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

[SavedByTheLord]

What do you mean? It is "observed today". How do you think that they know that RNA can self form? And you should not make such a foolish claim as saying that " never observed today which confirms it is impossicle<sic>". By that "logic" your God does not exist. And yes, we do have evidence that it happened. I need to remind you that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

So they have observed without intervention an RNA stand of 300 base pairs of a specific sequnce that they started to live and reproduce?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So they have observed without intervention an RNA stand of 300 base pairs of a specific sequnce that they started to live and reproduce?

Wow! Another post where you demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension. I think that your problem may be that you try to claim that people said things that they did not. You want them to have said something else so you read posts and articles as if they said what you wanted them to say. Try to read posts and see what they actually said.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Wow! Another post where you demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension. I think that your problem may be that you try to claim that people said things that they did not. You want them to have said something else so you read posts and articles as if they said what you wanted them to say. Try to read posts and see what they actually said.

So what was the largest number of amino acids in an RNA strand that have been observed that occurred without intervention?

 

[Sargonski]

So what was the largest number of amino acids in an RNA strand that have been observed that occurred without intervention?

Go look it up .. RNA been created in a lab using simulated natural processes .. "Self Replicating Molecules" and so the number doesn't matter.
Not that any of this navel gazing matters .. as is not proof for your 6000 yr claim .. nor your "Humans are impossible" claim.

You don't understand the Science friend and seem to have little capability or desire for learning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what was the largest number of amino acids in an RNA strand that have been observed that occurred without intervention?

What do you mean by "intervention"? Do you mean man made molecules?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What do you mean by "intervention"? Do you mean man made molecules?

Any experiment where some form of control was used. For example, but not limited to, setting up the initial conditions, putting in things that were assumed to be there, removing products, using already existing living things or thing produced by living things, etc.

So what was the largest number of amino acids in an RNA strand that have been observed that occurred without intervention?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any experiment where some form of control was used. For example, but not limited to, setting up the initial conditions, putting in things that were assumed to be there, removing products, using already existing living things or thing produced by living things, etc.

So what was the largest number of amino acids in an RNA strand that have been observed that occurred without intervention?

That is not intervention. That is mimicking nature. You claim has no grounds. Try again.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That is not intervention. That is mimicking nature. You claim has no grounds. Try again.

So no proof of your claim.

 

[Whateverist]

That is impossible to have happened by random chance.
Therefore, God created all things.

I agree that mutation alone would have a hard time accounting for all the change we find even given deep time. But goddidit isn’t a fair conclusion. Why not simply say “therefore there are other factors in play - including your favorite”. Of course your favorite will never align with anything science could say since it is only concerned with natural cause.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I agree that mutation alone would have a hard time accounting for all the change we find even given deep time. But goddidit isn’t a fair conclusion. Why not simply say “therefore there are other factors in play - including your favorite”. Of course your favorite will never align with anything science could say since it is only concerned with natural cause.

Well I of course believe that God, the God of the Bible, cerated all in 6 days about 6000 years ago without evolution.
So, will they allow 6 day recent creation about 6000 years ago to be taught everywhere along side evolution and say both are possible?
Of course they will not.

 

[McBell]

Well I of course believe that God, the God of the Bible, cerated all in 6 days about 6000 years ago without evolution.
So, will they allow 6 day recent creation about 6000 years ago to be taught everywhere along side evolution and say both are possible?
Of course they will not.

Well...
Seeing as you 6 day/6K belief has absolutely zero basis in science, it cannot be presented in a science class...

It would be likened to also teaching the stork theory in health class during sex ed...
Though I would be most curious the explanation on how to "summon" the stork.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So no proof of your claim.

What do you mean "proof". I refuted your ignorant claims again.

 

[Whateverist]

Well I of course believe that God, the God of the Bible, cerated all in 6 days about 6000 years ago without evolution.
So, will they allow 6 day recent creation about 6000 years ago to be taught everywhere along side evolution and say both are possible?
Of course they will not.

They shouldn't in a course identified as "Science". In a theology class of a school for a literal, fundamentalist sect I'm sure they would.

 

[McBell]

They shouldn't in a course identified as "Science". In a theology class of a school for a literal, fundamentalist sect I'm sure they would.

And science would be banned...

At least, the science that they think disagrees with their beliefs

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any experiment where some form of control was used. For example, but not limited to, setting up the initial conditions, putting in things that were assumed to be there, removing products, using already existing living things or thing produced by living things, etc.

So what was the largest number of amino acids in an RNA strand that have been observed that occurred without intervention?

You might want to learn what "controlled conditions" are.
For example, your freezer is a "controlled environment".

Is ice natural? Does your freezer "prove" that the ice at the North Pole is designed by human freezer building engineers?

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is a change in the gene pool. As you age, your genes don’t change.

It is my understanding abiogenesis is not a scientific theory; it has not been proven nor disproven.

CuriouSTEM - Biogenesis vs. Abiogenesis

Currently, there are two theories about how life originally formed in the universe: abiogenesis and biogenesis. The precursor to the theory of abiogenesis was originally posited by Aristotle in the 4th century.

www.curioustem.org

The person I was responding to was Christian, and the Christian God has not been observed by science. I was only applying the same standard to his God that he applied to evolution.

Again; I was applying the same standard to his claim that he was applying to someone else’s claim.

Hello. Sometimes I like to check things out, and I was wondering about whether genes change as we grow older. Please notice what the National Institute of Health says about that:

DNA changes predict longevity

Certain DNA changes can better predict a person’s life expectancy than traditional risk factors such as age. The findings could lead to a new understanding of aging and how to slow it.

www.nih.gov

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello. Sometimes I like to check things out, and I was wondering about whether genes change as we grow older. Please notice what the National Institute of Health says about that:

DNA changes predict longevity

Certain DNA changes can better predict a person’s life expectancy than traditional risk factors such as age. The findings could lead to a new understanding of aging and how to slow it.

www.nih.gov

Somatic cells reproduce quite often. Every time they reproduce there is a chance of mutation and that can be bad for a person. The cell could die or become ineffective or even worse. Also I do believe that the telomeres at the ends of chromosomes shorten each time. That limits how often a cell can reproduce. Female gametes are rather stable. They do not reproduce. Women have a limited number of eggs. Men on the other hand seem to have an almost endless supply, but since the base is reproducing spermatozoa there are larger odds of mutations the older that men get.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You might want to learn what "controlled conditions" are.
For example, your freezer is a "controlled environment".

Is ice natural? Does your freezer "prove" that the ice at the North Pole is designed by human freezer building engineers?

A freezer for sure would be a controlled condition.
As would be if someone put things into cold storage in the ice at the South Pole of North Pole..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A freezer for sure would be a controlled condition.
As would be if someone put things into cold storage in the ice at the South Pole of North Pole..

You have succesfully evaded the point made.

Here's a trophy for your achievement.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You have succesfully evaded the point made.

Here's a trophy for your achievement.

View attachment 84102

Thanks for the award, I would cherish it.

But I think that you should have it since you deserve it.