Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[Astrophile]

I'd think that from your perspective in the span of millions and millions of years...only 40 years would qualify as now.

Yes, but from the perspective of the 159 years since the publication of The Origin of Species, the 46 years since the publication of Eldredge and Gould's paper 'Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism' is 2/7, or nearly 3/10, of the history of evolutionary theory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What a lame video! All is does is make a baseless claim there are thousands of transitional fossils without any kind of support, then begins flashing through pictures and names of fossils without any kind of explanations or demonstrating in any way how or why they are transitional fossils. No evidence or proof provided, but everyone is supposed to accept the message of the video or shut-up.

I posted some lists of transitional fossils with descriptions back in post #455. Somehow, it was missed by the people asserting that there are no transitional fossils in existence. How odd.

 

[nPeace]

I was not going to discuss the details of genesis but you make the statement that the bible gives a clear logical answer and the reason for life as well as the intelligence of humans over animals. I do now want to insult the genesis myth of offend anyone but only to question what you mean by a clear logical answer.... Again I hope my analogy did not offend anyone it was merely to show that evolution theory explains human intelligence and the diversity of life forms but the bible at least in my opinion was never meant to do that.

If the Genesis account is truly a myth, how is it possible to insult it. If it's a myth, it's a myth, but it's not. That's why one can try to insult it, by referring to it as a myth.
It's similar to a situation where someone steals something, and you call that person a thief. That's not an insult. The person is a thief.
However, if the person has not stolen anything, and you call them a thief, then you are trying to insult the person, but the insult doesn't make the person a thief.
So I understand, you are not attempting to discredit the Bible - what you call insult.

humans are mainly carbon based and full of water.

Sounds as though you are speaking of a carbon vessel.

Interesting argument. Not a true statement, but interesting.
I wonder why man's body does not stay on the surface of the earth like the alloys they use to build machines.
The Bible is not a science textbook, so any requirement for precise details regarding what it says would not seem reasonable imo.
However, when the Bible is involved on scientific finding, it usually is accurate.
For example...
A biomolecule or biological molecule is a loosely used term for molecules and ions that are present in organisms, essential to some typically biological process such as cell division, morphogenesis, or development. Biomolecules include large macromolecules (or polyanions) such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids, as well as small molecules such as primary metabolites, secondary metabolites, and natural products. A more general name for this class of material is biological materials.

Enhanced transcription and translation in clay hydrogel and implications for early life evolution
.... Here we mimic the confinement function of cells by creating a hydrogel made from geological clay minerals, which provides an efficient confinement environment for biomolecules. We also show that nucleic acids were concentrated in the clay hydrogel and were protected against nuclease, and that transcription and translation reactions were consistently enhanced. Taken together, our results support the importance of localized concentration and protection of biomolecules in early life evolution, and also implicate a clay hydrogel environment for biochemical reactions during early life evolution.

Hydrogels
A hydrogel is a network of polymer chains that are hydrophilic, sometimes found as a colloidal gel in which water is the dispersion medium. A three-dimensional solid results from the hydrophilic polymer chains being held together by cross-links. Because of the inherent cross-links, the structural integrity of the hydrogel network does not dissolve from the high concentration of water. Hydrogels are highly absorbent (they can contain over 90% water) natural or synthetic polymeric networks. Hydrogels also possess a degree of flexibility very similar to natural tissue, due to their significant water content.

Apparently, a clay hydrogel is ideal for not only holding together molecules, but very important for allowing dispersion.

That evidently would explain the balance of the water content within, that makes up the various parts of the body.
How Much Of Your Body Is Water? That All Depends.

The Bible isn't a science text book, but along with science we can get an idea of how easy it was for God to create.
Take another example - the creation of Eve.
....
We can regenerate! Researchers reveal our ribs regrow if damaged - and say the same could be true for our entire skeleton | Daily Mail Online
Team studied patient who had part of a rib removed
Eight cm of missing bone and one centimeter of missing cartilage repaired in just six months
The team found that mice and humans were able to regrow removed ribs within months - and could be used in treating osteoporosis and other skeletal disorders.
To better understand this repair process, they removed sections of rib cartilage — ranging from three to five millimeters — from a related mammal, mice.
When they removed both rib cartilage and its surrounding sheath of tissue — called the 'perichondrium,' the missing sections failed to repair even after nine months.
However, when they removed rib cartilage but left its perichondrium, the missing sections entirely repaired within one to two months.
They also found that a perichondrium retains the ability to produce cartilage even when disconnected from the rib and displaced into nearby muscle tissue — further suggesting that the perichondrium contains progenitor or stem cells.

Evidently, we have evidence, that the accounts in the Bible, are not outrageous. It is quite easy for a being with far more wisdom, and technological advantage to do what is being done on a minuscule scale.
As Charles Darwin put it, "...it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are."

Also from your argument, you should have no problem with the Quran then.
MAN CREATED FROM DUST AND WATER

So, for one thing God is more than capable. For another, the Bible is not a science journal, and does not go into detail on every thing mentioned, but is scientifically accurate, and for another, it is only a biased opinion, that asserts the Genesis account as myth.
Many people do tend to speculate, but that's what they do when trying to support the evolution theory, so it's not surprising they would try to do the same with regard to the creation account.

The problem with this is the man's genetic makeup should have created a clone with a xy sex chromosome. This is not a logical answer since Eve should have an xx sex chromosome.

Clone... No, I think you are mixing up almighty, all wise creator with puny creation.

Personally, I think people who don't have a clue about the Bible, tend to make statements that are way out there. Understandably that happens when one does not study the Bible, but just look through it to find fault/criticize, or go on websites looking for ammunition to take shots at the Bible.
Often they come away shooting wildly, and missing by a mile, or the gun is just full of blanks.

Let me explain what I am saying.
The snake was not an intelligent talking creature. It was simply a snake. The one speaking was an intelligent life form way superior to both beast and man.
Since it seems you are not really interested in the truth about the Bible, I don't think it would make a difference to show you where that is.

I find it sad though, because it is quite unreasonable that one would imagine that all the species including the ones God never even made directly, or indirectly for that matter, would need to be fitted on the ark, and there is so much to gain from the Bible, if one stops nitpicking parts they can never disprove.
Oh, why do we project our biased opinions into a Biblical account, and then say it's wrong?
Of course it's wrong... when false ideas are inserted into it.

The evolution theory cannot even explain human intelligence. It hasn't even gotten off the ground by human intelligence.

The evolution of human intelligence
The nature and origins of hominid intelligence is a much-studied and much-debated topic, of natural interest to humans as the most successful and intelligent hominid species.

There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence, one definition is "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn." The evolution of hominid intelligence can be traced over its course for the past 10 million years, and attributed to specific environmental challenges.
..........
Whether our species has yet acquired sufficient intelligence to manage this responsibility is a matter for debate.

Sorry, but it's just a ridiculous theory, imo, and I do not express my opinion against the theory of evolution in an attempt to offend anyone, in the same way persons express their opinion against the Biblical accounts.

 

[nPeace]

The bible is a complex book of myths, metaphors, philosophy and historical people. Genesis is a myth of the beginning just as the myth of Sky Woman is a similar myth for another people. Both have significant meaning to those who cherish the stories. They are not a logical explanation for the diversity of life and are not meant to be and exact account of how the world came about. Popularity does not guarantee truth. In Genesis humans have dominion and there is a separation from the rest of the natural world in the myth of Sky Woman there is a cooperation with the other life of the natural world and a harmony.
What do you mean about danger when evolution relates to other members of the natural world. Do you really think humans can live on this earth without the rest of the living things we share this world with? That relation is not a danger it is what allows us to live on this amazing Earth.

This is just a repeat of a post I responded to already. So I don't know why you repeated it. Surely you don't want us to be back and forth like, "Is too." "No it isn't." "Is too." "No it isn't."
Since we are not children, I'm sure you didn't have that in mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would have given you 7 of those, but you can only get one. Sorry.
Well put.

How was that rant worthy of applause? Claiming that there are no transitional fossils is so ignorant that it is bordering on idiocy. That was the point of the video. You finally posted a proper definition of transitional fossils and all of those fossils in that video fit into that definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the Genesis account is truly a myth, how is it possible to insult it. If it's a myth, it's a myth, but it's not. That's why you can try to insult it, by referring to it as a myth.
It's similar to a situation where someone steals something, and you call that person a thief. That's not an insult. The person is a thief.
However, if the person has not stolen anything, and you call them a thief, then you are trying to insult the person, but the insult doesn't make the person a thief.
So I understand, you are attempting to discredit the Bible - what you call insult.


Sounds are though you are speaking of a carbon vessel.

Interesting argument. Not a true statement, but interesting.
I wonder why man's body does not stay on the surface of the earth like the alloys they use to build machines.
The Bible is not a science textbook, so any argument to require precise details regarding what is says would not seem reasonable imo.
However, when the Bible is involved on scientific finding, it usually is accurate.
For example...
A biomolecule or biological molecule is a loosely used term for molecules and ions that are present in organisms, essential to some typically biological process such as cell division, morphogenesis, or development. Biomolecules include large macromolecules (or polyanions) such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids, as well as small molecules such as primary metabolites, secondary metabolites, and natural products. A more general name for this class of material is biological materials.

Enhanced transcription and translation in clay hydrogel and implications for early life evolution
.... Here we mimic the confinement function of cells by creating a hydrogel made from geological clay minerals, which provides an efficient confinement environment for biomolecules. We also show that nucleic acids were concentrated in the clay hydrogel and were protected against nuclease, and that transcription and translation reactions were consistently enhanced. Taken together, our results support the importance of localized concentration and protection of biomolecules in early life evolution, and also implicate a clay hydrogel environment for biochemical reactions during early life evolution.

Hydrogels
A hydrogel is a network of polymer chains that are hydrophilic, sometimes found as a colloidal gel in which water is the dispersion medium. A three-dimensional solid results from the hydrophilic polymer chains being held together by cross-links. Because of the inherent cross-links, the structural integrity of the hydrogel network does not dissolve from the high concentration of water. Hydrogels are highly absorbent (they can contain over 90% water) natural or synthetic polymeric networks. Hydrogels also possess a degree of flexibility very similar to natural tissue, due to their significant water content.

Apparently, a clay hydrogel is ideal for not only holding together molecules, but very important for allowing dispersion.

That evidently would explain the balance of the water content within, that makes up the various parts of the body.
How Much Of Your Body Is Water? That All Depends.

The Bible isn't a science text book, but along with science we can get an idea of how easy it was for God to create.
Take another example - the creation of Eve.
....
We can regenerate! Researchers reveal our ribs regrow if damaged - and say the same could be true for our entire skeleton | Daily Mail Online
Team studied patient who had part of a rib removed
Eight cm of missing bone and one centimeter of missing cartilage repaired in just six months
The team found that mice and humans were able to regrow removed ribs within months - and could be used in treating osteoporosis and other skeletal disorders.
To better understand this repair process, they removed sections of rib cartilage — ranging from three to five millimeters — from a related mammal, mice.
When they removed both rib cartilage and its surrounding sheath of tissue — called the 'perichondrium,' the missing sections failed to repair even after nine months.
However, when they removed rib cartilage but left its perichondrium, the missing sections entirely repaired within one to two months.
They also found that a perichondrium retains the ability to produce cartilage even when disconnected from the rib and displaced into nearby muscle tissue — further suggesting that the perichondrium contains progenitor or stem cells.

Evidently, we have evidence, that the accounts in the Bible, are not outrageous. It is quite easy for a being with far more wisdom, and technological advantage to do what is being done on a minuscule scale.
As Charles Darwin put it, "...it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are."

Also from your argument, you should have no problem with the Quran then.
MAN CREATED FROM DUST AND WATER

So, for one thing God is more than capable. For another, the Bible is not a science journal, and does not go into detail on every thing mentioned, but is scientifically accurate, and for another, it is only a biased opinion, that asserts the Genesis account as myth.
Many people do tend to speculate, but that's what they do when trying to support the evolution theory, so it's not surprising they would try to do the same with regard to the creation account.

Clone... No, I think you are mixing up almighty, all wise creator with puny creation.

Personally, I think people who don't have a clue about the Bible, tend to make statements that are way out there. Understandably that happens when one does not study the Bible, but just look through it to find fault/criticize, or go on websites looking for ammunition to take shots at the Bible.
Often they come away shooting wildly, and missing by a mile, or the gun is just full of blanks.

So that you understand what I am saying.
The snake was not an intelligent talking creature. It was simply a snake. The one speaking was an intelligent life form way superior to both beast and man.
Since it seems you are not really interested in the truth about the Bible, I don't think there would be a need to show you where that is.

I find it sad though, because it is quite unreasonable that one would imagine that all the species including the ones God never even made directly, or indirectly for that matter, would need to be fitted on the ark, and there is so much to gain from the Bible, if one stops nitpicking parts they can never disprove.
Oh, why do we project our biased opinions into a Biblical account, and then say it's wrong?
Of course it's wrong... when false ideas are inserted into it.

The evolution theory cannot even explain human intelligence. It hasn't even gotten off the ground by human intelligence.

The evolution of human intelligence
The nature and origins of hominid intelligence is a much-studied and much-debated topic, of natural interest to humans as the most successful and intelligent hominid species.

There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence, one definition is "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn." The evolution of hominid intelligence can be traced over its course for the past 10 million years, and attributed to specific environmental challenges.
..........
Whether our species has yet acquired sufficient intelligence to manage this responsibility is a matter for debate.

Sorry, but it's just a ridiculous theory, imo, and I do not express my opinion against the theory of evolution in an attempt to offend anyone, in the same way persons express their opinion against the Biblical accounts.

I see you are still having trouble posting properly. Let's try to keep to one subject at a time, not ignorant ranting.

 

[nPeace]

Hey, look at that! You finally answered the question!

So now perhaps you can explain how any of the examples you've been given over the last month or so do not meet the definition you posted.

What question did I answer?
This is not the first time I posted this, is it? No.

How by giving a definition did I answer your questions. You were not requesting a definition, were you? No. You were asking if I understood what a transitional fossil was. You even - or maybe it wasn't you, or maybe it was - went so far as to demand that I put it in my own words.

The fact that you now accept this as an answer to your question seems to me quite revealing.
Was it just an excuse to get around answering my questions, or responding to my post? That appear very much to be the case.

Now as regard whether what was given to me, meets the definition, that was always there for the world to see, perhaps you might want to go over those posts of mine again.
Maybe you will now see the light, since the cloud seems to have now shifted, and you are seeing something you never saw before.

Go over all my posts, that you have been complaining about.
They should lead up to this post.
Which I think the message is clear.

How is a transitional determine?
Take a look at one of your best - Archaeopteryx
Since some here don't like to read long posts, and links, I won't bother posting any information.
Basically Archaeopteryx is hypothesized over many years to be what it is considered to be, and there is still disagreement.

Why should I accept a theory that even scientists don't agree on?
I have long taken Darwin's words Again, no long posts. Just read the book.
In part...

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation....

So yes. The links are missing, and from these words, and others, I am sure they will never be found, yet transitional fossils exist, because they can be assumed into existence.
I have no need of that hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What question did I answer?
This is not the first time I posted this, is it? No.

Then by denying the existence of transitional fossils you are either lying or you cannot understand the simple definition that you posted.

How by giving a definition did I answer your questions. You were not requesting a definition, were you? No. You were asking if I understood what a transitional fossil was. You even - or maybe it wasn't you, or maybe it was - went so far as to demand that I put it in my own words.

So now you are claiming that you do not understand what a transitional fossil is? Please, try to address one point at a time. You are already jumping all over the place in your attempt to avoid the obvious.

The fact that you now accept this as an answer to your question seems to me quite revealing.
Was it just an excuse to get around answering my questions, or responding to my post? That appear very much to be the case.

You have denied the existence of transitional fossils. The definition that you posted shows that you were wrong.

Now as regard whether what was given to me, meets the definition, that was always there for the world to see, perhaps you might want to go over those posts of mine again.
Maybe you will now see the light, since the cloud seems to have now shifted, and you are seeing something you never saw before.

I don't think so. You can ask questions politely and properly and people will answer them for you. I do not think too many will be willing to delve into your past posts and dredge up your failures again.

Go over all my posts, that you have been complaining about.
They should lead up to this post.
Which I think the message is clear.

Yes, but you will not like the answer.

How is a transitional determine?
Take a look at one of your best - Archaeopteryx
Since some here don't like to read long posts, and links, I won't bother posting any information.
Basically Archaeopteryx is hypothesized over many years to be what it is considered to be, and there is still disagreement.

Jesus Christ on a bicycle man! You posted the definition yourself. Are you now saying that you have no understanding of it at all? And no, there is no disagreement about Archaeopteryx being transitional. You will not find someone that claims that. You still don't seem to understand the concept of transitional.

Would you like some help?

Why should I accept a theory that even scientists don't agree on?
I have long taken Darwin's words Again, no long posts. Just read the book.
In part...

Scientists quite often have disagreements about the details of a theory. But when it comes to the theory itself there is almost no disagreement. Only a few loons in the world of science deny it.

So yes. The links are missing, and from these words, and others, I am sure they will never be found, yet transitional fossils exist, because they can be assumed into existence.
I have no need of that hypothesis.

No, "missing links" is a creationist strawman. They are not evidence for anything. And no one is assuming transitional fossils. You really should not break the Ninth Commandment by bearing false witness against the scientists that you disagree with. Scientists are not allowed to "assume". At least not in the sense that you are using the word.

Your long posts are so full of nonsense and errors. That is why if you were honest and wanted to learn you would shorten your posts and deal with one topic at a time.

How about a new rule. When you respond to a post perhaps others should only respond to yours up to the point where you make an obvious error. The rest will be ignored. Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[Jose Fly]

What question did I answer?

You posted what a "transitional fossil" is.

How by giving a definition did I answer your questions. You were not requesting a definition, were you?

In the Watchmaker thread, you made claims about the absence of transitional fossils. I followed that up by asking you what the definition of a "transitional fossil" is. You dodged and dodged and dodged until eventually leaving the thread, without ever defining the term.

Now here in this thread, you have defined the term..

The fact that you now accept this as an answer to your question seems to me quite revealing.
Was it just an excuse to get around answering my questions, or responding to my post? That appear very much to be the case.

Huh? You're not making sense at all.

As noted above, you claimed that there are no "transitional fossils". Before we can determine whether or "transitional fossils" exist, we have to know what a "transitional fossil" is. And now that you've given a definition, we can go from there.

Now as regard whether what was given to me, meets the definition, that was always there for the world to see, perhaps you might want to go over those posts of mine again.

Um, no that's not how this works. You made the specific claim that transitional fossils don't exist. You were provided multiple examples of fossils that others consider to be examples of transitionals. Now that you've stated what the term "transitional fossil" means, the next step is to compare the specimens you were provided to the definition you posted and see if any of those specimens meet the definition. If they do, your claim is false.

Now, if you have no interest in doing that, just say so and we'll all gain the understanding that you are the type of person who makes claims while having little to no interest in whether or not those claims are actually true.

How is a transitional determine?
Take a look at one of your best - Archaeopteryx
Since some here don't like to read long posts, and links, I won't bother posting any information.
Basically Archaeopteryx is hypothesized over many years to be what it is considered to be, and there is still disagreement.

So basically your argument is that until there is 100% universal consensus about something, then you're justified in rejecting it?

If so, do you apply that to everything in your life?

Why should I accept a theory that even scientists don't agree on?
I have long taken Darwin's words Again, no long posts. Just read the book.
In part...

So yes. The links are missing, and from these words, and others, I am sure they will never be found, yet transitional fossils exist, because they can be assumed into existence.
I have no need of that hypothesis.

Well sure, being a Jehovah's Witness you have enormous incentive to "have no need of that hypothesis", correct? Another JW here explained to me that if she were to become an "evolutionist" (i.e., accept evolution as valid science) she would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" by her Jehovah's Witness friends and family, and eventually she would likely be kicked out of the faith at which point her life would lose all meaning and purpose.

Was that unique to her, or do you think you would face similar consequences for the same change in views?

 

[Jose Fly]

The first cell and its proteins could not reasonably form by chance because living cells do not reproduce by being made entirely of simple self-replicating molecules.

Actually, the reason that's not reasonable is because chemistry is not a "chance" process. Atoms and molecules do not combine randomly. You should probably know that before making grandiose claims about entire fields of science.

BTW, I asked you a question earlier and perhaps you missed it......you claimed there are no transitional fossils. Whenever I see someone make that claim, I always wonder.....where exactly have you looked?

 

[nPeace]

You posted what a "transitional fossil" is.


In the Watchmaker thread, you made claims about the absence of transitional fossils. I followed that up by asking you what the definition of a "transitional fossil" is. You dodged and dodged and dodged until eventually leaving the thread, without ever defining the term.

Now here in this thread, you have defined the term..


Huh? You're not making sense at all.

As noted above, you claimed that there are no "transitional fossils". Before we can determine whether or "transitional fossils" exist, we have to know what a "transitional fossil" is. And now that you've given a definition, we can go from there.


Um, no that's not how this works. You made the specific claim that transitional fossils don't exist. You were provided multiple examples of fossils that others consider to be examples of transitionals. Now that you've stated what the term "transitional fossil" means, the next step is to compare the specimens you were provided to the definition you posted and see if any of those specimens meet the definition. If they do, your claim is false.

Now, if you have no interest in doing that, just say so and we'll all gain the understanding that you are the type of person who makes claims while having little to no interest in whether or not those claims are actually true.


So basically your argument is that until there is 100% universal consensus about something, then you're justified in rejecting it?

If so, do you apply that to everything in your life?


Well sure, being a Jehovah's Witness you have enormous incentive to "have no need of that hypothesis", correct? Another JW here explained to me that if she were to become an "evolutionist" (i.e., accept evolution as valid science) she would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" by her Jehovah's Witness friends and family, and eventually she would likely be kicked out of the faith at which point her life would lose all meaning and purpose.

Was that unique to her, or do you think you would face similar consequences for the same change in views?

I need the evidence for everything you just claimed.

 

[nPeace]

Actually, the reason that's not reasonable is because chemistry is not a "chance" process. Atoms and molecules do not combine randomly. You should probably know that before making grandiose claims about entire fields of science.

BTW, I asked you a question earlier and perhaps you missed it......you claimed there are no transitional fossils. Whenever I see someone make that claim, I always wonder.....where exactly have you looked?

I wonder if you can point out the post where that claim was made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, many people are fascinated with his ideas.
Many people don't agree though, that everything confirms his ideas.
They still haven't found those "missing links" the earth was supposed to be saturated with, and they discovered that living things are more complex than Darwin hoped, or visioned.

This is just one of the many posts that @nPeace made denying transitional fossils.

Now that someone did your homework for you again will you own up to your errors?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder if you can point out the post where that claim was made.

How about you doing your own homework for once?

 

[ecco]

Everything science knows about biochemistry stands against any chance origin of "Atoms To Molecules To Protein Chains"

Somehow you believe that science does not know that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to form a molecule of water.
Somehow you believe that science does not know that molecules form protein chains.

How sad.

The first cell and its proteins could not reasonably form by chance because living cells do not reproduce by being made entirely of simple self-replicating molecules. Instead, there is a completely interdependent system in biological cells of complex biochemical enzymes which read and translate the information stored in DNA in order to build themselves and to replicate the DNA during cell division. The instructions are copied to an RNA strand by enzymes. The instructions in the RNA are read by the ribosomes, which then produce the very enzymes necessary to do all this, whose instructions are encoded in the DNA. Each requires the other in order for the cell to reproduce. So because life 9living cells) require this interdependent system and does not use simple, self-replicating molecules any idea that life arose from simple, self- replicating molecules to proteins or abiogenesis is irrelevant to the origin of life.

The above paragraph is typical of your responses. It's not your own thoughts or your own writing. It's plagiarized from...

15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 1) | Biblical Science Institute

• Living cells do not reproduce by being made entirely of simple self-replicating molecules
• complex biochemical enzymes in biological cells read and translate the information stored in DNA in order to build both themselves and to replicate the DNA at the time of cell division.
• The instructions in the RNA are read by the ribosomes, which then produce the very enzymes necessary to do all this, whose instructions are encoded in the DNA.
• Each requires the other in order for the cell to reproduce.
• Therefore, any talk of the replication of simple, non-information bearing chemicals is utterly irrelevant to the origin of life, because life does not use simple, self-replicating molecules.

I seriously doubt you could even explain, in your own words, what the author is stating.

Since this thread is about defending creationism there is another article at the same website:
Origin of the Bible: Part 3 – Accurate and Divine

Perhaps you can cut and paste from that to defend creationism.

 

[ecco]

Now we have another theory? NOW!? You are at least 40 years behind in you level of knowledge.
Do you even understand what punctuated equilibrium means?

I'd think that from your perspective in the span of millions and millions of years...only 40 years would qualify as now.

So, no. You don't understand what punctuated equilibrium means.

That's not surprising, you thought it was a replacement of ToE.

 

[Jose Fly]

I need the evidence for everything you just claimed.

Everything? Does that mean you're disputing that: 1) you claimed there are no transitional fossils, 2) I asked you what the term "transitional fossil" means, 3) in the Watchmaker thread you did not answer my question, and 4) you left the thread?

You're actually disputing all of that?

 

[Jose Fly]

I wonder if you can point out the post where that claim was made.

Um, are you okay? Did you bother to read the post I was responding to, specifically the part that reads "The first cell and its proteins could not reasonably form by chance"?

 

[nPeace]

Everything? Does that mean you're disputing that: 1) you claimed there are no transitional fossils, 2) I asked you what the term "transitional fossil" means, 3) in the Watchmaker thread you did not answer my question, and 4) you left the thread?

You're actually disputing all of that?

I am asking for evidence for your claims, where you claimed...
(a) In the Watchmaker thread, you made claims about the absence of transitional fossils. I followed that up by asking you what the definition of a "transitional fossil" is. You dodged and dodged and dodged until eventually leaving the thread, without ever defining the term.

(b) As noted above, you claimed that there are no "transitional fossils".

(c) You made the specific claim that transitional fossils don't exist.

(d) Well sure, being a Jehovah's Witness you have enormous incentive to "have no need of that hypothesis", correct? Another JW here explained to me that if she were to become an "evolutionist" (i.e., accept evolution as valid science) she would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" by her Jehovah's Witness friends and family, and eventually she would likely be kicked out of the faith at which point her life would lose all meaning and purpose.

Um, are you okay? Did you bother to read the post I was responding to, specifically the part that reads "The first cell and its proteins could not reasonably form by chance"?

I am fine thanks.
I am asking you to verify the claim you made here...

BTW, I asked you a question earlier and perhaps you missed it......you claimed there are no transitional fossils. Whenever I see someone make that claim, I always wonder.....where exactly have you looked?

I see nothing about transitional fossils in this post.