but do not worry, the deceiver will provide another deception.
Good to have figured out who your Master is Friend .. bad that you still cling to this deception and recite it to others.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
but do not worry, the deceiver will provide another deception.
What was the first living creature?Good to have figured out who your Master is Friend .. bad that you still cling to this deception and recite it to others.
All answered.What was the first living creature?
How many aminos did it have and what was its code?
I am here for you. You need lots of help.All answered.
You're running away again.
Answered.How did the first living creature come into being?
No, it didn't. At *best* it shows we don't know how the early galaxies formed. The basic BB description still holds, the expansion still holds.It showed that the redshift theory is false, which shows the expansion is false and the Big Bang is also false.
None of that follows. Not even close. Again, at best, this shows we don't know how early galaxies formed. It produces *tension* between our understanding of that and the age of the universe.Many Corollaries then are false and other are shown to be true. Evolution, billions of years, abiogenesis, rock layer and fossil dating, and Uniformitarianism are false.
Nope. That has been thoroughly disproved long before the BB picture was even proposed.God created all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago, and the worldwide flood about 4500 years ago are true. So here is a recap.
No you asked questions that either showed your false assumptions or whose answers you ignored.I already have provided several infallible proofs that evolution and billions of years are false, and that God created all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago. One of them used MI, another one used the law of non contradiction.
I also gave a challenge that no one has yet met.
I have gave many questions which show that evolution and billions of years are false.
It appears you don't understand what circular reasoning is.I showed the circular reasoning which has misled the believers in evolution and billions of years.
Nowhere close. You didn't even prove there *is* a God, let alone the tyrant described in the Bible.I proved that the Bible is the true word of God, and it’s corollary that God created all things is 6 days about 6000 years ago.
If you twist any text enough, you can get confirmation bias confirmed.This was done by all the predictions of the Bible coming true with exact detail and exact timing, predictEd about 2000 to 3500 years ago, with you keep fulfilling.
No more than the Koran.I also showed that the Bible has advanced scientific knowledge in it that has only been discovered in modern times.
Clearly done by someone who knows nothing about carbon dating and its limitations.
So after decades of looking for the answers to anything, they still have not found the answer to the origin of anything.No, it didn't. At *best* it shows we don't know how the early galaxies formed. The basic BB description still holds, the expansion still holds.
And no plasma physics doesn't resolve these issues either.
None of that follows. Not even close. Again, at best, this shows we don't know how early galaxies formed. It produces *tension* between our understanding of that and the age of the universe.
But, just for the same of argument, suppose that this brings the BB into question. Red shifts are still a thing. They are not theoretical and still need to be explained. There are basically three ways to produce a red shift of the type we see: 1. movement away at a substantial fraction of the speed of light, 2. Very intense gravitational fields, 3 universal expansion (similar to 1, but not the same).
NOTHING changes as to the distances to the nearby galaxies, which is quite enough to show the universe is billions of years old. NOTHING changes in regards to the age of the Earth, which is based on completely different processes. NOTHING changes in regards to the dating of fossils or of rock layers.
So the quoted line is simply false in every claim.
Nope. That has been thoroughly disproved long before the BB picture was even proposed.
No you asked questions that either showed your false assumptions or whose answers you ignored.
It appears you don't understand what circular reasoning is.
Nowhere close. You didn't even prove there *is* a God, let alone the tyrant described in the Bible.
If you twist any text enough, you can get confirmation bias confirmed.
Have you actually read the Bible starting at the beginning and going directly through to the end? I would bet not.
No more than the Koran.
Clearly done by someone who knows nothing about carbon dating and its limitations.
What was the first living creature?
How many aminos did it have and what was its code?
Many origins are from times when we don' have much data. So simple honesty dictates that we acknowledge that we don't know.So after decades of looking for the answers to anything, they still have not found the answer to the origin of anything.
You mean a basic biochemistry course? The advanced biology courses go into how those complex systems evolved.The following is just a sketch of what happens for a DNA/RNA based creature to make just a single protein. It is purely mind boggling how amazing and complex and yet how efficient it is. And of course, if you have had any Advanced Biology course,
That does not follow, of course. It is a leap of logic. Even *if* the DNA-protein system was 'created by an intelligence', it does NOT follow that the universe as a whole was, or that the 'creator' of that system was 'almighty'.you would have studied was mor than this site describes because it only describes one function of living creatures, although one of the fundamental functions. It is one of the greatest proofs ever that God Almighty exists and created all things,
That *clearly* doesn't follow. Again, even *if* there is a deity, that does NOT imply the Bible is true. It could by that any number of other religious texts are true or even that NONE of them are.which leads to the corollary that the Bible is the true word of God,
Fortunately, we have actual evidence that shows otherwise. And that is enough to discount the literal Biblical story.and that God created all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago, and that the theory of evolution and billions of years is a lie.
Such is your claim. But you have yet to provide any *evidence* of such a creature or that any of what you say is correct.It also shows another proof of these facts because how can anyone who sees such an amazing thing ever think it came from natural processes. This delusion comes from the great deceiver.
Nice description.
So how pray tell could even the smallest protein come into being?Many origins are from times when we don' have much data. So simple honesty dictates that we acknowledge that we don't know.
You mean a basic biochemistry course? The advanced biology courses go into how those complex systems evolved.
That does not follow, of course. It is a leap of logic. Even *if* the DNA-protein system was 'created by an intelligence', it does NOT follow that the universe as a whole was, or that the 'creator' of that system was 'almighty'.
That *clearly* doesn't follow. Again, even *if* there is a deity, that does NOT imply the Bible is true. It could by that any number of other religious texts are true or even that NONE of them are.
Fortunately, we have actual evidence that shows otherwise. And that is enough to discount the literal Biblical story.
Such is your claim. But you have yet to provide any *evidence* of such a creature or that any of what you say is correct.
BTW, your lack of understanding does not imply people who actually study and understand this stuff are wrong.
Nice description.
Funny, your own link shows where you go wrong. There, proteins are *defined* as having more than 100 amino acids.So how pray tell could even the smallest protein come into being?
The smallest in a person's body is 234 base pairs long.
Usually the structures are 'held together' by interaction with water.And that does not even consider all the molecules that hold the structure together.
Again, spontaneously produced by interaction with the environment, mostly water.Nor does it consider the folding that is needed fro the protein.
Huh?Nor does it consider that there would be a protective structure surrounding it.
Nor would it consider that there would be multiple copies of said protein and how could copies come into being.
Study group discussion: Largest protein and the smallest protein in the human body
For awesome medical students - A mix of concepts, notes, mnemonics, discussions, ideas & fun filled with enthusiasm and curiousity. Tags: USMLE MBBSwww.medicowesome.com
Proteins consist of many polypeptides. But that is still the smallest protein in the body of man. And of course the odds against that being the product of evolution is that same and vast.Funny, your own link shows where you go wrong. There, proteins are *defined* as having more than 100 amino acids.
But, for example, insulin is usually considered to be a protein and it only has 51 amino acids.
And, as your link says, glutathione only has 3 amino acids.
Slick how you use an arbitrary definition to support your case even though the existence of small polypeptides shows your main argument is wrong.
Usually the structures are 'held together' by interaction with water.
Again, spontaneously produced by interaction with the environment, mostly water.
Huh?
I am here for you. You need lots of help.
How did the first living creature come into being?
So how pray tell could even the smallest protein come into being?
The smallest in a person's body is 234 base pairs long. And that does not even consider all the molecules that hold the structure together. Nor does it consider the folding that is needed fro the protein. Nor does it consider that there would be a protective structure surrounding it. Nor would it consider that there would be multiple copies of said protein and how could copies come into being.
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
It showed that the redshift theory is false, which shows the expansion is false and the Big Bang is also false.
Many Corollaries then are false and other are shown to be true. Evolution, billions of years, abiogenesis, rock layer and fossil dating, and Uniformitarianism are false. God created all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago, and the worldwide flood about 4500 years ago are true. So here is a recap.
I already have provided several infallible proofs that evolution and billions of years are false, and that God created all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago. One of them used MI, another one used the law of non contradiction.
I also gave a challenge that no one has yet met.
I have gave many questions which show that evolution and billions of years are false.
I showed the circular reasoning which has misled the believers in evolution and billions of years.
I proved that the Bible is the true word of God, and it’s corollary that God created all things is 6 days about 6000 years ago.
This was done by all the predictions of the Bible coming true with exact detail and exact timing, predictEd about 2000 to 3500 years ago, with you keep fulfilling. I also showed that the Bible has advanced scientific knowledge in it that has only been discovered in modern times.
Here are even more evidence against the Big Bang and evolution.
Well obviously you do understands Matthew 7 or the rest of the Bible or the gospel of Christ.Why you keep running around asking others to tell you the assumptions you made in your calculation of the probability (X) of human existance. How would they know what assumptions you made in that deeply flawed number you put forward .. yet to give us how that number was arrived at.
If this is the sand foundation on which your faith is based .. I think your "Im Saved" assumption may be in big trouble. ..for as we read in Scripture .. Matt 7 - Not all those who call "Lord Lord" will make it through the pearly gets .. and in fact Only those that do the Will of the Father.. and since you do not know what that Will is .. your flawed assumptions based in fallacy and irrational thought.. least thus far .. how will you then be saved Brother SBTL ?
On what have you assumed your salvation is based Friend ? on a foundation of sand perhaps ? Listen to the Prophet ..for he is very wise
These flawed assumptions and webs of deceit, deflection and denial are not a house built on rock my Friend
x
wait...And of course you have no answer to all the evidence that I presented.
You need to pay attention better I guess.wait...
You presented evidence?
When?
Where?
STILL waiting for you to present evidence that either actually applies to your claim or does not out right refute your claim.You need to pay attention better I guess.
This could not have evolved.
Well obviously you do understands Matthew 7 or the rest of the Bible or the gospel of Christ.
And of course you have no answer to all the evidence that I presented.
What was the first living creature and what features did it have?