into a different species. The only thing proven is microevolution.

However using the scientific definition macro-evolution is still simply evolution with enough change to call something a new species. There is no special species barrier that prevents micro-evolution from changing a species into what we would call a new species. Even the old argument that mutation could not add genetic material has been proven false in lab experiments.

Ho hum. I don't share your excitement nor have you done anything to my argument. It is still E Coli. I never argued against microevolution.

BTW, I notice that you still avoid the questions at hand and you still keep trying to distract from the topic. I understand why.

[Tj3]

Still waiting for anyone to come forward with a feasible natural way for the first cell to develop.

[Tj3]

Still waiting for anyone to come up with a feasible way in which this animal could develop naturally:

Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[NeedKarma]

Really? And your evidence for this is?

Answer me this - who made God?

[davers]

[QUOTE=Tj3;1352311]Still waiting for anyone to come up with a feasible way in which this animal could develop naturally:

I really think you should read and watch Prof Richard Dawkins books and videos, There you will find all the explanations you need. I know you will dismiss it out of hand as you have a closed mind. No I am not being insulting, just factual!
Tell me, how old do YOU believe the earth is?
Also do you believe we should follow what the bible says?

[Tj3]

Answer me this - who made God?

No one. But I notice that once again, you avoid the question asked of you.

[Tj3]

Still waiting for anyone to come up with a feasible way in which this animal could develop naturally:

I really think you should read and watch Prof Richard Dawkins books and videos, There you will find all the explanations you need. I know you will dismiss it out of hand as you have a closed mind. No I am not being insulting, just factual!
Tell me, how old do YOU believe the earth is?
Also do you believe we should follow what the bible says?

I know all about Dawkins. Now I am asking you.

BTW, in case you have not noticed, I said that I am willing to submit the questions in the OP to strictly those things that can be addressed by science. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or mine, but with science. Now once you have taken the time to deal with the OP, perhaps we can deal with other issues, or perhapsd you would like to start another thread for your questions.

And yes, you are being insulting - anytime that a person feels the need to attack the person rather than deal with the issue, it indicates that they have no answers. BTW, you probably did not read enough of the thread to know that I am a former evolutionist who found that the evidence did not support the theory. So much for your abusive comments about me.

And I notice a epidemic of avoiding the questions on here amongst atheists :D

I understand why.

[Tj3]

I am beginning to notice a trend on here. No atheists want to deal with the questions in the OP. Instead they resort to:

- Changing the question to distract from the OP or hijack the thread.
- Abusive comments about those who disagree with them.

Are there ANY atheists on here who have the guts to deal with the questions raised in the OP, and to see what science has to say?

[NeedKarma]

No one.

So no one made atoms either. See how that works?

[Tj3]

So no one made atoms either. See how that works?

No I don't - God made all things.

Col 1:15-17
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
NKJV

Matter is not God. What you are advocating is Mormonism. Further, I accept that my believe in the eternal nature of God is by faith and there are valid reasons for that faith, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Now if you are telling me that you accept the eternal pre-existence of matter as a tenet of your faith, then that is fine. You are welcome to believe it, but it falls outside of the realm of science.

So you belief in life created naturally then becomes a matter of faith, your religion.

See how that works?

Now how about returning to the topic of the thread. As I said earlier:

I am beginning to notice a trend on here. No atheists want to deal with the questions in the OP. Instead they resort to:

- Changing the question to distract from the OP or hijack the thread.
- Abusive comments about those who disagree with them.

Are there ANY atheists on here who have the guts to deal with the questions raised in the OP, and to see what science has to say?

I am beginning to think that the answer is "NO". Prove me wrong. Maybe atheists are concerned as to what science may reveal;)

[michealb]

Still waiting for anyone to come forward with a feasible natural way for the first cell to develop.

I gave you a feasible way. So I have answered your question in the format you asked it. What you want is 100% proof of how the first cell formed. Which I don't have nobody has it. As I have said several times. However all that proves is lack of knowledge. It doesn't prove god did it. It only proves that we don't know for sure.

[Tj3]

I gave you a feasible way. So I have answered your question in the format you asked it.

You responded back near the start of this thread and I responded in post #31. I do not remember seeing any further response from you on a feasible way in which any of these occurred. If you believe that you have, please tell us the post #.

What you want is 100% proof of how the first cell formed.

No, I am not looking for 100% proof. But don't think that you can put something out which has gaping holes in it that make it unfeasible and then expect not to be challenged. So post what you believe to be feasible and let's have a look at it.