The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

[TagliatelliMonster]

So according to you your ancestors included primates, scurrying mammals, amphibians, a variety of sea creatures, a variety of one celled creatures, chemicals and nothing.

Yes, my parents are primates and mammals.
So are yours. So are you. So are your children.
All humans are primates and mammals.

You didn't know this?

Derp

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yes, my parents are primates and mammals.
So are yours. So are you. So are your children.
All humans are primates and mammals.

You didn't know this?

Derp

Not me and not you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not me and not you.

Of course @TagliatelliMonster is not a primate. He is a carbohydrate based deity. But now it seems that you are claiming that you are not human either. I bet you think that you are a giraffe. You sucked at basketball and now you have a whole movie written out in your head where you are the giraffe that learned how to play basketball. Of course instead of palming the ball you have to "tongue it". Which grosses out everyone. Coming soon to a theater near you!!

Sorry, but that is the way that it is. If you deny being a primate then you are denying that you are a human being too.

 

[ratiocinator]

But this proves evolution false.

Figure 6-67, Structure of the rRNAs in the large subunit of a bacterial ribosome, as determined by x-ray crystallography - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

How?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How?

Exactly, how did this even evolve? Please give a detailed description of your theory how this would have evolved.


Figure 6-67, Structure of the rRNAs in the large subunit of a bacterial ribosome, as determined by x-ray crystallography - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not me and not you.

You're both primates. Only primates use symbolic (artificial, conventional) language. You don't have to understand that, though, to still be a primate. Many don't, including many (if not most) human beings and all non-human primates.

The more you look at the biology of living things at the molecular level, the more you understand how evolution could not have done this

You're looking through faith-based confirmation bias. It shows you what you already believe by faith. That's the wrong way to do it. Belief should follow observation, not precede it.

only God Almighty the Creator of all things could. Just behold the power of God.

If you're referring to the god of Abraham, it's been ruled out by the science you are not permitted to see or understand.

this proves evolution false.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. Faith-based beliefs are not reasonable by definition. They're not reasoned. They're guessed at and believed anyway. There's a more productive way to think than that, one that helps prevent accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs. Those are never helpful to the believer, but they are useful to those that can talk you into believing them. They can make you submit to their commands just by telling you that the god commanded it. They can make you come to them each week with money. They can get you go on the Internet to try to recruit others to bring them money. All that's needed is to convince you that it is the will of this unseen god that it is claimed did things that science has confirmed never happened. And your only defense against that is critical thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly, how did this even evolve? Please give a detailed description of your theory how this would have evolved.


Figure 6-67, Structure of the rRNAs in the large subunit of a bacterial ribosome, as determined by x-ray crystallography - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Why? If he is unable to how does that refute evolution? You need to work on your basic logic skills.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why? If he is unable to how does that refute evolution? You need to work on your basic logic skills.

Explain in detail how this evolved.

Figure 6-72, Structure of a typical bacterial mRNA molecule - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain in detail how this evolved.

Figure 6-72, Structure of a typical bacterial mRNA molecule - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Don't ask questions that only show how ignorant that you are.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Don't ask questions that only show how ignorant that you are.

Well this could have never evolved.

Figure 6-68, Location of the protein components of the bacterial large ribosomal subunit - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well this could have never evolved.

Figure 6-68, Location of the protein components of the bacterial large ribosomal subunit - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Please explain what the linked graphic and what it means and how it could not have evolved?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Please explain what the linked graphic and what it means and how it could not have evolved?

I have already done so.

This is also impossible with evolution and billions of years will not help. It is just too complex and the code is the “software” that runs this amazing molecular “factories”

Figure 6-81, The co-translational folding of a protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have already done so.

This is also impossible with evolution and billions of years will not help. It is just too complex and the code is the “software” that runs this amazing molecular “factories”

Figure 6-81, The co-translational folding of a protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Do it again so that I can see it.

Do you think Jesus would operate the way you are?

I never read that he lobbed questions and then ran away or gave double talk answers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have already done so.

This is also impossible with evolution and billions of years will not help. It is just too complex and the code is the “software” that runs this amazing molecular “factories”

Figure 6-81, The co-translational folding of a protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

You just keep dropping the same claim for different links. That doesn't seem like it is a person seeking answers. It seems more like a campaign to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have already done so.

This is also impossible with evolution and billions of years will not help. It is just too complex and the code is the “software” that runs this amazing molecular “factories”

Figure 6-81, The co-translational folding of a protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Well? Let's hear it. Come on. You can do it. I know you like posting. Don't be shy.

 

[ratiocinator]

Exactly, how did this even evolve?

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. You claimed that this proves evolution false. Where is your reasoning?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not me and not you.

You are not a mammal?
You are not a member of the species Homo Sapiens?

Are you an obtuse first generation AI bot?

"first generation", because you can't be last generation. Those generally generate a lot more intelligent texts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well this could have never evolved.

Figure 6-68, Location of the protein components of the bacterial large ribosomal subunit - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Then God could not exist:
"God can't exist because of Eric The God-Eating Magic Penguin. Since Eric is God-Eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat God. So, if God exists, He automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten. Unless you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, God doesn't exist. Even if you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, that same proof will also be applicable to God. There are only two possibilities - either you can prove that Eric doesn't exist or you can't - in both cases it logically follows that God doesn't exist."

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Then God could not exist:
"God can't exist because of Eric The God-Eating Magic Penguin. Since Eric is God-Eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat God. So, if God exists, He automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten. Unless you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, God doesn't exist. Even if you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, that same proof will also be applicable to God. There are only two possibilities - either you can prove that Eric doesn't exist or you can't - in both cases it logically follows that God doesn't exist."

Not a good proof. But if it makes you happy, then go with it.

The folding is a real conundrum for evolution. You need proteins to do the folding of proteins.

Figure 6-81, The co-translational folding of a protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Sargonski]

Not a good proof. But if it makes you happy, then go with it.

What Proof Friend ? -- Your the one supposed to be providing proof of your claim that probability of human existing is (X) ... and thusfar have failed .. but, if failed salvation makes you happy, then go with it

This is not the Rock on which Lord Jesus told us salvation is built - not this happy failure

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. You claimed that this proves evolution false. Where is your reasoning?

Then God could not exist:
"God can't exist because of Eric The God-Eating Magic Penguin. Since Eric is God-Eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat God. So, if God exists, He automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten. Unless you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, God doesn't exist. Even if you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, that same proof will also be applicable to God. There are only two possibilities - either you can prove that Eric doesn't exist or you can't - in both cases it logically follows that God doesn't exist."

and its incessant variations.