SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Evolution is a logical fallacy as more believe it worldwide than 6 day recent creation.
-
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!
The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
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.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Why haven’t scientists been able to make a living creature from primordial soup? Or long chains of proteins or RNA or DNA?
Afterall, if abiogenies is such a slam dunk and the scientists know so much about the conditions that were in the early earth that led to the first living creature, why can’t they run experiments that produce a living thing? They should be able to run very many of these experiments simultaneously. They can choose as many different initial conditions so that they can test all of their conjectures simultaneously.
The goal should of course be to produce a living creature. But abiogenesis is impossible so that will not happen. But they could choose a much simpler goal. To produce strands of DNA, RNA, or amino acid sequences of at least 20,000 nucleotides or amino acids long all strung together. They must all be right-handed for the DNA and RNA or left-handed for the amino acids. They also should be the 20 aminos in living things or the correct 4 nucleotides for DNA or RNA. Of course, they should be folded correctly. That too is not going to happen either.
If they want to cheat a lot, they can start out with either a 50-50 racemic of amino acids with all 20 or the nucleotides and see if the above strands emerge. Of course, without some real intelligent design this too will not happen. Until they do, remove evolution from all schools of any kind.
McBell
Unbound
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
Why are you assuming it's genetically impossible? Just because one might not see something doesn't imply that it doesn't exist.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Evolution is not a religion, thus one either accepts the fact that life forms change over time or they don't.
You are using a logical fallacy. You've been told this and shown this. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true.
But you don't seem to be able to handle that fact.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What was the first living creature and what features did it have?
Not this **** again........
It's a wild ride!
@SavedByTheLord
You are asking science questions on a religious forum
I know you cannot differentiate between the two even though doing so is extraordinarily simple but would you ask about cars on a guitar forum?????
Why don't you take your crap here:
www.scienceforums.net
You are asking science questions on a religious forum
I know you cannot differentiate between the two even though doing so is extraordinarily simple but would you ask about cars on a guitar forum?????
Why don't you take your crap here:
Science Forums
gnostic
The Lost One
Like every other threads @SavedByTheLord have created, he keep repeating mistakes, over and over again, and he keeps making up numbers without real contexts.
Like his usage of the first “creatures“.
The word creature only applied to any animal.
But none of the plants are creatures. All families and species of the Fungi, are not creatures.
Both Bacteria and Archaea, are not creatures.
Multicellular eukaryotic animals are only known to exist as early As the Ediacaran period (which started around 635 million years ago). While earlier and more primitive species of bacteria, have been around at least 3.5 billion years…
…but bacteria are not animals, therefore bacteria are not creatures.
if SavedByTheLord wanted to talk of first living life, than perhaps the “earliest organisms“ would be more appropriate than “earliest creatures“.
of course, he will continue to use creatures, and stick his head in the sand.
Like his usage of the first “creatures“.
The word creature only applied to any animal.
But none of the plants are creatures. All families and species of the Fungi, are not creatures.
Both Bacteria and Archaea, are not creatures.
Multicellular eukaryotic animals are only known to exist as early As the Ediacaran period (which started around 635 million years ago). While earlier and more primitive species of bacteria, have been around at least 3.5 billion years…
…but bacteria are not animals, therefore bacteria are not creatures.
if SavedByTheLord wanted to talk of first living life, than perhaps the “earliest organisms“ would be more appropriate than “earliest creatures“.
of course, he will continue to use creatures, and stick his head in the sand.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You used a lying source again that disqualifies itself from being a source of evidence.
Too bad that you have no idea of what is and what is not evidence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, once again that is a lying source. They know that under heat and pressure that rocks will fold without bending. They simply ignore the evidence. They know that unconsolidated sediments when folded will squeeze out at the tops and bottoms of folds. You can try it yourself. Put down get some fine clay and fine sand. Get them wet and place the wet material on a flexible piece of stiff plastic. Fold it and observe what happens.Not me.
Here is more evidence that proves the worldwide flood.
Folded rocks: testimony to Noah’s Flood
Many types of folded rocks look like they folded quickly before becoming hard, consistent with Noah's Flood.creation.com
They know that shells are hard and more delicate than rocks, and yet they "fold" too. In structural geology fossils are used as strain markers. They show how the hard consolidated rocks have been folded. Tell me, how do you deform a very brittle shell in soft sediments:
Deformed fossils and other strain markers
'Deformed fossils and other strain markers' published in 'Structural Geology and Tectonics'
Trilobites are cool. Very brittle fossils that due to their shape indicate if the surrounding rock has been deformed without breaking:
That is some strong deformation. The top once was stretched on its long axis and the bottom one at 90 degrees to it was squooshed. (technical geological term)
Here is another example. You can see the difference:
I have as of yet to see a creationist come up with an explanation of the many strain markers that we can observe in sedimentary rock.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is just your strawman because you are too afraid to learn the actual model and the evidence for it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Moving the goalposts is an admission that you lost the previous argument.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Right, them there are weeds.
Correct again them there are critters. Ooh, that reminds me, it is squirrel huntin' time.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I have not moved any goal posts.
Just adding more evidence that is evolution is false.
McBell
Unbound
Your posts strongly indicate that you do not even know that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well I understand why evolutionists want to rum and hide from abiogenesis as it is an embarrassment.