The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

[Subduction Zone]

Dinosaur Shocker

Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the ancient beasts

www.smithsonianmag.com

Yep, Mary Schweitzer a former YEC was the one that found "soft tissue" (it really was not very soft) in a T-Rex fossil. She was also the one that solved the problem of how it survived for so long. This is not a problem for evolution. It was an interesting problem. But that was all.

She did not find DNA. She did not find blood cells. She did not find what most people could think of as soft tissue. She found collagen. And she had to soak the fossil in a weak acid bath for an extended period of time to free it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yep, Mary Schweitzer a former YEC was the one that found "soft tissue" (it really was not very soft) in a T-Rex fossil. She was also the one that solved the problem of how it survived for so long. This is not a problem for evolution. It was an interesting problem. But that was all.

She did not find DNA. She did not find blood cells. She did not find what most people could think of as soft tissue. She found collagen. And she had to soak the fossil in a weak acid bath for an extended period of time to free it.

So it was nit fossilized. And there was tissue. But proteins will not survive.

Paleontologists Find Possible Dinosaur DNA

A report of preserved fragments of nuclei and chromatin in a fossilized femur of a 125-million-year-old Caudipteryx dinosaur elicits skepticism.

www.the-scientist.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it was nit fossilized. And there was tissue. But proteins will not survive.

Paleontologists Find Possible Dinosaur DNA

A report of preserved fragments of nuclei and chromatin in a fossilized femur of a 125-million-year-old Caudipteryx dinosaur elicits skepticism.

www.the-scientist.com

No, it was clearly fossilized. Why do you think that it wasn't?

Did you read your article at all? They did not find DNA. They found some material that could possibly have the remnants of DNA in it:

"According to a news release from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the femur cells contained preserved nuclei and chromatin fragments that could potentially hold preserved dinosaur DNA."

And all that would "prove" even if they found DNA was that under the right conditions it can last longer than was previously thought.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, it was clearly fossilized. Why do you think that it wasn't?

Did you read your article at all? They did not find DNA. They found some material that could possibly have the remnants of DNA in it:

"According to a news release from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the femur cells contained preserved nuclei and chromatin fragments that could potentially hold preserved dinosaur DNA."

And all that would "prove" even if they found DNA was that under the right conditions it can last longer than was previously thought.

The proteins are still proteins so they were not fossilized. and the rest was. So the fossilization becomes a problem because not all was fossilized after 100 millions of year or so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The proteins are still proteins so they were not fossilized. and the rest was. So the fossilization becomes a problem because not all was fossilized after 100 millions of year or so.

When a bone is fossilized that does not mean that 100% of the original material is replaced.

And how is this a problem?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

When a bone is fossilized that does not mean that 100% of the original material is replaced.

And how is this a problem?

For DNA, RNA, proteins to remain it is. For C-14 to sell be there it is. For amino acids to not have returned to 50-50 racemic is.

Evolution and billions of years is falsified by these .

 

[Echogem222]

The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

It would have to have had at least 100,000 amino acids in a particular sequence. This is extremely generous. The smallest free-living thing has over 1,000,000 base pairs. I also have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.
The odds against a sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 counting handedness) coming to be by random chance is (10 to the 160,000 power) to 1. That could never have happened anywhere in the universe over the supposed 13.7 billion years of its existence. It actually is impossible because no concentration of that amount of amino acids would happen by random chance. There are other factors that make it impossible. It would be a miracle.

And that is just to get to the first living thing. There would have to at least 1 trillion other miracles to produce all the living creatures by evolution. That would be about 70 miracles for each of the supposed 13.7 billion years.

That is impossible to have happened by random chance.
Therefore, God created all things.
A simple elegant proof.
Assume no God. Show the contradiction. Therefore, God exists.
The proof that the Bible is the true word of God is also easy.

The atheists have been deceived into believing that the first creature could come into existence by random chance.
Never has been observed. Simple analysis shows it is impossible. There is no record that it ever did.
So, the evolutionist has the burden of proof.

??? Well, I'm an atheist, I believe in Evolution, and I don't believe the first creature came to be by random chance, and evolution doesn't teach that it was by random chance either. Aside from that, you're skipping many many steps when you say, "Therefore God created all things" Which God? Why yours? What if it's not a God but something that can't be comprehended by humans at all like I believe? How could you disprove such a thing as possible?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

??? Well, I'm an atheist, I believe in Evolution, and I don't believe the first creature came to be by random chance, and evolution doesn't teach that it was by random chance either. Aside from that, you're skipping many many steps when you say, "Therefore God created all things" Which God? Why yours? What if it's not a God but something that can't be comprehended by humans at all like I believe? How could you disprove such a thing as possible?

The God of the Bible of course.

The Bible proves itself to be the word of God the Almighty Creator. One way, there are others, is that The Bible has made many predictions which have come true exactly on time and with exact details. God said He would do this.

Over 2000 prophecies fulfilled exactly.
Odds against this not proving the Bible true are over 10^20000 to 1.

Here is one. Rev 2-3 is the 2000 year history of the church all predicted before it happened. The following is a fulfilled prediction of the Inquisition by the Catholic Church and the Black Death that occurred circa 1350.

And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. - Rev 2:23

 

[Echogem222]

The God of the Bible of course.

The Bible proves itself to be the word of God the Almighty Creator. One way, there are others, is that The Bible has made many predictions which have come true exactly on time and with exact details. God said He would do this.

Over 2000 prophecies fulfilled exactly.
Odds against this not proving the Bible true are over 10^20000 to 1.

Here is one. Rev 2-3 is the 2000 year history of the church all predicted before it happened. The following is a fulfilled prediction of the Inquisition by the Catholic Church and the Black Death that occurred circa 1350.

And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. - Rev 2:23

Revelation is such a vague book of the bible, it could have meant a lot of different things. But even if you were right, that doesn't actually prove anything because you still have to trust your God, in other words have faith. But how do you know the person who wrote Revelation is actually telling the truth? You don't know, you have to trust them, just as you have to trust everything else in the Bible is true by the people who wrote it. But how do you understand science is true?

In science, faith is not about belief without evidence but trust in a system that has been shown to be reliable for gaining knowledge, with the understanding that this system is open to refinement and evolution. Yes, some people just trust scientists instead of doing the work themselves to understand if the scientist actually did the work correctly, but here's the thing, science exists in a way that their "work" can be fact checked, someone who wrote part of the bible a long time ago? You can't fact check it, you just have to trust that the God explained in the Bible wouldn't allow for errors to happen in the bible you came to learn, that your spiritual connection to your God is correct and real in the way you think it is.

The person who wrote Revelation could have been seeing a vision which only partially showed future events because time exists differently than we think it does, or maybe the God which allowed them to understand anything future related is just 1 God of many, limited in power, and mistaken, or possibly having harmful intent. You don't know, you have faith, and that's why you need to rethink your reasoning.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Revelation is such a vague book of the bible, it could have meant a lot of different things. But even if you were right, that doesn't actually prove anything because you still have to trust your God, in other words have faith. But how do you know the person who wrote Revelation is actually telling the truth? You don't know, you have to trust them, just as you have to trust everything else in the Bible is true by the people who wrote it. But how do you understand science is true?

In science, faith is not about belief without evidence but trust in a system that has been shown to be reliable for gaining knowledge, with the understanding that this system is open to refinement and evolution. Yes, some people just trust scientists instead of doing the work themselves to understand if the scientist actually did the work correctly, but here's the thing, science exists in a way that their "work" can be fact checked, someone who wrote part of the bible a long time ago? You can't fact check it, you just have to trust that the God explained in the Bible wouldn't allow for errors to happen in the bible you came to learn, that your spiritual connection to your God is correct and real in the way you think it is.

The person who wrote Revelation could have been seeing a vision which only partially showed future events because time exists differently than we think it does, or maybe the God which allowed them to understand anything future related is just 1 God of many, limited in power, and mistaken, or possibly having harmful intent. You don't know, you have faith, and that's why you need to rethink your reasoning.

Well God does know the future. But this fulfilled prophecy about the Inquisition and the Black Death is just one of many that have come true. I am in the process of writing up a thread on this, but it will take time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well God does know the future. But this fulfilled prophecy about the Inquisition and the Black Death is just one of many that have come true. I am in the process of writing up a thread on this, but it will take time.

Sorry, but just because you can match an event to vague verses does NOT make it a fulfilled prophecy. In fact it more often refutes the work as being a valid prophecy.

I know of many failed prophecies in the Bible. I do not know of any fulfilled ones.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sorry, but just because you can match an event to vague verses does NOT make it a fulfilled prophecy. In fact it more often refutes the work as being a valid prophecy.

I know of many failed prophecies in the Bible. I do not know of any fulfilled ones.

So you do not believe that there was an Inquisition or a Black Death or a Catholic Church?
Hardly vague

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sorry, but just because you can match an event to vague verses does NOT make it a fulfilled prophecy. In fact it more often refutes the work as being a valid prophecy.

I know of many failed prophecies in the Bible. I do not know of any fulfilled ones.

Revelation 2 and 3 is the history of the church for the last 2000 years written before those things happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Revelation 2 and 3 is the history of the church for the last 2000 years written before those things happened.

No, that is just your interpretation of Revelation 2 and 3. And it looks like it is just cherry picking on your part. Other sects will have a different interpretation. The book fails as being Biblical prophesy because the verses are too vague and will have multiple interpretations. Unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot by calling God a liar again. I would not recommend that. It would be better to admit that you simply do not understand it fully.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, that is just your interpretation of Revelation 2 and 3. And it looks like it is just cherry picking on your part. Other sects will have a different interpretation. The book fails as being Biblical prophesy because the verses are too vague and will have multiple interpretations. Unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot by calling God a liar again. I would not recommend that. It would be better to admit that you simply do not understand it fully.

Stop. I never called God a liar. Please you debate 101 loser techniques are showing.
Bingo you have fulfilled another prophecy.

And how would you know what the Bible says?
The Bible says that you cannot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop. I never called God a liar. Please you debate 101 loser techniques are showing.
Bingo you have fulfilled another prophecy.

And how would you know what the Bible says?
The Bible says that you cannot.

Yes, you have. You clearly did in that other thread.

And so what if the Bible makes false claims about others? That is just the Bible violating its own Ninth Commandment. So far it has been you that has not been able to understand your own book. Or have you already forgotten how you messed up the fact that Quirinius and Cyrenius were the same person?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yes, you have. You clearly did in that other thread.

And so what if the Bible makes false claims about others? That is just the Bible violating its own Ninth Commandment. So far it has been you that has not been able to understand your own book. Or have you already forgotten how you messed up the fact that Quirinius and Cyrenius were the same person?

False accusations. Evolutionists are desperate with that crap.

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2 Tim 3:1-5

 

[Subduction Zone]

False accusations. Evolutionists are desperate with that crap.

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2 Tim 3:1-5

It was your claim dude. I can still find the post where you said that God planted false information to give Satan ammo on purpose. That was you calling God a liar.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It was your claim dude. I can still find the post where you said that God planted false information to give Satan ammo on purpose. That was you calling God a liar.

I did not.
I said God always writes the truth. Satan is smarter than deceived people.
Bingo. You have fulfilled prophecy again.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It was your claim dude. I can still find the post where you said that God planted false information to give Satan ammo on purpose. That was you calling God a liar.

Where did ImpossibleSaurus first arise?
Was it DNA?
What was its kid's name? SonOfImpossibeSaurus?