06 Feb 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't think he said 'organisms'. Organisms are not required for evolution.
you are forcing the definition by saying that chemical processes are organisms, that they react to their environment and that the most "fit" survives and reproduces into a similar chemical process.
Evolution is known to take place in virus' that are often considered non-living.
Evolution is known to take place in short spinets of DNA that are more like single genes than virus'.
Evolution is known to take place in RNA.
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by JS357Place a fish in a cave and after a while they will lose their sight.
People on both sides of the argument say this, and IMO it is unwarranted and unsupported by evidence.
If life came about from non-life by natural variation and selection, then the process can be studied the same way evolution of living matter is studied. There would have been no special moment when the fundamental chemical processes changed. Are you suggesting that there was such a moment? Why?
Place amino acids and any number of chemicals that scientists believe generated life under any type of condition and you will never produce life.
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is like an illusion, because evolutionists are looking at it all backwards.
I don't think he said 'organisms'. Organisms are not required for evolution.
Evolution is known to take place in virus' that are often considered non-living.
Evolution is known to take place in short spinets of DNA that are more like single genes than virus'.
Evolution is known to take place in RNA.
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by catstormI remember that one. I don't recall if that airliner had seatbelts or not... I wouldn't ride on that unless I was securely strapped in. But if I was a cartoon character it probably wouldn't matter. If I fell out I would just bounce on the ground a few times and then walk to where I was going. Or catch a cross town dino. I'd get there eventually.
You are in the right place. I wonder about the airliner which is a hollow log on the back of a giant bird. A pretty hard sell for a PR company I would think.
I don't recall seeing anyone get up to go to the bathroom on a pterodactyl...
Originally posted by RJHindsI believe Wilma was Fred's wife and Betty was Barney's wife, right? At least they had trained dinosaurs good back in those days. The Chinese were reported to have trained dragons to pull carts or wagons or chariots or something like that. I found a reference for it,
Because Humpty Dumpty Dino can't put it back together again. It needs an intelligent designer like Fred Fintstone. Well he might need help from his wife as does any cave man. Now what was her name?
Ancient Chinese books even tell of a family that kept "dragons" and raised babies. It is said that in those days, Chinese kings used "dragons" for pulling royal chariots on special occasions, a fact of which famous explorer Marco Polo himself attested to.
http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/dinosaurhistory.htm