Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You cannot demand "science" when you refuse to learn the concept. Especially when people have offered to help you on that concept.
-
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 living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not a stegosaurs. Where is the thagomizer?They were C-14 dated, so each Dino figurine destroys evolution and billions of years.
Hapgood submitted the samples to the Laboratory of Isotopes Inc. in New Jersey. The results were as follows:
Sample No. 1 (I-3842) 3590 + - 100 (C.1640 BC) Sample No. 2 (I-4015) 6480 + - 170 (C. 4530 BC) Sample No. 3 (I-4031)3060 + - 120 (C. 1110 BC)
The Stegosaurus clobbers evolution and billions of years too.
Did Ancient Man See Dinosaurs? These Carvings and Artifacts Say Maybe
What the farmer uncovered was an amazing collection of pieces, many of which appeared to be dinosaurs. If authentic, the figurines seemed to show that ancient people living in what is now Mexico had knowledge of a wide range of dinosaur species.
historydaily.org
But it is all over the world.
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park
www.genesispark.com
PS: I am often surprised when my Google spell check recognizes arcane technical terms. No ugly red underlines in this post.
It is impossible that abiogenesis didn't occur even if life were created by a god. And it is overwhelmingly likely that the first life in the universe and all life in it thereafter arose naturalistically. Nature simply has no apparent need for intelligent designers. You might for psychological purposes, but nature doesn't.
Did you have a point there besides that? Are you saying that that means it didn't happen? If so, you are incorrect (ignorantium fallacy).
Moreover, observation of past events in the present is not your criterion for belief. None of the things you believe gods did have been observed, including divine creation. What you have there is a fervent desire that a god exists and a serious of specious and fallacious arguments based in bad science to support them. You won't be able to convince a single critical thinker with just that.
No, you didn't. You believe it didn't happen and concocted a specious and fallacious argument in its defense that convinced nobody. The sine qua non of proving is convincing. You can't call it a proof if it convinces nobody. I like to give the analogy of the stand-up comedian who claims he was hysterical when nobody laughed at his act. He's only funny in his own head just as you are only persuasive in your own head.
Nope. Both of those are settled science. Nothing will falsify either the scientific conclusion that the universe is billions of years old or that the tree of life evolved naturalistically from a last universal common ancestor.
Maybe you should be looking at the numbers documenting the decline of Abrahamic religion in the West. That's what's evaporating away. There's your institution in crisis.
Let me guess. Because Jesus created the kinds intact?
Your challenge? You've been soundly defeated. Somebody should have told you. Please allow me. Your challenge died when you started introducing assumptions of your own effectively conceding that such a requirement is absurd and your "challenge" a dishonest creationist game unworthy of being taken seriously. Did you need all of that reviewed for you? Try these:
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Evolution begins at the first replicators. Is this a valid premise or just a convention of convenience?
Abiogenesis, although incomplete, tells us that many things and steps needed to occur before the first replicators. Things needed to first build, to a level of chemical sophistication, before replicators could appear or thrive.
In other words, even if you place a sound RNA replicator in a beaker, it would be of no use, without a supply of monomers to polymerize. A constant supply of monomers would be needed, first, before replicators can make any sense. The monomers, in turn, would need enzymes for synthesis, so the supply does not run out, so the replicators can practice and get more efficient and then start to impact the working protein grid.
The current premise of evolution starting at replicators is like the first replicators are in beakers in a lab with technician feeding all they need to make the theory work. It seems too overly simplified and unnatural; applied science magic and not pure science. There is an entire interface that needs to be constructed to support a replicator model. This theory can be negated by placing RNA replicators in distilled water with nothing but base chemicals that Miller used. It will never amont to anything.
Isn't is also possible that the many potentials, within Abiogenesis, that built that needed platform of chemical sophistication, are still active in life, and are still naturally leading the increasing chemical sophistication we call evolution? In cell cycles, when the DNA condenses into chromosomes, the DNA is taken offline. The protein grid runs the show. In red blood cells, the nucleus and DNA are removed and the protein grid keeps the red blood cells alive. A protein grid would be needed to produce the supplies, needed to make the first replicators viable. The reverse will never happen, since a template is stamp.
The analogy is meeting new person who is private. You learn about them from what you can observed. You may base that assessment, starting on the day you met them; replicators. Isn't it possible that that what came before your meeting, that is kept private, is also important to what you observe today. It may still be causing patterns that define the present and the future we call evolution? This is my theory.
Starting life at the replicators is an assumption and premise, and not a statement of natural fact anymore that defining a person, starting when you say t=0. We can not ignore what came before that.
Could evolution still stand if it was required to start at Abiogenesis, or is it beholden to an arbitrary starting time? Maybe we can reverse engineer this. What would be needed, by RNA, to become a useful replicator, and how would that support be produced. At least this goes back into time using common sense. The first replicators teaming ups with a protein grid that makes the needed supplies would go a long way to a two-way interface; virus and protein grid alliance.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Thanks. You need to hedge bets and invoke God for the impossibility of abiogenesis without God.
You have proved my point.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What? Your post makes no sense. Where has anyone done that?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
It Ain't so ... posted "It is impossible that abiogenesis didn't occur even if life were created by a god"
I already proved that it is impossible without God, so God created all things.
What God are you referring to?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The God of the Bible of course.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
The OP has a habitual habit of claiming that no one has met his challenge, which has been repeatedly proven to be false. However, that doesn't prevent him from adamantly denying this fact and responding with more Gish gallop. As I said yesterday in his other thread, denial is not just a river in Egypt.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Please refute anything if you can. I look forward to what you have to say.
What was the first living creature?
What was before the Big Bang?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Both. Science answers the problems it can now. Let's say that a person takes a trip. A good part of it is well recorded. But for the start there are only bits and pieces of an indication of the journey taken. Is it unreasonable to separate the two? Now for the first short leg of the journey there is some evidence of how the person may have taken the journey but no clear picture. Is it reasonable to throw away the evidence that we do have and say. "there is no evidence for the start of this journey so it was accomplished by "I Dream of Jeannie", or would you go with a naturalistic explanation?
We know how evolution works. We know how life evolved. We are still learning a bit about abiogenesis so for now they are separate fields.
Yes it is a complicated process. But a source of monomers is not a problem. That is one of the answered problems of abiogenesis. But no, "enzymes" are modern. For the very earliest of life it appears that RNA was the workhorse for those processes. The only real significant problem left is how did the first self replicating molecule form.
No, starting life at the point of self replication is simply a practical move. No one is "assuming" that abiogenesis is the answer. But it is the only process that has any scientific evidence for it.
It is up to those that oppose abiogenesis to do proper research. To publish their findings. To demonstrate that they have a testable hypothesis if they want to argue against abiogenesis.
You should not be attacking those doing real science. You should be attacking those that deny science and are too afraid to do their own homework.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you have never proved anything except your own ignorance of logic, evidence and the sciences. I have offered to go over your "proofs" with you but you run away, probably because you know that you are wrong.
You simply misunderstood a post again. Instead of making more false claims you should have asked for clarification.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Please post it here.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Justify those questions and I can and will answer them for you.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No answer I see.
No one else has a real answer.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I told you what you had to do to get an answer. You were given the answer to one of your questions at least, but it was beyond you. I will explain it in more detail as soon as you justify your questions.
Have you not noticed that you cannot answer any questions properly? Have you not noticed that you tend to reject answers that were properly answered? That shows that you are not being an honest interlocutor. You lose the rights to make demands when you cannot debate properly.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Where did the first living creature come into being?
What was its first offspring?
What was the offspring of the first offspring?
What was the 4th generation?