|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussing the evidence that support creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But don't evolutionists do the same thing? No. Any other silly questions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Set off an explosion in space. If you observe the expanding debris cloud, you'll see eddies spinning here and there in various directions.
"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness." Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Okay, here we go.
Proteins. Simple proteins allow for cells to live. There are a specific 20 that are needed for DNA to be created. However, these 20 proteins are only created at the command of the DNA they produce. Assuming evolution is real, than at some time, there were neither, and now there are both. So, to start the cycle you need DNA, but DNA needs those 20 proteins, and those proteins need DNA. So, because both needs the other, one could logically conclude that there were either both or neither at the beginning of time (the big bang or 'God made the heavens and the earth'). And because there are both now, we must assume that both were created sometime between the beginning and now. Because of their mutual dependence on one another, both had to be created at the same time. Therefore, creation is the only likely solution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are a specific 20 that are needed for DNA to be created. No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
There are many things that don't support evolution and do creation (see message 168). So, evolutionists (yes, I say 'evolutionists' because I feel that evolutionism is not a science, but a religion. I'll explain later) must take the evidence that supports evolutionism, and ignore those that don't.
Now to explain my 'evolution is a religion' theory. Most would say religion needs a god, or higher being. However, most would agree that Buddhism is a religion, when there is no god(s). Therefore, the definition of religion could be stated as 'the belief in something in the face of little to no evidence'. Charles Darwin could be considered the 'inventor' of evolutionism. Now, being a scientific country, we like to base things on scientific evidence. Now, first, you have to prove something exists (to you). Being told that the sun exists if you live underground and have for your entire life, you don't know that it does. So, we have five senses to tell things exist. Has anybody here ever seen Darwin's brain, felt Darwin's brain, smelt, heard, or tasted his brain? Because nobody has done so, we cannot prove scientifically that Charles Darwin ever had a brain, and that his ideas had any validity. So, we must take them on faith of their origins. Faith without proof, because you cannot prove an idea if you cannot prove that the idea's origin ever existed. So, now that I've scientifically broken science, I realize that I must take science at its word. I must trust that scientists have brains, and that they know what they are doing. Therefore, everybody in the world that trusts scientists need faith that they have brains. So, if you can trust humans' brains even if you have no proof that they exist, why can't you trust a God, even if you have no proof He exists? Because the latter is considered a religion, why can't the former be one too? They have the same definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Even if I'm wrong, please watch this video and tell me how this could have evolved by chance.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5949506364325433037... Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened link to fix page width
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4116 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: Of course. I can see a huge flaw already in your argument. Early life wasn't DNA based. It was RNA based. Which is simpler and easier to make. Furthermore, your argument is seemingly implicitly arguing that the same level of complexity we see in DNA now is the same as it was back then.
quote: No you don't. Look up RNA and then get back to me. Let me guess, you get all of your info from Answers in Genesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You need to bring your own explanation of the issue to your posts.
If you don't understand it well enough to express it you will not understand it well enough to defend it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
The basic structure and working systems of the cells are way to advanced to appear from random events. I don't even think that hundreds of trillions of years are enough random events to create even a single eukaryote, let alone life forms with hundreds of thousands of them in distinct organs such as the heard, the eye, the brain, the kidney, the liver, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
That's just an expression of incredulity. Why do you think a few billion years isn't long enough for descent with modification through natural selection to produce the diversity of life we see today?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That is called "incredulity" and with a buck and a half might get you a cuppa joe.
The Topic happens to be "Discussing the evidence that support creationism" in case you missed it, and your personal disbelieve in evolution is not just off topic, it adds no support to Creationism. Perhaps it would help you if you studied Message 1. Until you read it and understand it it is unlikely you will learn how or be able to present some evidence that might support creationism. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Aquilegia753 writes: So, to start the cycle you need DNA, but DNA needs those 20 proteins, and those proteins need DNA. So, because both needs the other, one could logically conclude that there were either both or neither at the beginning of time.... To build trucks, you need a factory - but to build a factory, you need trucks. Therefore, God must have directly created the trucks and the factories. Is that what you're saying? Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
No. There were trucks before factories. However, there could not have been proteins before DNA, or DNA before proteins. Even if amino acids were created with uv light (lack of oxygen in early earth atmosphere) and electricity, what are the odds of those acids forming proteins without direction by the DNA that doesn't exist yet. And even if they did somehow form proteins that weren't immediately torn apart, what are the odds of those proteins forming cells? And, even under the extremely unlikely circumstance that a few cells were created, living cells, then what are the odds that they wouldn't be instantly killed by the very same UV rays that helped make them? And if there was oxygen back then, wouldn't the ingredients for life be destroyed by oxidization? Cells and oxygen, the very oxygen needed for cells to live, had to have been created at the same time, or the cells were protected during their creation or kept alive during the adding of oxygen to the atmosphere. This both implies a God and an instant creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
However, there could not have been proteins before DNA, or DNA before proteins. The earliest form of "life" was NOT DNA BASED. Do you make a habit of not reading the replies to your inanity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Do you make a habit of only reading the first sentence and judging the entire idea from it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024