Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is not my homework. Once again, you screwed up by not listening the first time. You are blaming others for what you did wrong.
-
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
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What????
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do not even understand when you screw up. You will probably never learn. I just recently, in the last ten minutes, refuted it again. Do you want a link to that refutation?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
"First" life definitely wasn't a saurus.
I bet you don't even know why I put "first" into quotes.
I bet people with an ounce of education on the topic of origins will understand the meaning of those quotes.
I don't require to know who my ancestors were specifically to know and understand that they existed.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yeah, sure. Here is a nice graphical representation of the "god mechanism"
Sure you have. Just look at the graphical model above. INFALLIBLE PROOFS!!!
Checkmate, atheists!
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I'm suddenly reminded of something prof Krauss once said when in a "debate" with some islamic apologist (if memory serves me right). Paraphrasing:
"So this debate setting is like you list some points and then I'm supposed to respond to it... and I will, off course, but you know... it's kinda hard to respond to nonsense"
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The vague part is what the book says, Einstein.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
This is why you should get your intel from proper sources.So it maybe.
Wow all of evolution may have to rescinded worldwide. In fact, it should be until they can confirm. Of wait there is dino DNA.
DNA Found in Dinosaur Bones!
Despite allegedly having been extinct for millions of years, dinosaur bones have been found that contain original DNA and chromosomes!newcreation.blog
This whole soft tissue in that T-rex that "wasn't supposed to be there" has been explained rather fast after its discovery.
But of course, an "honest" source like "newcreation.blog" (lol, for crying out loud) will not be mentioning that part.
Instead, they'll just scream "SEE??? ALL SCIENCE WRONG! SATANIC! PRAISE THE LORD" hoping that if they scream loud enough, people won't hear reason anymore.
Seems to be working perfectly on you.
Now I can only advice you to read up on this topic from other, valid, sources.
But you won't, will you?
I could provide you with the explanation, but you'll just handwave it away also and continue spewing creationist apologetics and false information, will you?
I wonder... Who are you hoping to convince with such behavior?
Continuing down this path is not going to lead to convincing any of us.
Sounds more like you are trying to convince yourself.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
back to our friendly discussion.
How many amino acids were in the first living creature?
How did they assemble themselves into a very large specific sequence?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You really need to learn how to debate. Your posts make it look as if you have never even graduated high school.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Funny.
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 beastswww.smithsonianmag.com
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”
Emphasis mine. Consider the last bolded statement. These are the words of the scientist that discovered these molecules in a dino fossil. "they" in that statement, are all the sites you consistently spew here: creation.com, answers in genesis, discovery institute,... These are the people that "twist words" and "manipulate data".
This is what intellectual dishonesty looks like.
How nice of you to post an article that not only refutes your own silly point about these molecules, but which also exposed how all the religious creationist links you spew to support such silly points, are known liars who "twist words" and "manipulate data".
Very good job.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What proteins did the first living creature have so that it could get nutrients inside sit and expel waste?
What dictionary defines fowl as "fly things except insects"?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why assume that it needed proteins? You keep demonstrating how little you know with your foolish questions.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So then how did it do these needed functions?
How did it control osmosis and diffusion?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I really have zero interest in humoring the invalid silly questions of a stubborn religious fanatic who refuses to learn and in fact goes out of his way to make sure he doesn't.
For the time being, I'm happy just pointing out the sillyness in your behavior.
If you want serious answers, learn to ask serious questions and act serious.
Acting like a petty, stubborn, willfully ignorant child, gives me zero motivation to enter an intellectually honest conversation with you about anything.
My time would be better spend watching paint dry.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You keep asking the wrong questions.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..and you keep avoiding answering them
exchemist
Veteran Member
Well not really. These are silly questions, or rather, questions that are not silly in themselves but are being used in a silly way. As such they don't deserve an answer...and you keep avoiding answering them
It is not exactly news that there are numerous unanswered questions about how abiogenesis took place. If we knew all the answers, there would be nothing left to study. So compiling a random list of such questions is not exactly taxing. Science has no theory of abiogenesis at present, though it has a number of possible building blocks and more are added every year.
The questioner is committing the standard creationist fallacy of suggesting our current lack of answers to all the outstanding questions is somehow evidence of supernatural intervention in nature. It isn't, any more than our lack of answers to other outstanding questions in science. History has amply shown the power of science to obtain answers to previously imponderable questions about nature, given time. Abiogenesis is an especially difficult field to study, due to the lack of direct evidence of events that took place over 3.5bn years ago. We have to construct hypotheses from the limited information we have about the chemistry and geophysics of the early earth. So expecting instant answers, or a fully worked out theory, is naïve at best, or disingenuous at worst.
This creationist fallacy may be useful rhetorically, when preaching to the ignorant, to reinforce a set of primitive religious beliefs. It is a lot less useful when arguing with educated people.