God vs. Science

So precells show the eight characteristics of life? Are they made from one or more cells? Do they require energy? Do they respond to stimuli? Do they reproduce? Do they display organization? Do they adapt? Do they grow? Do they maintain homeostasis?The answers, respectively are, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no.So, my answer is 'No, precells do not count.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

Harry Potter is seven books, written by J.K. Rowling, in a period of about a decade. However, the Bible is sixty-six books written by at least twenty authors, over the course of 1,500 years. There is but one similarity between the two.They both stay on the same subject throughout their entirety.So, I understand how one writer could write something, and another a few centuries later could read the firsts work and expound on it. However, the Bible's writers never saw each other's writings! How could they talk about the same thing over that long of time?

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

If point n is the current environment that the platapus or the bombardier beetle currently have a reproducing population, and that environment changes (n+1), those species must either adapt (build a bridge) or they become extinct.FYI: The platypus happens to have a "home" on the evolutionary tree.Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Monotremata
Family: Ornithorhynchidae
Genus: Ornithorhynchus
Species: O. anatinus WikipediaI have, at times, seen that type of argument used also. Its not well thought out and you will find that other 'evolutionists' (whatever that is supposed to mean) will be the first to correct such a fallacy. I would not bother using an argument along the same lines as that line of thinking is not only stupid, but dwarfed by the vast majorty of people who reply just as Rhavin did just two posts above yours: I can't say "god doesn't exist." I can say "I don't see anything that suggests he does."See the difference? Its huge. Sorry I could not find 'slightly', so I found instead 'dramatically', I hope it will satisfy your requirements? Frog Mutation*Photo credit Oregon State University I did a quick google (mutation examples) and came up with this:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.htmlDoing a fast scan of the page it seems there are a few examples that go against your assertion.I have a "mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production". (Source: Eye Color - Wikipedia) This however is simply a neutral mutation, as having blue eyes does not provide an advantage (outside of helping me attract my wife!)Edited by Vacate, : Some clarity

They are from the selection of definitions you posted. What was the point in posting definitions from three different sites if you don't agree with them? Why not just give us the definition you intend. Making it multiple choice doesn't help. I wasn't saying that you said it, I was commenting that it was one of the oldest most oft repeated creationist arguments that only someone with a total failure to understand evolution would make as was the argument you were putting forward which was essentially the 'No one has ever seen a fish turn into a lizard' argument. No, I wouldn't.TTFN,WK

I sometimes wonder if we are reading the same books. Last time I checked, the books of Moses are often referred to by later books. Luke 20:42 mentions the Psalms, as does Acts 1:20. It is obvious from what is being said that they have read each others works, as well as other works which are either lost or not considered divine.Hopefully, that is not the reason you are impressed by the collection of writings. A simple look at evidence shows it to be false. Oh evidence, how I love thee I actually came into the thread because I was curious as to what the topic was. It started off with a piece of spam that has been circulating for decades (usually the student is revealed as being called Einstein or some crap), and now we are talking about the necessity of the divine or mundane origins of a collection of short books and the evolution of life? Maybe I missed it - what is the actual topic?

Hi WK When I say these are not my definitions, I am pointing out that they belong to the respective places quoted. In other words I did not make them up.The part you mentioned as pointing to your point of view you never did address the difference between:"A transformation and a transmutation are not the same thing." Message 111God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Im not sure your first sentence here makes sense, I never said anything about my point of view. None of the definitions seem to support this, in fact two out of the three definitions seem to consider transformation and transmutation to be the same. You want me to address a non-existent difference you made up? Wouldn't it be better for you to address it by giving us your definition of transmutation and emphasising the distinction?Not that it matters particularly since your definition is apparently completely divorced from anything to do with evolution.TTFN,WK

Hi WK,Transformation Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Transmutation Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Transmutation is changing one element into another element.Transformation
You can change the outward form or appearance
You can tranform the composition of a sentence or its structure.
You can change in character or condition.I don't see them being the same thing.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Since Mirriam-Webster's thesaurus lists Transform and Transmute as synonyms the first definitions of each word seem effectively identical.The same page then goe s on to make the kind of distinction you seem to be making. Clearly this definition of transform is not applicable to evolution. The evolutionary genetic changes we see are obvious not merely a change of outward form or appearance, they are a change in the basic genetic structure of the organism.Once again your definition of transmutation shows it to be inimicable to evolution as it is scientifically understood, not as you suggest required by it. There are no categorically higher and lower things in evolutionary biology.TTFN,WK

Small world. I used that page two days ago on another thread as an example of direct evidence for both random mutation and natural selection.It does contain what your looking for, and in one experiment, no less than four different advantageous mutations occur in yeast cells.

My statement applies for all practical purposes. For example the noteworthy trails such as the Oregon Trail, Louis & Clarks's expoditions and such all have been by foot and traceable. It also applies to nearly all trails we remember in out past which we have taken. For example when I lived in Wyoming as a youth we would hike or horseback miles back into the Windriver Range of the Rockies following a tree blazed trail. These trails were traceable come rain or come snow.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Imo, that's a stretch. The alleged steps of evolution progress on a trail into complexity, order and intelligence. All we're claiming is that there's not enough traceable steps to convince us that you have enough to trace it all the way back to the primodial soup. (My question to Taz was to assertain which creos were alleging that a man could not walk a thousand miles. It appeared to me as a play on his part to make fools out of creos which he tends to do at every opportunity.) My point was no wheel, no automobile as in, no abiogenesis, no evolution, no matter how you cut it. That's all I was saying. How it came about was irrevelant to my comment.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Do you have anything to say other than expressing your personal incredulity? No. The steps of evolution branch out into an extremely diverse tree, one tiny twig of which has developed intelligence. Once again you take an analogy too far, Buz. Snowflakes progress towards complexity and order from chaos - do you claim that they are designed as well? Taz doesn't need to try to make fools out of creationists who insist evolution needs to stop at some barrier they refuse to identify or define that prevents small changes within species from producing new species. Especially when speciation has been observed.If you insist that evolution is required to produce every single generation of the evolutionary line from an apelike ancestor to modern humans, we don't have to try to make you look like a fool, either. All we need to do is point out that evolution does not rest solely on the fossil record, that the fossilization process is far too rare to ever give us the level of detail you are seeking, and that it does predict the examples from the fossil record we do have with amazing accuracy. And that statement is demonstrably false. Evolution only requires that life exists, that life self-replicates, and that the replication is done imperfectly. Natural selection is self-evident from there, and the way life arrived on this particular rock is irrelevant to that process. Abiogenesis dits quite well, but honestly, so does a deity creating the first self-replicating molecule, or aliens seeding the planet, or any other method you can come up with so long as life winds up on this planet. Again, you took an analogy too far.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

OK Rahvin. So long as you see it all as a dead horse no use in me wasting our time beating it.I'm just one of a host of creationists including some educated physicists and biologists who regard your alleged trail as a stretch.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I think this is a really good e-mail you received!
I enjoyed it very much.