SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There is no evidence that supports your theory.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD
- Thread starter Little Nipper
- Start date
Sadly for you, all the evidence supports the theories I've been talking about. Including the evidence that you don't seem to understand much of what you declare proven. If you truly understand anything.
Think about. You've been here since the end of August and what have accomplished regarding science and theories? Nothing. Not a thing.
I notice you chose to ignore the request to provide rational arguments with the support of valid evidence. I understand.
Potato sardine, but yes, that too.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Like the first living creature that no one even can say what it was.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
And apparently your grasp of science and logic seem to be so dismally poor that you think this is a problem.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I grasp science, math, logic and reality pretty well.
You seem to have a blindness when it comes to origins though.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The evidence of your posts contradicts this claim.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
False witness.
there have been a number of people who has stated what it was.
Some of them more than once.
You even said it was grass.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No one anywhere has.
Should have a number of new genes popping into existence with enzymes etc every day. Should have partially mutated genes in all living creatures.
It is estimated that there are 8.7 million species in the world. It is also estimated that over 99% of all species have become extinct. That total is estimated to be about 5 billion species that have ever lived. With an average of about 20,000 genes per species that comes to about 100 trillion genes that have ever existed. And since life has only been around for supposedly about 3.3 billion years, that comes to about 33,000 per year or about 80 per day. So about 80 new genes per day should be popping into existence every day in the living creatures, each with an average of over 20,000 aminos. Why is that not being observed? Of course, that is just pure insanity as the odds against any of genes of that size popping into existence is about 10^20,000 to 1, a miracle of miracles.
But suppose that new genes emerge by copy a slow mutation over time. Assume about 10,000 on average for this slow transformation to occur and establish itself in a population even with sexual reproduction. There should be about 30 million of these partial mutated genes in living creature right now. Why is that not observed?
You would get F's in school.
Oh, yet another ironic gem.
Have you noticed that the well educated are not swayed by your absurd religious beliefs? You ignore how your bad beliefs are based on a massively flawed interpretation of the Bible. Your tenacity is entertaining.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Which logical fallacy is it?
You do know there is more than one, right?
So how about you tell us which specific fallacy you are claiming that evolution is.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Exactly which sperm fertilized your mom's egg?
So what. There are lots of things I can't describe, but that doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist.
At one time, no one knew of a person surviving with the heart of another person. Now it happens all the time. Evidence. You don't have any.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
True. But I already proved that abiogenesis is false.
gnostic
The Lost One
The word creature only vaguely referred to any organism within the taxonomic “kingdom“ of Animalia (animals)…which would ignored the other 2 kingdoms of multicellular eukaryotic groups:
- Plantae (plants)
- Fungi
The word ”eukaryote” referred to the taxonomic “domain” Eukaryota” (eukaryotes), in which organisms (be they “unicellular“ or “multicellular“ eukaryotes), have cellular structures that contain “membrane-bound” nucleus, plus possibly an “membrane-bound” organelle or more organelles.
Think of nucleei and organelles as compartments or subunits. All eukaryotes have eukaryotic cells, and each individual cell contain a nucleus, but may or may not have 1 or 2 organelles.
I don’t much about fungi or about protists, but most photosynthetic-capable plants have cells, have an organelle that housed all the photosynthetic functions, such as the cells of plant’s leaves would individually have an organelle known as the plastid, and that contained the chloroplast, and this chloroplast (organelle) would include the green-pigment chlorophyll. It is this chlorophyll that do all the photosynthesis process:
- the root of plants draw water from the soil, and channeled the water all the ways to the leaves,
- while at the same time, the leaves would draw and trap carbon dioxide from the air,
- the green pigment of the chlorophyll is what capture the sunlight radiation (eg ultraviolet), and the ultraviolet served as a catalyst for chemical reaction of photosynthesis:
- the chain reaction would convert water and carbon dioxide into sugar (starch) and oxygen. The starch or sugar is the energy source that keeps plants alive.
The Eukaryota leads to another 2 domains:
- domain Bacteria
- domain Archaea
The reasons why the prokaryotes are called that, is that a prokaryote has cellular structure (or prokaryotic cell) that have no nucleus and no organelles. Instead, the prokaryotic cell is enclosed by cell wall.
That’s how eukaryotes differed from prokaryotes, their cells differed between one group from the other.
in any case, the word creature don’t apply to plants, fungi, protists, archaea and plants. The word “creature“ only applied to animal, and we know that not organisms are not animals.
i think I have corrected you before with your usage of the word creature, but like as every other creationists I have met at RF, you are incapable of learning from your mistakes, so you’ll keep repeating mistakes in the future.
Plants are not creatures
Fungi are not creatures
Archeaea are not creatures
Bacteria are not creatures
Both archaea and bacteria have around for at least 3.5 billion of years. Animals have only been around less than 800 million of years.The earliest animals were invertebrates, of which the best known are that of primitive sponges. Sponges existed as early as the Ediacaran period (635 to 539 million years ago). So far, I have yet to see fossils of sponges in the Cyrogenian period. There are other Ediacaran animals, but I don’t remember them by names, and I am less with the non-sponge families and species.
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
nope
not even close
Of course not.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
In many ways I have proved abiogenesis false.
What was the first living creature and what features did it have?
In no way have you proven it false.
Inane questions that tell nothing are evidence of your personal desire, ignorance of science and probably personal desperation.
Not the sort of actions I would consider the wise application of faith.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Not only have a proven it false but there are 2 other super great miracle of miracles to explain and these may be even more miraculous than the first living creature which itself was impossible.
If the first living creature is RNA only, how did DNA evolve?
And if the first DNA creature reproduced by asexual reproduction how did sexual reproduction evolve?