IMPOSSIBLE logic for evolutionists (from a smart creation scientist)

I've studied evolution and creation for years, and I have NEVER lost a debate against an evolutionist.Here's a little of my logic:1) If evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with.2) Where are the 2,3,4,5-celled organisms? Seriously, there are bacterium, but there are NO EXISTING life forms that bridge the gap between 1-celled and multi-celled organisms. And even the 6-celled organisms are parasites, and they rely on larger animals for food.3) Did you know that Isaac Newton was a creationist--it's true4) What evolved first: male or female?Also, Life is NOT POSSIBLE to arise from nonliving matter. If you add oxygen to an amino-acid in the making, then the chemical oxidizes (decays). But if you withhold oxygen, then life is not possible. Either way, with or without adding oxygen to nonliving matter, life is impossible. Life comes only from life, and since God is life, then it makes sense that we are from him.

Your problem is that your well below average intelligence allows you to block out negative events. The truth is, you have lost every single debate that you have ever had with evolutionists and your primitive mind has jettisoned these events as a sort of survival technique.These defeats have taken their toll however, only 5% of your brain is now functioning.

Well, booboo, that tells me two things. 1) You've never posted on this board. 2) You've only ever argued with 8th graders. No, I take that back. My sixth grade daughter could show the flaws in your so-called logic, and I'm half tempted to let her do that.On the other hand: Or even if it isn't true. Single celled organisms don't reproduce by sex. They reproduce by fission, although they can swap genetic material (a process called conjugation). Therefore, your illogical strawman has collapsed. Strike one. Ding. Wrong again. Choanoflagellate colonies, Mixotricha paradoxa-type symbionts, flagellate protozoan ring colonies (blastaea), are all "almost metazoan" and are believed to be representative of the first metazoan types. Strike two. Well, it's true he was a theist who believed in divine creation. However, he did not base his laws of motion, optics and gravitation etc, on creation. He was also an alchemist. This has what to do with evolution? Foul ball. How about: they evolved simultaneously? Strike three. Bye. And in the bonus round, oxygen didn't appear in significant quantities in the atmosphere until around 2.1 gya. And life is extremely possible - and common - in the utter absence of oxygen.

Wrong. Life arises from nonliving matter every day, unless you think that the oxygen and nutrients that cells take in, in order to reproduce , are alive.Every time a cell devides, including meiosis, the 'parent' cell takes in nonliving matter and manipulates this matter to produce another cell (life).------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

quote:

---

Also, Life is NOT POSSIBLE to arise from nonliving matter. If you add oxygen to an amino-acid in the making, then the chemical oxidizes (decays). But if you withhold oxygen, then life is not possible. Either way, with or without adding oxygen to nonliving matter, life is impossible. Life comes only from life, and since God is life, then it makes sense that we are from him.

---

Leaving aside the persistent creationist error that abiogenesis is required for evolution to be correct (it is not), have you ever heard about anaerobic organisms. Methanogens and many Clostridia will not grow in the presence of oxygen.

quote:

---

1) If evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with.

---

Have you ever heard of yeast. They reproduce both asexually and sexually.You claim to be a creation scientist, care to fill us in on your training. From this post I would guess almost non-existent. As for your debating skills, aside from error propogation I have not seen them yet. Anyway....Welcome and good luck, from what I have seen so far you are going to need it. ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

(from a smart creation scientist)

---

Oh dear ... lets hope we never come across a dumb creation scientist or else it would be proof positive of our common ancestry with other apes. Of course you've never lost a debate with an "evolutionist" - no one would waste their time debating with you.Alan

It may be that booboo's only correct statement in his whole message is

quote:

---

and I have NEVER lost a debate against an evolutionist.

---

A debate is an exchange of arguments and counterarguments. If booboo's technique is to make assertions and flee from any response then he has not participated in a debate and therefore could never lose.

First, some protists do reproduce sexually; they alternate generations between a haploid and a diploid phase.Diploid -> meiosis -> haploid -> fusion -> diploidAs to how distinct sexes emerged, that is an anti-inbreeding adaptation; the ancestral sexually-reproducing protist most likely had only one sex. And many protists and fungi retain some of this heritage by having lookalike sexes ("isogamy").And some organisms have more than one "mating type" or sex; ciliates can have 50 sexes and some basidiomycete fungi have thousands. Though the sexes in such multi-sex organisms usually look like.Distinct sexes are mostly an adaptation to being multicelled. To give a new organism a head start, it is a good idea to stuff the gametes with food. But that makes them slow, and if some alternate type of gamete emerges that is lightweight and specialized for swimming, then that will reach the food-stuffed gametes more easily. Thus, some gametes become specialized for food storage (eggs) and some for traveling to the other gametes (sperm).Something that has happened at least twice -- in animals and plants.

'Life comes only from life, and God is life'.
You contradict yourself again and again. What do you mean 'God is life'? Does God reproduce? Does God have sex? Does God get born, live and then die, like all other life? Please explain.We have two (at least) options for the beginning of life. Life comes from non-living matter, or life comes from divine creation. The one view leads to research, thinking, theories and increased knowledge. The other view leads to the dark ages. I know which I will go with, even if nothing can be proved as yet.Mike.

quote:

---

Also, Life is NOT POSSIBLE to arise from nonliving matter. If you add oxygen to an amino-acid in the making, then the chemical oxidizes (decays). But if you withhold oxygen, then life is not possible.

---

Erm.... do you think you could be a brick and type "obligate anaerobe" into Google? There's a good lad!

quote:

---

Either way, with or without adding oxygen to nonliving matter, life is impossible.

---

Oops. We're all dead then.

quote:

---

Life comes only from life, and since God is life, then it makes sense that we are from him.

---

Are you really so naive as to conflate the concepts of spiritual life and physical life?

I feel Booboo may have moved onto pastures new to report yet another victory against the evolutionists.

That, I'm afraid, is becoming painfully obvious. Are we therefore free to speculate that he was an atheist troll who merely showed up in order to make creationists look worse than they are?

To Brian Johnston:First of all, there are many ways to define 'lost.' How exactly are you trying to suggest that i have lost such arguments. First off, the chances of a single DNA molecule being brought together without the aid of a creator is about 10 to the 119000 power! Check out Dr. Comninellis' book for more on that, or visit this website:Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiahthey have a complete, free, online encyclopedia on evolution and creation.
Anyway, I have never been proven wrong about science within any vocal discussion about creation (at least not in front of me, or that i know of). I would suggest a debate with Dr. Hovind (I understand many evolutionists hate him, but they have no reason to, and he is quite educated). He has a standing offer of 100 $ to anybody who will debate him publicly now. I met Dr. Hovind a couple weeks ago at a creation seminar in Oak Creek Wisconsin and I have actually become quite aware of his research. some of it may be speculated on but you should not point "you lost the debate" toward anybody UNLESS you have sufficient evidence to prove that a creationist is lying. Study both sides of an argument, and make sure whose side you're on before claiming that somebody lost the argument.

quote:

---

First off, the chances of a single DNA molecule being brought together without the aid of a creator

---

And just who said the first "living" thing was DNA based? This is what is known as a "strawman".As far as the "losing" or "winning" debates, have you gone back to any of the other threads you started? How about answering what has been posted.

I think Brian's point may well have been quite simple, but let me flesh out one reading of it.All we have is your word for it that you haven't lost a debate. Your posts so far have been poorly argued, puerile and almost entirely derivative largely lifted almost verbatim from Hovind et al.That you represent other's statements as your own, or other's logic as your own, suggests a certain - how is it put? - "economy with the truth."Your grasp of logic is extremely poor - especially if "Isaac Newton was a creationist" is one of your four chosen examples.Given these points it seems most likely that either:(a) your "successful" debates have been with a kindergarten class for whom English is not the native language;or (b) your debates have not been successful at all, but you do not realize it.The third option - that you are merely mendacious - is tempting, but I think you'll find we give you the benefit of the doubt for now.