|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussing the evidence that support creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Look, pal, any argument you make based on proteins or DNA is moot.
RNA was the first form of "life". Here is the post to which I am referring:
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. Neither proteins nor DNA are necessary for an "RNA World". Let me repeat this, since you seem hard-of-hearing: PROTEIN AND DNA ARE IRRELELVANT. Capiche?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I hope you take the time to learn a little something here. Could you please show us where Aquilegia or any Creationist came to this Forum to learn? Could you please also show us where any Evolutionist was recognized as a teacher and accepted in that role by any Creationist? Creationists come to EvC Forum to evidence Creationism and show the falsity of Evolutionism. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Aquilegia753 writes: There were trucks before factories. However, there could not have been proteins before DNA, or DNA before proteins. It's exactly the same situation. If there can be trucks without factories, why can't there be proteins without This both implies a God and an instant creation. Before you can come to that conclusion, you have to compare the odds. Show us your calculations of the odds for abiogenesis happening and show us your calculations of the odds for God existing. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4144 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
She has a point. I already discussed how your argument was flawed by ignoring RNA in post 173. You completely ignored it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4144 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: Then they must have infinite determination as they have failed countless times and will keep marching on the path to failure. As noted, there hasn't been evidence presented that supports creationism, just goddidit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4144 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: You should note that you want calculations for co-current trials. Not the sham and lies of single sequential trials that creationist pander in the face of the modern world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Could you please show us where Aquilegia or any Creationist came to this Forum to learn? There is no indication so far that Creationists can learn.
Could you please also show us where any Evolutionist was recognized as a teacher and accepted in that role by any Creationist? Nope.
Creationists come to EvC Forum to evidence Creationism and show the falsity of Evolutionism. If that is the case, why do they never bring any evidence? Edited by jar, : fix sub-title Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Then they must have infinite determination as they have failed countless times and will keep marching on the path to failure. As noted, there hasn't been evidence presented that supports creationism, just goddidit. All this says is that evolutionists will deny all evidence that contradicts their "evolution-did-it" theory. If you want to review quite a bit of evidence from a YEC (which I am not) then go here: The Emperor Has No Clothes - Naturalism and The Theory of Evolution Kenneth Miller's Best Arguments Against Intelligent Design Radiometric Dating Methods The Evolution of Early Man The Evolution of Early Man The Geologic Column The Fossil Record The Evolution of the Flagellum Limited Evolutionary Potential The Evolution of the Human Eye Evolving the Irreducible - Behe's Mousetrap Problem Radiocarbon Dating The first thing you will learn about is the Emperor's New Clothes, which is a metaphoric story corresponding to society today. The Emperor, of course, is naked (= there is no evidence of evolution). Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
If you want to review quite a bit of evidence from a YEC (which I am not) then go here: So, you put forth this list of PRATTs, which you refer to as "quite a bit of evidence," but then immediately disclaim any belief in the evidence by saying that you are not a YEC. I think the internal consistency meter has just blown itself out of existence. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
So, you put forth this list of PRATTs, which you refer to as "quite a bit of evidence," but then immediately disclaim any belief in the evidence by saying that you are not a YEC. I think the internal consistency meter has just blown itself out of existence. You have misunderstood. I was attempting to say that whatever arguments are made to support a young earth I reject. Everything else is top notch stuff. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
You have misunderstood. I was attempting to say that whatever arguments are made to support a young earth I reject. Everything else is top notch stuff. Uh huh. I suppose you think by this reply you've undermined my point. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Ah, Ray, you've been here long enough to know we don't play dueling websites.
The topic, in case you missed it, is "Discussing the evidence that support creationism". Do you ever expect to actually present something on topic? Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4144 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
And just how many of those do you expect me to buy? Especially when it is extremely likely that those have already been refuted and you're just using the standard wash, rinse repeat tactic of creationists?
I COULD go and spend a large chunk of time refuting your garbage (as others have done so), but I see little point when all you will do is pretend I never made the refutation and in a few weeks you simply repeat the same refuted argument verbatim hoping that people forgot that such a argument was refuted. I know just how dishonest creationists are and that much of their 'victories' are only gained through a war of time attrition. And if there was no evidence for creation, why is that you and many other creationists simply flee from many threads showing it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Even if I'm wrong, please watch this video and tell me how this could have evolved by chance. Even without watching the video, I can tell you that things don't evolve by chance. Natural selection is also involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 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. No, there are many things that you believe don't support evolution and do creation. On examination, these beliefs turn out to be wrong.
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. Thank you, I can't stop giggling. This, truly, is a new twist on the ol' "science is a religion" nonsense. A few points. First, I do in fact have evidence that humans have brains. Second, you write: "you cannot prove an idea if you cannot prove that the idea's origin ever existed". I know that the idea had an origin (or do you suppose that the theory of evolution has existed for all eternity, world without end, amen?) and also I can, in fact, prove an idea true while knowing nothing of its origin. I can prove that 2 + 2 = 4 without knowing who thought of it first. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024