Question for evolutionists

Into the Night said:
That IS what I said. I stick to it.

Same one as you. Earth.

How do you know?

How do you know this city never flooded?
Click to expand...

Floods leave a footprint.. The Noah story comes from Sumer.

The similarities between the story of Atrahasis and that of Noah are too numerous to be the result of chance.

Atrahasis is the original version of the biblical myth, as the Sumerian version is much clearer than its Hebrew copy.

The Bible writers have copied a story without understanding the real meaning. Babylon had a rich, cultural heritage and the Hebrews had NONE until they were exiled in Babylon and exposed to that superior culture.

The Sumerian tablets were detailing the stages of reproductive science, the Hebrews saw there only fanciful legends. They were all goatherds and leaders of donkeys. How could they understand the technology of the former gods?

They reacted like the gods had wished: with admiration, submission, devotion, commitment, and a lot of sweating. The Babylonians made them work like donkeys. But they have also taught them to read and write.
 
This thread started with this question:

"Your body has a circulatory system. This is used to move oxygen rich blood cells through every part of your body. Now, here's a question for you. A circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood has no reason to exist without one. So which came first? Blood or our circulatory system? The answer is neither. They were created at the same time. There is no other rational explanation. "

It has since been hijacked into discussions about Christianity, attempts to quibble over definitions of 'evolution', 'mutation', 'science', 'religion', undefined', etc., a bunch of name calling, etc.

I suppose it was only to be expected, but none of these subjects have anything to do with the original question. It has nothing to do with religion or evolution.

Is it possible to show a circulatory system without blood, or blood without a circulatory system? Listing critters that have no blood or circulatory system is not the topic here.
 
Into the Night said:
This thread started with this question:

"Your body has a circulatory system. This is used to move oxygen rich blood cells through every part of your body. Now, here's a question for you. A circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood has no reason to exist without one. So which came first? Blood or our circulatory system? The answer is neither. They were created at the same time. There is no other rational explanation. "

It has since been hijacked into discussions about Christianity, attempts to quibble over definitions of 'evolution', 'mutation', 'science', 'religion', undefined', etc., a bunch of name calling, etc.

I suppose it was only to be expected, but none of these subjects have anything to do with the original question. It has nothing to do with religion or evolution.

Is it possible to show a circulatory system without blood, or blood without a circulatory system? Listing critters that have no blood or circulatory system is not the topic here.
Click to expand...

Need to refocus your wandering psychobabble?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=evolution+of+the+circulatory+system&atb=v116-7_f&ia=web

Read.
 
Into the Night said:
Yes it has. It produces a paradox.

The Theory of Natural Selection states that an organism survives because it is best suited to survive. Thus, that is the only form of organism to continue to reproduce. The Theory of Natural Selection therefore tends to REDUCE the available variations from which to select. It it turns around and says a selection from a variety is taking place. Where did that 'variety' come from, hmmmmm?

If variety naturally happens, then where is the 'natural selection'? Hmmmm?

1) Selection causes unselected species to die off.
2) Selection comes from a variety, that obviously is not selected to begin with.

Which is it, dude?
Click to expand...

Yeah, your misunderstanding of the relationship between variation and selection does not constitute falsification.

The fact that you think you can falsify it by tugging on your goatee and making up an argument is amusing to me. But whatever, dude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Into the Night said:
I didn't bring up Adam. PostmodernProphet did. There actually IS evidence for Adam and Eve. Ourselves.

Did you know that supporting evidence doesn't prove anything?
Click to expand...


Nope.. There is no evidence for Adam and Eve.. In fact, the story is probably about the hunter gathers becoming farmers and herdsmen.

Consider that God rejected Cain's offering.. Abel brought animals instead of of fruit and grains.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously in a single celled organism it has nowhere to circulate to......
Click to expand...

Cytoplasmic streaming, also called protoplasmic streaming, the movement of the fluid substance (cytoplasm) within a plant or animal cell. The motion transports nutrients, proteins, and organelles within cells. First discovered in the 1830s, the presence of cytoplasmic streaming helped convince biologists that cells were the fundamental units of life.

Although the mechanism of cytoplasmic streaming is not completely understood, it is thought to be mediated by “motor” proteins—molecules made up of two proteins that use adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to move one protein in relation to the other. If one of the proteins remains fixed on a substrate, such as a microfilament or a microtubule, the motor proteins can move organelles and other molecules through the cytoplasm. Motor proteins often consist of actin filaments, long protein fibres aligned in rows parallel to the streaming just inside the cell membrane. Myosin molecules attached to cellular organelles move along the actin fibres, towing the organelles and sweeping other cytoplasmic contents in the same direction.
Click to expand...
Cytoplasmic streaming
BIOLOGY
https://www.britannica.com/science/cytoplasmic-streaming
 
kudzu said:
Nope.. There is no evidence for Adam and Eve.. In fact, the story is probably about the hunter gathers becoming farmers and herdsmen.

Consider that God rejected Cain's offering.. Abel brought animals instead of of fruit and grains.
Click to expand...

wouldn't that argue for God preferring hunters to farmers?.......
 
Oh great, now mortals are going to decide what was in God's mind and what he preferred/prefers, so surely we can wind our way back to Manifest Destiny and american exceptionalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top