Creation vs. Evolution

[Tyrathca]

How about we just skip right to the "mating" question. Please explain how "sex" evolved from an organism that had non-sexual reproduction. My theory is "In the beginning, God created them male and female." Whenever I see this question asked in debates, the evolutionist stammers, and says something like "We can talk about that when you're older..."

Well it most likely started with very early single celled eukaryotes, likely as an expansion of the process prokaryotes do known as transformation. The exact circumstances around how it formed however will likely never be known for certain though, this is because the events were likely 2 billion years ago (+/- a few hundred million) and involved single cell organisms thus there is very little surviving data to work with.

Did you even bother to search that question yourself though? There are literally whole websites dedicated to that question and even a decent wikipedia page. Do you simply not like the lack of a definitive "this is exactly what happened" answer? If so then you might as well stop discussing any science now and just stick tot he false answers given with fraudulent certainty provided by religions. The main point to take is that there are potential explanations and thus the existence of sex does not invalidate evolution in and of itself.

 

[Tyrathca]

If you employed a million monkeys with a million typewriters for a million years, even if you wrote Shakespeare by accident, it wouldn't mean anything unless you had people that read English.

So even if you somehow against all odds formed a DNA strand from random interactions, which is far more unlikely than the monkey scenario given that there are destructive forces working at the same time (and even faster) than what randomly builds upon itself, what good is it unless you have an organism that is already programmed to know what to do with it?

DNA isn't life, it's a code that is read by things that are alive.

Which is why no scientist thinks the first life came in the form of a fully formed cellular organism. There are a few competing ideas as to what form the first life took, my favourite being self-replicating RNA, though I'm just a layman on the topic really and research into which processes are even possible is still ongoing (a challenge may be that multiple are possible in which case we'll have a hard time telling which one of those happened for us)

 

[Jonahdog]

Irrespective of not being able to explain species notwithstanding, perhaps you could enlighten us knownothing's why it is that all that has evolved is NOT cloned from and orginal copy?

Are you suggesting that all organisms are clones from an original kind? Please explain

 

[Rosenritter]

Which is why no scientist thinks the first life came in the form of a fully formed cellular organism. There are a few competing ideas as to what form the first life took, my favourite being self-replicating RNA, though I'm just a layman on the topic really and research into which processes are even possible is still ongoing (a challenge may be that multiple are possible in which case we'll have a hard time telling which one of those happened for us)

Is there such a thing as a halfway formed cellular organism? That's an awfully big jump there. Maybe if half a cellular organism formed, and it happened to bump into another halfway formed cellular organism that evolved at precisely the same time in precisely the same location, they might stick together I suppose.

 

[Rosenritter]

Well it most likely started with very early single celled eukaryotes, likely as an expansion of the process prokaryotes do known as transformation. The exact circumstances around how it formed however will likely never be known for certain though, this is because the events were likely 2 billion years ago (+/- a few hundred million) and involved single cell organisms thus there is very little surviving data to work with.

Did you even bother to search that question yourself though? There are literally whole websites dedicated to that question and even a decent wikipedia page. Do you simply not like the lack of a definitive "this is exactly what happened" answer? If so then you might as well stop discussing any science now and just stick tot he false answers given with fraudulent certainty provided by religions. The main point to take is that there are potential explanations and thus the existence of sex does not invalidate evolution in and of itself.

That doesn't sound like a very viable explanation. If you have an organism that replicates, and then somewhere one of those offspring can no longer reproduce by itself, that offspring is defective and less likely to produce offspring. In fact, it can't produce offspring at all. It's a dead end.

 

[6days]

There are a few competing ideas as to what form the first life took, my favourite being self-replicating RNA

The most logical idea....the most scientific idea is that life came from life. Your "favorite" idea is foolish.

Here is something I wrote and posted before on the topic.....


“Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began”, is an article in the Feb 2011 Scientific American. John Horgan actually wrote the article 20 years ago but the editor at the time wouldn't print it. That 20 years have past and for the article still to be relevant speaks as to how false evolutionary theory, (and the origins of life) really is.

Horgan explains that the problem is life can't spontaneously arise from non living chemicals. Life does not and cannot spontaneously generate from non-living chemicals. He goes on to say, ": “DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?”. Horgan then alluded to outlandish claims made by Richard Dawkins and others who said that life on earth may have been seeded here by aliens. Of the alien "theory", Horgan says that serves to “push the problem of life’s origin into outer space. If life didn’t begin here, how did it begin out there?"

Horgan is exactly right when he says that scientists (read that “evolutionary scientists”) do not have a clue how life began. (There are thousands of creationist scientists who do have a clue). That being the case, the only truly “scientific” idea left would be to follow the evidence where it leads—to an intelligent, supernatural creator.

"In the beginning, God created

 

[Jonahdog]

Aww 6, more of the same reliance on the creation myths of nomads rather than 21st Century science.

 

[6days]

Aww 6, more of the same reliance on the creation myths of nomads rather than 21st Century science.

Your fellow evolutionists are going to get upset with you Jonah. They think Scientific American is 21st century science.

 

[Stripe]

Aww 6, more of the same reliance on the creation myths of nomads rather than 21st Century science.

Remember, folks, Jonahdog and Tyrathca were challenged over their mockery of the source as if that was a rational response to Rosen's challenge.

That's how these things go; the Darwinists use mockery until it becomes untenable and then start on the real nonsense.

An honest man would never dream of pretending that their ridicule toward Reader's Digest was intellectually honest and would go out of his way to right the record if called on something like that. Evolutionists? Not them. They'll double down on their dishonesty and plow on as if nothing had happened.

See what we mean?

 

[Tyrathca]

The most logical idea....the most scientific idea is that life came from life. Your "favorite" idea is foolish.

No that is an unwarranted assumption given the evidence shows there was a time when there was no life and then there was a time with very very simple life. The most logical answer is that life started then.

Does science know how? No, but then that's because science (unlike religion) doesn't claim to know everything. We have ideas and the process of non-life to life thus far does not look impossible theoretically at least.

To claim this as a failure of Science though is to misunderstand the very nature of Science. It has a very long list of don't knows and not sures, because if science knew everything it would stop.

But sure, go back to your fake answers given with false surety provided by your religion if this bothers you.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Cross Reference]

Are you suggesting that all organisms are clones from an original kind? Please explain

I am, now, YOU explain WHY they aren't!

50 million years for a 'fart' of air to support the idea of life to have evolved, surely must mean there was a human involved?

 

[Jonahdog]

Your fellow evolutionists are going to get upset with you Jonah. They think Scientific American is 21st century science.

Actually 6 it was a comment on your last sentence.

 

[Jonahdog]

I am, now, YOU explain WHY they aren't!

50 million years for a 'fart' of air to support the idea of life to have evolved, surely must mean there was a human involved?

Clones are genetically identical. Do you understand what that means?

 

[Cross Reference]

Clones are genetically identical. Do you understand what that means?

No-o-o-o, go on?? You mean like farts, right?

 

[Jonahdog]

No-o-o-o, go on??

Ah, well I am sure you can do some research, start with Wiki.

 

[Jonahdog]

The most logical idea....the most scientific idea is that life came from life. Your "favorite" idea is foolish.

Here is something I wrote and posted before on the topic.....


“Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began”, is an article in the Feb 2011 Scientific American. John Horgan actually wrote the article 20 years ago but the editor at the time wouldn't print it. That 20 years have past and for the article still to be relevant speaks as to how false evolutionary theory, (and the origins of life) really is.

Horgan explains that the problem is life can't spontaneously arise from non living chemicals. Life does not and cannot spontaneously generate from non-living chemicals. He goes on to say, ": “DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?”. Horgan then alluded to outlandish claims made by Richard Dawkins and others who said that life on earth may have been seeded here by aliens. Of the alien "theory", Horgan says that serves to “push the problem of life’s origin into outer space. If life didn’t begin here, how did it begin out there?"

Horgan is exactly right when he says that scientists (read that “evolutionary scientists”) do not have a clue how life began. (There are thousands of creationist scientists who do have a clue). That being the case, the only truly “scientific” idea left would be to follow the evidence where it leads—to an intelligent, supernatural creator.

"In the beginning, God created

6, did you even read Horgan's article?
1. Your statement that the editor 20 years before would not print the article is incorrect and misleading. The editor had a problem with the title of a similar article Horgan wrote 20 years ago. He wrote an article on the subject published in Scientific American on February 1, 1991. Again, the editor had a problem with the title, your post suggests the editor had a problem with the topic, suggesting the editor was a part of the great atheistic conspiracy---Wrong.
2. You quote mine Horgan's article but leave out "After its formation 4.5 billion years ago, Earth was bombarded...", "Researchers have found evidence of microbial life dating back 3.5 billion years ago..."
3. Despite the problems Horgan notes in trying to understand how life began "And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God"

You continue to grasp at straws and ignore the real world.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Very well then Michael, let's discuss this here. I will lay out a few ground rules. If we can agree on the rules we can proceed further. If we cannot agree on the rules then let us figure out rules we can agree on.

The question being addressed is "According to scripture, will God torment or torture anyone for an infinite duration?" This is also summarized by the pithy phrase "Eternal Conscious Torment" and can be found within the traditional doctrine of both the Roman Catholic Church and Islam. I understand your position to be "the Bible says yes" and my position to be "the Bible says no."

Rules follow:

1. All proof and evidence shall be from scripture. Scripture is to be defined including the sixty-six books of the canonical Christian bible. As there are differences in Bible translation which may or may not affect meaning, we shall use the King James Version (1769, modern punctuation and spelling).

2. Other non-canonical sources such as the book of Jasher, the book of Enoch, the books of the Apocrypha, and so forth, are not to be considered evidence. Quotations and opinions of theologians are irrelevant in terms of proof or evidence. Personal stories, dreams, and visions are not acceptable as evidence, and shall not be a substitute for scripture.

3. Questions shall be answered when asked, and likewise we shall attempt to abstain from rhetorical questions (or at least label them as such.) When a question is asked, we shall wait for the response rather than filling in the answer in an attempt to save time or provide a witty comeback.

4. Emotional arguments, while they may have their due place in persuasion, shall not be considered as evidence. See rule number 1, all evidence shall be from scripture.

5. Words shall be assumed to carry their normal meaning unless that would be incompatible with the immediate context. The scripture shall be allowed to interpret scripture to determine specific word meaning and application where it may differ with modern usage or dictionary meaning.

6. Scripture shall be considered inerrant and free from contradiction. Any interpretation which requires contradiction that does not resolve from scripture shall be deemed to be in error.

Are you willing to address this question on these terms? Or are there any other terms that should be included?

Yes, there is another term that should be included. My term is that I'm not going to let you set any terms for me or yourself, and that you would take a chance to place rules on what I post. Who died and made you the term man? Okay, I will try to be good, but this is really being kind of one-sided or so?

I have prayed and I do believe I have found your missing link, the reason you don't believe what I have to say. I do not know which Scripture it is, but I will check later. It is written symbolically that in the end, 1/3 of the Earth's people will go to Heaven; and 1/3 shall remain on the Earth (the 'Meek' shall inherit the Earth}; and 1/3 shall go to sleep in the dust of the Earth, because they are not ready yet for Heaven or Hell. These people shall wait until Judgment Day to be judged by God on where they shall go: Heaven, or Hell, or back on Earth again.

These must be the ones you are caught up in being buried in the ground. It is written, "And the rest {remainder} of the dead {in the ground/lot} did not 'Live AGAIN' until the 1,000 years were finished. This is the first resurrection {see Rev. 20:5KJV}. So this is where you're getting the dead from. Just as it is written in Dan. 12:13KJV. This is because God will judge Daniel during the first resurrection and that until that time, he will rest in the ground until then. Now we know that certain people are ready to be sent to Heaven or Hell right after they die. Moses and Abraham, went to Heaven after their God's spirit/their spirit, left their body. This is why the disciples saw them talking to Jesus in the garden where Jesus was betrayed. It also is worth noting that Samuel was called by Saul out of the 'grave' 'in spirit,' when Saul went to a psychic to beg an answer from Samuel about the upcoming war. Oh well, I digress.

Anyway, many souls die and go to Heaven or Hell immediately when it is clear that they love God and serve Him. The thief on the cross with Jesus went to Heaven immediately after his death, and was not put in the ground first to await the first resurrection. This is true in many cases, like Moses, Abraham, Jesus, and those taken to Heaven immediately. Oh well, I'd best close for now. This will have to do and it is getting quite lengthy.

You are a strong ally on my thread here. If we don't agree, it is fine. We can still agree on other things. There's much more that I could tell you though. It's extremely late now, so I must get going for the night. It's 4a.m. here. Bedtime!

Much Love, In Christ!!

Michael

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes, there is another term that should be included. My term is that I'm not going to let you set any terms for me or yourself, and that you would take a chance to place rules on what I post. Who died and made you the term man? Okay, I will try to be good, but this is really being kind of one-sided or so?

I have prayed and I do believe I have found your missing link, the reason you don't believe what I have to say. I do not know which Scripture it is, but I will check later. It is written symbolically that in the end, 1/3 of the Earth's people will go to Heaven; and 1/3 shall remain on the Earth (the 'Meek' shall inherit the Earth}; and 1/3 shall go to sleep in the dust of the Earth, because they are not ready yet for Heaven or Hell. These people shall wait until Judgment Day to be judged by God on where they shall go: Heaven, or Hell, or back on Earth again.

These must be the ones you are caught up in being buried in the ground. It is written, "And the rest {remainder} of the dead {in the ground/lot} did not 'Live AGAIN' until the 1,000 years were finished. This is the first resurrection {see Rev. 20:5KJV}. So this is where you're getting the dead from. Just as it is written in Dan. 12:13KJV. This is because God will judge Daniel during the first resurrection and that until that time, he will rest in the ground until then. Now we know that certain people are ready to be sent to Heaven or Hell right after they die. Moses and Abraham, went to Heaven after their God's spirit/their spirit, left their body. This is why the disciples saw them talking to Jesus in the garden where Jesus was betrayed. It also is worth noting that Samuel was called by Saul out of the 'grave' 'in spirit,' when Saul went to a psychic to beg an answer from Samuel about the upcoming war. Oh well, I digress.

Anyway, many souls die and go to Heaven or Hell immediately when it is clear that they love God and serve Him. The thief on the cross with Jesus went to Heaven immediately after his death, and was not put in the ground first to await the first resurrection. This is true in many cases, like Moses, Abraham, Jesus, and those taken to Heaven immediately. Oh well, I'd best close for now. This will have to do and it is getting quite lengthy.

You are a strong ally on my thread here. If we don't agree, it is fine. We can still agree on other things. There's much more that I could tell you though. It's extremely late now, so I must get going for the night. It's 4a.m. here. Bedtime!

Much Love, In Christ!!

Michael

Your rule is that you refuse to agree upon or follow any rules? Please explain which of those previous conditions you are unable to comply with, and why.

For example, if you admit that you cannot prove from scripture, that would explain why you would refuse "scripture only" limitations.

 

[6days]

... the evidence shows there was a time when there was no life and then there was a time with very very simple life.

The evidence shows that life comes from life...and that complex sophisticated life began suddenly on earth. There is a scientific law discussing the generation of life from existing life.

Does science know how? No, but then that's because science (unlike religion) doesn't claim to know everything.

Haha.... there is no religion on earth that claims to know everything.

We have ideas and the process of non-life to life thus far does not look impossible theoretically at least.

False.
It looks totally impossible without a great deal of intelligence.

 

[Tyrathca]

The evidence shows that life comes from life....

And life does come from life.

And you're just assuming that it always does regardless of conditions. Like someone from the tropics without a freezer saying water can never be solid.

There is a scientific law discussing the generation of life from existing life.

Can you name that law?
.

False.
It looks totally impossible without a great deal of intelligence.

Well you are sort of right. It does look impossible to those without a great deal of intelligence :chuckle:



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk