RobRit

I am in a discussion with a theist and he gave me a very weird question indeed.. one that I find a bit moronic and yet a bit interesting.. I then thought about it and I really don't know.. I am not a scientist but am interested in this area.. so if anybody has the slightest ides about this question.. much appreciated. Which evolved first, the human skin, blood, or the human heart?

Are there creatures with semi evolved body parts present on the parent creature? In reply to this comment of which I find confusing: "people who accept evolution are the most ignorant, thick-skulled, bigoted morons to ever existthanks for proving that you are a bigot and a moron. you just love to call god a liar by accepting the evolution lie. we should see creatures with semi evolved body parts not present on the parent creature if evo was true. so far zerp evidence for evo have been found in nature." Edit: From my understanding: This is what he says we do not have any evidence of: http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124 The guy doesn't understand evolution in that sense semi evolved body parts don't exist generally; every step on the evolutionary ladder is useful. another copy of a gene or a slight alteration in the code can case another leg to appear, but if the mutation is bad, the individual will die (or something similar evolutionary speaking). for example, humans can't evolve half wings with the goal of full wings; as evolution doesn't have a goal. either arms have to change step by step into wings, each step being better than before in reproduction or new appendixes have to form step by step, and each step being useful and adding to better reproduction

Hi, I was sent this meme (attached) and was wondering what it meant and how to argue against it... Is this guy who sent the meme talking about the phylogenetic tree? - Appreciate any help. Thanks.

Hi, would like a scientific/philosophical argument on a discussion I am having. Any help greatly appreciated. Cheers ________________________________ All scientific facts still change to meet up with God's word. Today, the prophecies of the Bible are unravelling : internet, cashless transactions, space exploration, cloning and Modern Warfare are all documented. If we disregard the Bible as the truth because of the God you despise, then only those who pay attention will tap into the knowledge and be able to preemptively avert dangers by calling unto the Savior Have ever wonder why there are miracles and faith healing that defy medical reports and diagnosis? Have you asked what happens to consciousness when the body dies? The universe is vast and unexplored dimensions are merely touched and observed and man on his little blue rock doubt the existence of a Supreme Being ,the creator of the universe? Definitely science is taking the common sense out of people and philosophy is doing more harm of twisting faith with facts One more thing, God is not "god of the gaps" as He's the source of all creation “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” —C.S. Lewis _______________________________________________________________ That is what he said.. I have come across a site that completely obliterates this quote on a reddit forum: C.S. Lewis' Argument Against Atheism is a Joke and Here's Why My overall view on the topic is this, which is a point within itself: It seems like he's not advancing his own position by trying to trash another. It's called the argument from ignorance. He's setting up a false dichotomy where either the current scientific theory explains everything, or else "whatever his explanation is" wins by default. Not the case at all. If he did manage to debunk current theory (not likely) then we would simply have no good explanation. We would then investigate to find a new one. We wouldn't fill the gap of knowledge with magical fairy tales. He's really just displaying his ignorance. But saying that I would want to try and counter the argument with what was said above and more, be it actually answering the questions or something else that science has taught us. But the rest of it I would appreciate any assistance. I am doing this more for myself than debating but would like to do both. Thanks

Hi, I am new to this site so bare with me. ha I need some much needed help, I am currently in a debate of sorts with a person and he sent me this, I would appreciate any info on how to answer it. I have a few idea's but looking for some guidance. I believe he is hinting at a god behind these things. But since science does not know all.. some cases we do, but saying god is behind it is an extraordinary claim that has no evidence to back it up. So Occams's Razor can come in and take over. But I would like to know about the subjects in question below are answered by science or rather points to science but not known as of yet. - Cheers Here it is: "thank you so much for the complete breakdown of my comments but then all your points still have God filled in gaps you left wide. Tell me, the universe started by accident or external force? Proteins are made from right handed amino acids but the only one simulated in the lab is left-handed,how come? RNA is assembled by accident? Why do onions have longer DNA than highly evolved humans? Has there been any evolved tardigrades? Can a 75 million years old dinosaur soft tissue of collagen and blood vessels be that old?"