Your point 12 was an excellent choice.

(But you shouldn’t use a genetics amateurs to explain genetics.)

You want to play games with jumping 1ft one week and 2 the next etc?

A man makes a paper plane and throws it, it flies. Man can’t make a jumbo jet because it has millions of parts and it’s a million times as big. Just because one situation has limitations doesn’t mean all situations have the same number of limitations. For example I could say macroevolution will end before every man becomes a god. That doesn’t mean its impossible to evolve to the current level and beyond due to a limitation theory.

For the record a flea has a need to jump 100 flea feet high and does. Humans have the bio-mechanical components to do so also, and if there was a real need, natural evolution would see your skater jump 100 feet.

Okay, so that logic doesn’t work…..

Next……

Princess and a frog?……

First there was 1 cell, mad, then it split and became multiple cells, ludicrous, then that became a primitive invertebrate, insane, then it became a vertebrate, absolute moron, then it became a complex vertebrate, how do these idiots keep coming up with these concepts?

Now take that ludicrous proposition and tell me, based on the factual time line data of physical archeological findings, the order in which life on earth has been discovered so far. Feel free to point me to the parallel single cell, multi-cell invertebrate and vertebrate discoveries at the same dig with the same age which leads you to the conclusion macroevolution is a joke, not feasible or not logical. Or is it possible to walk up to a cliff and see the essence of the Darwin timeline?

Whilst you’re on the subject, again, explain why there is a set of discovered humans (each more advanced than the one before) based on age of the discovery.

Provide any factual proof of modern man being the only man descended from one man, Adam without macroevolution taking place. If you can’t, what viable theory have you got to replace the theory of macroevolution?

Now to your botanist…..

I mean, really, where do you get these quotes? It seems to me like you’ve gone to the web and searched for “Idiot’s+evolution”

Oh dear……

The concept of a peach not being able to be bigger or smaller? Maybe he’s just not skilled enough.

On the other hand what has a plants biological structure, that tells it there is no point in being so large it couldn’t hang on the tree or so small its seed would be endangered so it refuses to genetically mutate, got to do with macroevolution?

What kind of moron would try to get a rose to bloom all year knowing the amount of energy that a plant requires to bloom all year it would so deprive the plant of resources it would die. Not to mention the fact that, even if the botanist attempting to change the plant is an idiot, the rose knows it’s no point in creating seeds at a time when they would simply fall to the ground and die.

What these examples should highlight to anyone is that even idiots intervening can’t override macroevolution

However If you go as far as to accept “microevolution” you have no option but to accept the very likely possibility of “macroevolution”.

And it appears you have accepted microevolution

The mechanism is identical. As pointed out, genetic mutation leading to change.

So to a Christian, in Darwin’s day, it was all a totally ridiculous concept that couldn’t possibly happen. Now part has been proved, “Oh well, yes of course, THAT PART is correct, it’s just the bit you can’t prove yet that’s wrong……”

And what happens each time a new part is proved as fact? What? That becomes “obvious” until you simply have no way out?)

So, the comment regarding bacteria……

I guess it wouldn’t embarrass you if I highlighted the level of ability to monitor genetic modification in the mid 1800’s or perhaps highlight to you the number of bacteria there are in the world. Even today they’d have trouble monitoring the bacteria in your gut.

Here’s a quote you can freely use:

Othello Orson October, 2006 stated: “In over 150 years of bacterial research there is no evidence that a proportion of bacteria have not undergone macroevolution.”

And that I can state (without any ability of another person to contradict) is at least as accurate a fact as the fact you quoted.

(Note here: Major changes in one bacteria leading to a different species would not wipe out the original species (remember mutation only occurs if the conditions seem appropriate: you can use black, white, red, yellow humans as an example) therefore the existence of bacteria existing today [in its thousands or millions of forms] is irrelevant to macroevolution.)

Small lesson here:

Things mutate in order to adapt to their needs and progress, not for the fun of it (which is incidentally why a birds beak may grow larger in a drought and then return to normal when the weather reverts).

Now it’s time to be sarcastic…..

What a dumb theory that a single cell could possibly have the genetic material to develop into something as complex as a modern man. How stupid is that?!!!

In fact, if something as stupid as that was true, living organisms wouldn’t come into existence complete. They’d start from a single cell!!! Try to imagine that concept!!!

Oh, wait a minute, they do start as a single cell? Well, that doesn’t help the argument. Wish I hadn’t thought of that one.

Your celebrated “bacteria man” (I don’t store the names of people, in my view, are idiots) advised that bacteria can mutate every few hours.

We know that, depending on complexity, organisms can change in hours, days weeks years.

Even complex living organisms such as, short lived, mammals can be genetically manipulated over a few generations over a period of months.

But lets say, like the new strain of flu each year, it takes 1 year to mutate and micro-evolve (noting bacteria can do it in a few hours).

Take one original cell and evolve it.

We know life has been on earth for around 3.5 billion years based on early Archaean fossils.

We also now have a formal declaration of 19,599 coding genes in the human genome (we won’t discuss why God would include large masses of “junk DNA” in the human genome but every Christian knows it’s not a result of macro-evolution disgarding the bits not needed).

So, at only one mutation per year, we are saying that there would be at least 3,500,000,000 mutations to a maximum of 19,599 genes in the original cell to get to man.

By all means go and ask any geneticist if they believe 3,500,000,000 mutations would lead to micro-evolutionary or macro-evolutionary changes. (Since you like numbers that’s more than one change to every one of the human roughly 3,000,000,000 base pairs.)

When considering this note:

We have examples of tools made by Homo erectus 400,000 years ago so although this species was extremely primitive, it was not a monkey.

We have tools up to 2.2 million years ago.

“Human” created fire 1.2 million years ago.

Neanderthal man had a tiny brain but buried people, used tools and han clothes around 200,000 years ago. Clearly not a monkey (not and Adam either).

Neanderthal man’s DNA (with anomalies) is close enough to modern man to view him as close to (but not) a direct descendant. Nonetheless his larynx bone was identical to modern man putting him an a category that could speak, clearly not an animal.

The point here is, if the world could progress from nearly, but definitely not, animal around 2 million years, what about 3,500 million years and noting the need for much less dramatic change in the early stages?

Primitive man started finger painting on walls and was lucky to live around 20 years, 17,000 years ago. Today he is close to being able to flying to Mars and back and is approaching an average life expectancy of 80 years. Any idea the rate of genetic progress that is? Compared with 3.5 billion years?

That said…..

..….Macroevolution possible?

A virtual absolute certainty.

Seen the latest on the “laboratory formation” of the beginnings of life?

Time is running out for the Creationist theory which will probably be defunct within 20 years.

What then?

Your point 12 was an excellent choice.

(But you shouldn’t use a genetics amateurs to explain genetics.)

You want to play games with jumping 1ft one week and 2 the next etc?

A man makes a paper plane and throws it, it flies. Man can’t make a jumbo jet because it has millions of parts and it’s a million times as big. Just because one situation has limitations doesn’t mean all situations have the same number of limitations. For example I could say macroevolution will end before every man becomes a god. That doesn’t mean its impossible to evolve to the current level and beyond due to a limitation theory.

For the record a flea has a need to jump 100 flea feet high and does. Humans have the bio-mechanical components to do so also, and if there was a real need, natural evolution would see your skater jump 100 feet.

Okay, so that logic doesn’t work…..

Next……

Princess and a frog?……

First there was 1 cell, mad, then it split and became multiple cells, ludicrous, then that became a primitive invertebrate, insane, then it became a vertebrate, absolute moron, then it became a complex vertebrate, how do these idiots keep coming up with these concepts?

Now take that ludicrous proposition and tell me, based on the factual time line data of physical archeological findings, the order in which life on earth has been discovered so far. Feel free to point me to the parallel single cell, multi-cell invertebrate and vertebrate discoveries at the same dig with the same age which leads you to the conclusion macroevolution is a joke, not feasible or not logical. Or is it possible to walk up to a cliff and see the essence of the Darwin timeline?

Whilst you’re on the subject, again, explain why there is a set of discovered humans (each more advanced than the one before) based on age of the discovery.

Provide any factual proof of modern man being the only man descended from one man, Adam without macroevolution taking place. If you can’t, what viable theory have you got to replace the theory of macroevolution?

Now to your botanist…..

I mean, really, where do you get these quotes? It seems to me like you’ve gone to the web and searched for “Idiot’s+evolution”

Oh dear……

The concept of a peach not being able to be bigger or smaller? Maybe he’s just not skilled enough.

On the other hand what has a plants biological structure, that tells it there is no point in being so large it couldn’t hang on the tree or so small its seed would be endangered so it refuses to genetically mutate, got to do with macroevolution?

What kind of moron would try to get a rose to bloom all year knowing the amount of energy that a plant requires to bloom all year it would so deprive the plant of resources it would die. Not to mention the fact that, even if the botanist attempting to change the plant is an idiot, the rose knows it’s no point in creating seeds at a time when they would simply fall to the ground and die.

What these examples should highlight to anyone is that even idiots intervening can’t override macroevolution

However If you go as far as to accept “microevolution” you have no option but to accept the very likely possibility of “macroevolution”.

And it appears you have accepted microevolution

The mechanism is identical. As pointed out, genetic mutation leading to change.

So to a Christian, in Darwin’s day, it was all a totally ridiculous concept that couldn’t possibly happen. Now part has been proved, “Oh well, yes of course, THAT PART is correct, it’s just the bit you can’t prove yet that’s wrong……”

And what happens each time a new part is proved as fact? What? That becomes “obvious” until you simply have no way out?)

So, the comment regarding bacteria……

I guess it wouldn’t embarrass you if I highlighted the level of ability to monitor genetic modification in the mid 1800’s or perhaps highlight to you the number of bacteria there are in the world. Even today they’d have trouble monitoring the bacteria in your gut.

Here’s a quote you can freely use:

Othello Orson October, 2006 stated: “In over 150 years of bacterial research there is no evidence that a proportion of bacteria have not undergone macroevolution.”

And that I can state (without any ability of another person to contradict) is at least as accurate a fact as the fact you quoted.

(Note here: Major changes in one bacteria leading to a different species would not wipe out the original species (remember mutation only occurs if the conditions seem appropriate: you can use black, white, red, yellow humans as an example) therefore the existence of bacteria existing today [in its thousands or millions of forms] is irrelevant to macroevolution.)

Small lesson here:

Things mutate in order to adapt to their needs and progress, not for the fun of it (which is incidentally why a birds beak may grow larger in a drought and then return to normal when the weather reverts).

Now it’s time to be sarcastic…..

What a dumb theory that a single cell could possibly have the genetic material to develop into something as complex as a modern man. How stupid is that?!!!

In fact, if something as stupid as that was true, living organisms wouldn’t come into existence complete. They’d start from a single cell!!! Try to imagine that concept!!!

Oh, wait a minute, they do start as a single cell? Well, that doesn’t help the argument. Wish I hadn’t thought of that one.

Your celebrated “bacteria man” (I don’t store the names of people, in my view, are idiots) advised that bacteria can mutate every few hours.

We know that, depending on complexity, organisms can change in hours, days weeks years.

Even complex living organisms such as, short lived, mammals can be genetically manipulated over a few generations over a period of months.

But lets say, like the new strain of flu each year, it takes 1 year to mutate and micro-evolve (noting bacteria can do it in a few hours).

Take one original cell and evolve it.

We know life has been on earth for around 3.5 billion years based on early Archaean fossils.

We also now have a formal declaration of 19,599 coding genes in the human genome (we won’t discuss why God would include large masses of “junk DNA” in the human genome but every Christian knows it’s not a result of macro-evolution disgarding the bits not needed).

So, at only one mutation per year, we are saying that there would be at least 3,500,000,000 mutations to a maximum of 19,599 genes in the original cell to get to man.

By all means go and ask any geneticist if they believe 3,500,000,000 mutations would lead to micro-evolutionary or macro-evolutionary changes. (Since you like numbers that’s more than one change to every one of the human roughly 3,000,000,000 base pairs.)

When considering this note:

We have examples of tools made by Homo erectus 400,000 years ago so although this species was extremely primitive, it was not a monkey.

We have tools up to 2.2 million years ago.

“Human” created fire 1.2 million years ago.

Neanderthal man had a tiny brain but buried people, used tools and han clothes around 200,000 years ago. Clearly not a monkey (not and Adam either).

Neanderthal man’s DNA (with anomalies) is close enough to modern man to view him as close to (but not) a direct descendant. Nonetheless his larynx bone was identical to modern man putting him an a category that could speak, clearly not an animal.

The point here is, if the world could progress from nearly, but definitely not, animal around 2 million years, what about 3,500 million years and noting the need for much less dramatic change in the early stages?

Primitive man started finger painting on walls and was lucky to live around 20 years, 17,000 years ago. Today he is close to being able to flying to Mars and back and is approaching an average life expectancy of 80 years. Any idea the rate of genetic progress that is? Compared with 3.5 billion years?

That said…..

..….Macroevolution possible?

A virtual absolute certainty.

Seen the latest on the “laboratory formation” of the beginnings of life?

Time is running out for the Creationist theory which will probably be defunct within 20 years.

What then?

You highlight the fact God made us in his image. Given what we now know, this isn’t some “Jesus” we see in the movies but a stooped, hairy, knuckle dragging creature with practically no ability to think. To me it seems a little strange that, after billions of years of existence, God chose to evolve only over the last few thousand.

Or was it that the people who wrote the bible only had limited scientific knowledge?

It is a simple fact of life, if there was a God making medical advances for us, he would need to create cures and measures to save, savable people which could also be used to prolong the life of people who were not savable. People God chose to “terminate”.

In view of this, your concept that euthanasia should not be allowed is in direct conflict with your contestation that only God should have dominion over life and death.

When “God” gives a person a terminal condition, it is clear, his intention is to terminate. Anything that gets in the way of “God’s will” in the matter is, by your demonstrated words, an act against God.

There is in fact no such thing as a request for euthanasia. By the time anyone requests it we have passed the stage of “God’s will” and are keeping the person alive artificially. Or, to put it another way, if we had followed “God’s will”, the person would already be dead.

“Euthanasia” could therefore be seen as carrying out God’s will in the most caring manner.

Now I suspect your argument will be that God put the ability to keep the person alive in our hands and we should therefore use that ability. That’s why I made the note in paragraph 3.

So do you doubt the concept set out in paragraph 3?

Before you answer, consider the following scenarios:

A person broke their neck 5 years ago and they:

1. Were in the jungles of South America. They succumbed quickly and died.
2. Were in an extremely poor part of Africa. They were provided with pain killers and lasted a couple of days and died.
3. Were in India. They were put on the hospitals only respirator for a few months until someone with a greater chance of recovery required it and they were taken off and died.
4. Were in the Philippines but could afford a respirator. They lived two years and died.
5. Were in the USA and could afford mid range treatment. They lived for 5 years and died.
6. Are in the USA and money “is no object”. They are still alive but their “quality of life” is so poor and deteriorating they want to take the course of “euthanasia”.

So you believe, the only person God wanted to live, is the richest person and it is “God’s will” that they should live as long as possible?

Well, you see, I have a problem and it’s either with the previous statement or with the concept that euthanasia should not be permitted on religious grounds.

Which option do you prefer?

1. God loves the wealthy most, or
2. Doctors sometimes get in the way of “God’s will” and euthanasia should be allowed.

Othello

What scares me the most is what Ogre said.