dmp, I have an answer for you.

[stevecanuck]

In at least 2 threads in which the topic was evolution vs. creation, you posed a question that you seem to think has no answer, and is therefore the winning argument. You ask, if evolution is true, then what came first, blood or blood vessels. You seem to think they couldn't develop simultaneously in nature, which proves that there must be a god who zapped them into existence. The answer of course is that they do develop naturally at the same time. It happens within a relatively short time after a sperm cell fertilizes an egg. You go from that to a fully functioning human being with both blood AND blood vessels, and both of which grew together. Think about it.

[stevecanuck]

Bump for Jaf......er...I mean dmp.

[revelarts]

In at least 2 threads in which the topic was evolution vs. creation, you posed a question that you seem to think has no answer, and is therefore the winning argument. You ask, if evolution is true, then what came first, blood or blood vessels. You seem to think they couldn't develop simultaneously in nature, which proves that there must be a god who zapped them into existence. The answer of course is that they do develop naturally at the same time. It happens within a relatively short time after a sperm cell fertilizes an egg. You go from that to a fully functioning human being with both blood AND blood vessels, and both of which grew together. Think about it.





Ummm so claiming that the sperm and egg came up with the perfect package of information for both blood and blood vessels funcutions by accident together. Not to mention the accidental perfect timing for their planned development in the womb. But then you have brought in another chicken and egg problem.

Actually you've made the problem worse.

None the information
for the creation of Sperm and Egg
for blood and blood vessels
for the bones and connected muscles
for the nerves and brain's translation of the input etc etc etc
shows up by accident or has any purpose alone. There's no transitional state for some functions without others.

This is a situation that's repeated multiple times in living creatures bodies from the microbiological level to the level of organs.
And also in living systems where there are some plants who life cycle absolutely DEPEND on certain Insects and Vis- Versa. without each other they'd be dead.

If you take a moment you can see the HUGE problems each of those issue is for evolution.

[stevecanuck]

Ummm so claiming that the sperm and egg came up with the perfect package of information for both blood and blood vessels funcutions by accident together. Not to mention the accidental perfect timing for their planned development in the womb. But then you have brought in another chicken and egg problem.

Actually you've made the problem worse.

None the information
for the creation of Sperm and Egg
for blood and blood vessels
for the bones and connected muscles
for the nerves and brain's translation of the input etc etc etc
shows up by accident or has any purpose alone. There's no transitional state for some functions without others.

This is a situation that's repeated multiple times in living creatures bodies from the microbiological level to the level of organs.
And also in living systems where there are some plants who life cycle absolutely DEPEND on certain Insects and Vis- Versa. without each other they'd be dead.

If you take a moment you can see the HUGE problems each of those issue is for evolution.

Every argument for creationism boils down to the same non sequitur: The universe exists, therefore it was created.

You've just found a different way of saying that rather than address my OP point by point. Here it is in shorter terms: dmp claims that either blood or blood vessels had to come first in evolution, and I used the example of both coming into existence at the same time in fetal development to prove him wrong. The end.

[darin]

Steve, that is a stupid counter-argument. I can explain why.

A sperm and egg contains the instructions to develop - they do not accidently develop blood and viens. That's the point - that's why your faith in some mystical magic process whereby life springs from non-life, or blood and its carrier accidentally develop at the same time - is just way too illogical for me to buy into.

I'm sorry your are closed-minded. I'm sorry you choose to be obtuse. I'm sorry when reason smacks you in the face you run away and cling to your superstitions.

[red state]

Every argument for creationism boils down to the same non sequitur:The universe exists, therefore it was created. You've just found a different way of saying that rather than address my OP point by point. Here it is in shorter terms: dmp claims that either blood or blood vessels had to come first in evolution, and I used the example of both coming into existence at the same time in fetal development to prove him wrong. The end.

__________________________________________________ ______________


Steve, I truly appreciate your posts and respect you as a very good poster here at DP most of the time but I believe the above post IN BOLD should read: The Universe was created, therefore it exists. As for the Chicken and the egg......of course the chicken came first.....as did the million year old rocks were spoken into existence......this new creation came with the layers, years, moss and all on that young rock contrary to (by Big-Bangist 'THEORIES'). God didn't create lil' baby Adam and lil' baby Eve....He created them fully grown and "fully functional" just as he did all the plants, animals and universe.

Even (IF) the Big Bang THEORY, which preaches/teaches that something came into existence from NOTHING.......billions or zillions of years ago, or Evolution Theory........which has more gaps than teeth in redneck's mouth. I suspect that this BANG (IF) that is the way it ALL happened, came from something very, Very, VERY big indeed. Yes, (IF) it were from a Big Bang (and it wasn't) then the bang was actually The God who spoke it into existence with a very booming bang of a voice. This same God (Judeo/Christian God) is the ONE who gave wisdom and courage to those who penned those MIGHTY words that have set an example for the entire world.

[revelarts]

Every argument for creationism boils down to the same non sequitur: The universe exists, therefore it was created.

You've just found a different way of saying that rather than address my OP point by point. Here it is in shorter terms: dmp claims that either blood or blood vessels had to come first in evolution, and I used the example of both coming into existence at the same time in fetal development to prove him wrong. The end.



Every argument for evolution boils down to the same non sequitur:
The universe exists, therefore it evolved.
Steve take a look a the 3rd way (http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/)web site where they Admit that the neo-darwinism you're promoting is AGAINST the empirical evidence.
And they are tossing ANYTHING and everything against the wall to try to show that evolution could have occurred.
Anything but creation.

the a priori stance is that "it evolved SOMEHOW. we don't know how but we KNOW it did.".
That's not science, that's Faith looking for science to back them up.
Just as I freely ADMIT i do. The difference is the evidence of Science is now backing up Creation MORE THAN any of the Ad-Hoc bleeding edge theories now being proposed since they now KNOW DARWIN was so WRONG.

from the 3rd way site
"...The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules."

You don't get new useful variations by random mutations. period.
the cells actions for any change are WELL REGULATED and ALREADY EMBEDDED IN THE CODE. And they are MINOR and of LIMITED range. Which do not ALLOW for Major changes over time.
you may get Big beaks and lil beaks but always beaks. you may get webbed lizard foot or unwebbed lizard foot but always a Lizard Foot. There's a natural limit that is Empirically PROVEN at this point. Macro Evolution is BS.

And Foundationaly we know Information comes from Minds, the DNA RNA and OTHER codes embedded in every living cell did not appear RANDOMLY. It's well known that random actions destroys information over time. Information comes from minds. that's the ONLY place in nature we EVER see information come from. SO scientifically speaking we should be looking for a Creator.

[gabosaurus]

The real answer is: Everyone is entitled to believe in what they believe.


http://youtu.be/mrZcztxRquo

[stevecanuck]

Steve, that is a stupid counter-argument. I can explain why.

A sperm and egg contains the instructions to develop - they do not accidently develop blood and viens. That's the point - that's why your faith in some mystical magic process whereby life springs from non-life, or blood and its carrier accidentally develop at the same time - is just way too illogical for me to buy into.

I'm sorry your are closed-minded. I'm sorry you choose to be obtuse. I'm sorry when reason smacks you in the face you run away and cling to your superstitions.

Still tap dancing, I see. Again, this has nothing to do with whether the process is due to creation or evolution, but ONLY concerns your statement that either blood or blood vessels have to come first. They don't. Fetal development proves that.
That you would resort to personal attacks shows the weakness of your argument. Have a nice day. My work is done here.

[gabosaurus]

My work is done here.


Let's hope so.

[red state]

Still tap dancing, I see. Again, this has nothing to do with whether the process is due to creation or evolution, but ONLY concerns your statement that either blood or blood vessels have to come first. They don't. Fetal development proves that. That you would resort to personal attacks shows the weakness of your argument. Have a nice day. My work is done here.


Well, HECK, Steve, I always respected you and have stated how much I appreciate your posts but I certainly thought this respect was, at least, mutual enough to address what I posted before you head out. I haven't time to debate the same thing over and over (especially since NEITHER of our faiths/beliefs can be proven or dis-proven but I would have liked to have your take on what I stated earlier. I don't blame you for taking offense to personal attacks but it is no reason to pack up and leave the sand box. Have a good one.....

Now we have all debated this more times than we care to so I'll leave it at this: Those who refuse to acknowledge the possibilities of Science that has been wrong before on numerous occasions have a little more leeway than those who are not only refuting a flawed science but defending their faith on top of everything else. Still, we could show a little more respect when debating such mysteries. I will acknowledge that both sides are full of mysteries and it is my FAITH that keeps me clinging to what I think to be correct just as those who do not believe in a god or intelligent alien somewhere (which is FULL of scientific possibilities) YET Bang-ists and evolutionist will never go down that road cuz it may possibly open the door to the possibility of GOD. As a former liberal and atheist from many years ago, I was fascinated and open minded enough to see the possibility of a 'designer'........at least a designer who fudged on DNA enough to bring MAN into the equation. What say you, REV? I believe you are also open-mined enough to see the 'DESIGNER' theory (such as the film PROMETHEOUS) intriguing.

Look forward to some enlightening debate on all of this and will pop back in when able.....

[revelarts]

The real answer is: Everyone is entitled to believe in what they believe.

[video=youtube_share;mr Bill Hicks/video]

FYI
Dino tissue Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years: Censored conference report (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37627-Dino-tissue-Carbon-14-dated-to-less-than-40-000-years-Censored-conference-report)



http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41835-Science-is-Dogma

[red state]

The REAL answer is: Everyone should get a SCIENCE that contains ALL of science and ALL of the theories that make a great deal of sense more or as much sense as 'SOMETHING from NOTHING" and "apes to men with no links". Yet, the left want ONLY to force THEIR beliefs on ALL of US. That is the REAL answer.

[darin]

Still tap dancing, I see. Again, this has nothing to do with whether the process is due to creation or evolution, but ONLY concerns your statement that either blood or blood vessels have to come first. They don't. Fetal development proves that.
That you would resort to personal attacks shows the weakness of your argument. Have a nice day. My work is done here.


Since you refuse to discus anything go ahead and BE done here. You're absolutely obtuse.

Blood OR vessels to carry blood MUST have evolved first. Your example in the OP is stupid. It's silly and either you know it's silly or stupid so you're a liar, or you really think your example was sound and now you're butt-hurt because you realize it's a silly or stupid example.

Either way, get over yourself. You're not smarter than anyone/everyone.

[stevecanuck]

Since you refuse to discus anything go ahead and BE done here. You're absolutely obtuse.

Blood OR vessels to carry blood MUST have evolved first. Your example in the OP is stupid. It's silly and either you know it's silly or stupid so you're a liar, or you really think your example was sound and now you're butt-hurt because you realize it's a silly or stupid example.

Either way, get over yourself. You're not smarter than anyone/everyone.

Tell me what comes first when a fetus is growing.

[darin]

Tell me how, over the course of millions of years blood and veins form by accident; how the genetic instructions simply, by magic or random chance, come into being.You know, if you flew to mars, you would find a planet whose sole occupants are robots. Yet i bet youd feel foolish thinking those robots magically 'evolved' on the planet. Yet you look at the complexity of life on earth, and the evidence that points to a designer and scoff, stomp your feet and put great effort at shoving your head farther up your own ass to the point you REFUSE to see the stupidity in using your OP as an argument for the lunacy of macro evolution; id est, life spawning magically from non-life.

[stevecanuck]

Tell me how, over the course of millions of years blood and veins form by accident; how the genetic instructions simply, by magic or random chance, come into being.You know, if you flew to mars, you would find a planet whose sole occupants are robots. Yet i bet youd feel foolish thinking those robots magically 'evolved' on the planet. Yet you look at the complexity of life on earth, and the evidence that points to a designer and scoff, stomp your feet and put great effort at shoving your head farther up your own ass to the point you REFUSE to see the stupidity in using your OP as an argument for the lunacy of macro evolution; id est, life spawning magically from non-life.

You changed the argument. First you claimed they couldn't develop in unison, and after I gave you a real world example of how they can do just that, you're on to claiming they had to be created by a magic sky fairy. What will it be tomorrow?

[revelarts]

You changed the argument. First you claimed they couldn't develop in unison, and after I gave you a real world example of how they can do just that, you're on to claiming they had to be created by a magic sky fairy. What will it be tomorrow?



It's not developing -in that sense-, it's already built into the system of the Sperm&Egg. it's just working out the specific pre-programmed construction, growing.

the question is How does it developed the 2 features simultaneously originally.
Either as and Adult which then adopted it into it's reproductive DNA to pass on to future gens.
OR developed the 2 features inside the DNA blueprint PRE-BIRTH at the same time before it had a use for the features in the wild.

Both ways you run into IMPOSSIBLE problems.

So Steve, the question is not "how do those 2 features grow together?"
But "How those 2 things formed in the 1st place in unison from nothing or 2 somethings less than and different?" .

[stevecanuck]

It's not developing -in that sense-, it's already built into the system of the Sperm&Egg. it's just working out the specific pre-programmed construction, growing.

the question is How does it developed the 2 features simultaneously originally.
Either as and Adult which then adopted it into it's reproductive DNA to pass on to future gens.
OR developed the 2 features inside the DNA blueprint PRE-BIRTH at the same time before it had a use for the features in the wild.

Both ways you run into IMPOSSIBLE problems.

So Steve, the question is not "how do those 2 features grow together?"
But "How those 2 things formed in the 1st place in unison from nothing or 2 somethings less than and different?" .


Again, this is a completely different discussion. We all seem to now agree that simultaneous growth of blood and blood vessels occurs, and you're just changing the discussion into whether or not it came about as a natural outcome of evolution or creation. Is that where we are?

[darin]

You changed the argument. First you claimed they couldn't develop in unison, and after I gave you a real world example of how they can do just that, you're on to claiming they had to be created by a magic sky fairy. What will it be tomorrow?



I didn't change anything - and I'm not arguing in the first place because your OP; your initial post - that "argument" is FUCKING STUPID and you should know better.

[stevecanuck]

I didn't change anything - and I'm not arguing in the first place because your OP; your initial post - that "argument" is FUCKING STUPID and you should know better.

I accept your surrender.

[darin]

Good! And we accept you are a religious zealot lacking desire for truth, intellectual honesty, and moxie to discuss anything that defies your ideology.

[stevecanuck]

Good! And we accept you are a religious zealot lacking desire for truth, intellectual honesty, and moxie to discuss anything that defies your ideology.

Said the person who won't even admit the simple medical fact that blood and blood vessels grow simultaneously during fetal development.

[revelarts]

Said the person who won't even admit the simple medical fact that blood and blood vessels grow simultaneously during fetal development.




:facepalm99:

[darin]

Said the person who won't even admit the simple medical fact that blood and blood vessels grow simultaneously during fetal development.



Do they grow as part of a system or do they magically evolve?

and youre wrong, have you read about human fetal development? Blood and veins and all that dont happen simultaneously.


and...tell me what evolved magically, a blood cell or vein cell - and why was either so beneficial that more and more developed magically over time?

your ideology is illogical but you do not care because your ego refuses to accept truth.

[stevecanuck]

Do they grow as part of a system or do they magically evolve?

and youre wrong, have you read about human fetal development? Blood and veins and all that dont happen simultaneously.


and...tell me what evolved magically, a blood cell or vein cell - and why was either so beneficial that more and more developed magically over time?

your ideology is illogical but you do not care because your ego refuses to accept truth.

Y'all have a nice day.

[darin]

Oh...another thing...

What, in your view, magically evolved first - a woman's ability to generate an umbilical cord for her offspring, or, say, the placenta?

[edit]

Lets think about this even more -

How did the first animal accidentally or magical 'evolve' into sexual reproduction? The reproductive process - how did that magically evolve? Was sperm being introduced before eggs magically evolved, or were guys shooting blanks? What was the evolutionary advantage to sexual reproduction? Think about the first "mutation" that was an ovary. Why did that ovary cell magically appear - and what was the advantage to make enough ovary cells stick around long enough to form an actual ovary?