EvC Forum: Logical Proof of Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Logical Proof of Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

bluegenes

Member (Idle past 2503 days)

Posts: 3119

From: U.K.

Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display

Message 30 of 175 (471512)
06-17-2008 9:24 AM

Reply to: Message 25 by ypostelnik
06-17-2008 8:19 AM

ypostelnik writes:

...See the debate,..

yp in "the debate" writes:

By the way, the platypus genome is similar similar to other so-called “transitional” fossil, the Archaeopteryx.

You want people to read a debate in which you're coming up with meaningless rubbish like that?

Now, tell me what's wrong with your statement that I quoted above. Show us that you understand what a genome is, if you want to talk about biology.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 25 by ypostelnik, posted 06-17-2008 8:19 AM		ypostelnik has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 33 by Brian, posted 06-17-2008 9:38 AM	bluegenes has not replied
	Message 35 by ypostelnik, posted 06-17-2008 9:42 AM	bluegenes has replied

bluegenes

Member (Idle past 2503 days)

Posts: 3119

From: U.K.

Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display

Message 38 of 175 (471526)
06-17-2008 10:10 AM

Reply to: Message 35 by ypostelnik
06-17-2008 9:42 AM

yp writes:

Ya, if you take everything out of context!
We were discussing the lack of transitional fossils and he cited the platypus genome. I replied that it was similar to other claims of tfs and not truly transitional. The laughter you offer should be directed at yourself for refusing to follow a conversation and your feeble attempts at spin.

There is no spin, and my laughter is directed at you.

From your debate: here

the other guy writes:

I accept the evolutionist explanation for several reasons. One is the fossil record. Two is the distribution of genes in animal DNA. (BTW, did you see the recent articles about the sequencing of the platypus genome? It looks to me like the platypus is a living “transitional” species.)

ypostelnik writes:

By the way, the platypus genome is similar similar to other so-called “transitional” fossil, the Archaeopteryx. That one had fully developed feathers and nothing transitional in nature. A transitional fossil would have half scales and half feathers, etc. What we have instead is a species that’s not uniquely mammal or amphibian, but it’s not transitional.

Now, I repeat my request. Explain your statement. Unlike you, I had followed the argument well. Your opponent said that one of the things that most convinced him of "evolutionist explanation" was the distribution of genes in animal DNA, then mentions the sequencing of the platypus genome. He is talking about the genetic evidence here, not evidence from the phenotype.

So, explain your nonsensical comment.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 35 by ypostelnik, posted 06-17-2008 9:42 AM		ypostelnik has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 47 by ypostelnik, posted 06-20-2008 1:53 AM		bluegenes has replied

bluegenes

Member (Idle past 2503 days)

Posts: 3119

From: U.K.

Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display

Message 54 of 175 (472051)
06-20-2008 4:51 AM

Reply to: Message 47 by ypostelnik
06-20-2008 1:53 AM

ypostelnik writes:

I don't know if you're a liar or a fool but my point was that the platypus shows no transitional features, as outlined and neither do the other so-called transitional fossils. My point, and his spin, were clear to everyone who can read (unless you both can't).

What you did, actually, was compare a genome with a fossil. Anyway, you seem to disagree with the geneticists who unravelled the platypus genome. Which sequences do you think they've analysed incorrectly?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 47 by ypostelnik, posted 06-20-2008 1:53 AM		ypostelnik has not replied

bluegenes

Member (Idle past 2503 days)

Posts: 3119

From: U.K.

Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display

Message 55 of 175 (472052)
06-20-2008 6:12 AM

Reply to: Message 51 by ypostelnik
06-20-2008 2:09 AM

Education for the arrogant.

ypostlnitwit writes:

The same is true of the hominids, the supposed ape to human transitional forms. Of the 12 hominids cited by evolutionists, 9 have been documented to be extinct species of ape/monkey with no human characteristics at all. The other 3 are modern day humans with no animal characteristics. A true half human half ape fossil has never been found.

Been documented? By whom? Do you want to learn some science, yposteltwit? Here are some links for you. Watch the two easy to understand videos first, then try reading some real science here:

Read and learn about hominids HERE

HERVS

Chromosome 2

Now, if you still think that we didn't evolve from common ancestry with living apes, then you're incapable of understanding biology and shouldn't be talking about it.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 51 by ypostelnik, posted 06-20-2008 2:09 AM		ypostelnik has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0