• 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.

SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Eddi said:
You are just repeating yourself

These have been explained to you many times before

You are demonstrating nothing more than wilful ignorance

Why don't you satisfy your ignorance by looking at reputable websites?

We both know the answer to that, don't we?

You're a spammer and a time waster and your deeds here do nothing other than make creationism look as desperate and weak as it truly is

You don't accept scientific answers so quit demanding them

You're a time waster extraordinaire
Click to expand...
That was my thoughts on the multiple trees.
Can you enlighten us why there is just one?
 
Eddi

Eddi

Christianity
Premium Member
SavedByTheLord said:
That was my thoughts on the multiple trees.
Can you enlighten us why there is just one?
Click to expand...
If you think you know better than scientists go and ask scientists

You are on a religious forum

The clue is in the name

You are in the wrong place

Find some science forums and try your nonsense there

But then you cannot tell the difference between science and religion, can you???????

You don't even know what science is

You are a damning indictment of your nation's education system

I know the basics and you clearly don't yet you are asking questions that can only be answered with advanced answers

So go and spew your nonsense on some science forums, that's my advice to you
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Eddi said:
If you think you know better than scientists go and ask scientists

You are on a religious forum

The clue is in the name

You are in the wrong place

Find some science forums and try your nonsense there

But then you cannot tell the difference between science and religion, can you???????

You don't even know what science is

You are a damning indictment of your nation's education system

I know the basics and you clearly don't yet you are asking questions that can only be answered with advanced answers

So go and spew your nonsense on some science forums, that's my advice to you
Click to expand...
So evolution is a religion then and not science.
Remove it from all public schools then.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
ratiocinator said:
Yet more evidence of total ignorance of the science. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not me.

Why haven’t scientists been able to make a living creature from primordial soup? Or long chains of proteins or RNA or DNA?

Afterall, if abiogenies is such a slam dunk and the scientists know so much about the conditions that were in the early earth that led to the first living creature, why can’t they run experiments that produce a living thing? They should be able to run very many of these experiments simultaneously. They can choose as many different initial conditions so that they can test all of their conjectures simultaneously.

The goal should of course be to produce a living creature. But abiogenesis is impossible so that will not happen. But they could choose a much simpler goal. To produce strands of DNA, RNA, or amino acid sequences of at least 20,000 nucleotides or amino acids long all strung together. They must all be right-handed for the DNA and RNA or left-handed for the amino acids. They also should be the 20 aminos in living things or the correct 4 nucleotides for DNA or RNA. Of course, they should be folded correctly. That too is not going to happen either.

If they want to cheat a lot, they can start out with either a 50-50 racemic of amino acids with all 20 or the nucleotides and see if the above strands emerge. Of course, without some real intelligent design this too will not happen. Until they do, remove evolution from all schools of any kind.
 
Eddi

Eddi

Christianity
Premium Member
SavedByTheLord said:
So evolution is a religion then and not science.
Remove it from all public schools then.
Click to expand...
That is not what I said and you know it

You cannot tell the difference between religion and science

You have them confused

You are "discussing" evolution on a religious forum

The proper place to discuss it it on a science forum

But to you there is no difference

Let's see how long you'd last on a science forum I don't think you'd last five minutes
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
SavedByTheLord said:
Not me.
Click to expand...
Yes you. Here comes more evidence:

SavedByTheLord said:
Why haven’t scientists been able to make a living creature from primordial soup? Or long chains of proteins or RNA or DNA?
Click to expand...
Every time you ask these sorts of questions you show not only that you're ignorant of the science but the fact you ignored the serious answers you got initially to them, shows that you don't care about your ignorance and have no desire to learn.
 
Eddi

Eddi

Christianity
Premium Member
ratiocinator said:
Every time you ask these sorts of questions you show not only that you're ignorant of the science but the fact you ignored the serious answers you got initially to them, shows that you don't care about your ignorance and have no desire to learn.
Click to expand...
I'm ignorant but I want to learn

Assuming it's a sensible question, what is the answer to it? Have scientists ever recreated the primordial soup and made life out of it?
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
SavedByTheLord said:
Not me.

Why haven’t scientists been able to make a living creature from primordial soup? Or long chains of proteins or RNA or DNA?

Afterall, if abiogenies is such a slam dunk and the scientists know so much about the conditions that were in the early earth that led to the first living creature, why can’t they run experiments that produce a living thing? They should be able to run very many of these experiments simultaneously. They can choose as many different initial conditions so that they can test all of their conjectures simultaneously.

The goal should of course be to produce a living creature. But abiogenesis is impossible so that will not happen. But they could choose a much simpler goal. To produce strands of DNA, RNA, or amino acid sequences of at least 20,000 nucleotides or amino acids long all strung together. They must all be right-handed for the DNA and RNA or left-handed for the amino acids. They also should be the 20 aminos in living things or the correct 4 nucleotides for DNA or RNA. Of course, they should be folded correctly. That too is not going to happen either.

If they want to cheat a lot, they can start out with either a 50-50 racemic of amino acids with all 20 or the nucleotides and see if the above strands emerge. Of course, without some real intelligent design this too will not happen. Until they do, remove evolution from all schools of any kind.
Click to expand...
Which logical fallacy is it?

You do know there is more than one, right?
So how about you tell us which specific fallacy you are claiming that evolution is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top