Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have a degree that say's otherwise.
Your degree doesn't matter. Your ignorance of basic Biology is profound.
Our DNA is very similar to that of the great apes. That doesn't mean that our offspring are monkeys.
It's the same thing with cats.......Feline DNA is very similar due to common ancestry.
The reason we share so much of the same DNA as great apes is due to common ancestry.
You can't comprehend even the most basic Biology.
I have a degree that say's otherwise.
Your degree doesn't matter. Your ignorance of basic Biology is profound.
Our DNA is very similar to that of the great apes. That doesn't mean that our offspring are monkeys.
It's the same thing with cats.......Feline DNA is very similar due to common ancestry.
The reason we share so much of the same DNA as great apes is due to common ancestry.
You can't comprehend even the most basic Biology.
And you appear to be too immature and/or insecure and/or undisciplined to be capable of civil debate. YWC is discussing a topic as a gentleman debates, and is not insulting or denigrating anybody whether or not he agrees or disagrees. But because you disagree you call him, and others of us, ignorant and stupid. Which of course makes you look ignorant and stupid. You really need to apply for a refund from your charm school.
Your degree doesn't matter. Your ignorance of basic Biology is profound.
Our DNA is very similar to that of the great apes. That doesn't mean that our offspring are monkeys.
It's the same thing with cats.......Feline DNA is very similar due to common ancestry.
The reason we share so much of the same DNA as great apes is due to common ancestry.
You can't comprehend even the most basic Biology.
And you appear to be too immature and/or insecure and/or undisciplined to be capable of civil debate. YWC is discussing a topic as a gentleman debates, and is not insulting or denigrating anybody whether or not he agrees or disagrees. But because you disagree you call him, and others of us, ignorant and stupid. Which of course makes you look ignorant and stupid. You really need to apply for a refund from your charm school.
There's a charm school? Why wasn't I informed?
Yep,you are ignoring it took intelligence to achieve this goal. Another problem they can't form a cell that will form other cells ,nice try.
The Cell Theory states: All living organisms are composed of cells. They may be unicellular or multicellular.
The cell is the basic unit of life.
Cells arise from pre-existing cells.
Cell Theory
Thank you for playing.
Your assertion was not that cells could reproduce. Your assertion was that protein could not be created outside of a cell.
Protien can be and has been created outside of a cell.
Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough a cell could not form under natural conditions one reason is free oxygen would prevent it. Then the cell must be complete so it can produce more cells. Creating a cell in the lab does not qualify because they don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell come into condition. This was not achieved from a natural process it was done through intelligence. a designer get it ?
Your assertion was not that cells could reproduce. Your assertion was that protein could not be created outside of a cell.
Protien can be and has been created outside of a cell.
Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough a cell could not form under natural conditions one reason is free oxygen would prevent it. Then the cell must be complete so it can produce more cells. Creating a cell in the lab does not qualify because they don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell come into condition. This was not achieved from a natural process it was done through intelligence. a designer get it ?
If we don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell was created, how can you state with confidence that it could not have happened for any reason like free oxygen? You don't know the conditions, perhaps there was no free oxygen at the time.
Don't try to rebut an idea based on ignorance, then claim knowledge in the same paragraph. Or are you saying the scientists involved in this did not know the conditions of the earth, but YOU do?
Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough a cell could not form under natural conditions one reason is free oxygen would prevent it. Then the cell must be complete so it can produce more cells. Creating a cell in the lab does not qualify because they don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell come into condition. This was not achieved from a natural process it was done through intelligence. a designer get it ?
If we don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell was created, how can you state with confidence that it could not have happened for any reason like free oxygen? You don't know the conditions, perhaps there was no free oxygen at the time.
Don't try to rebut an idea based on ignorance, then claim knowledge in the same paragraph. Or are you saying the scientists involved in this did not know the conditions of the earth, but YOU do?
But, though YWC and I are taking different approaches to this and disagree on conclusions here and there, he is coming from a position of some strength of knowledge of what the prevailing scientific opinion is. I am not about to get into an argument over the biology because I've already discerned he knows a hell of lot more about that than I do.
But however it happened or whatever the conditions that existed, it ultimately it all comes down to a living cell magically appearing out of non living matter, and the improbability of that occurring. Or, we can go with the much more plausible theory of some kind of intelligence being behind the event.
If we don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell was created, how can you state with confidence that it could not have happened for any reason like free oxygen? You don't know the conditions, perhaps there was no free oxygen at the time.
Don't try to rebut an idea based on ignorance, then claim knowledge in the same paragraph. Or are you saying the scientists involved in this did not know the conditions of the earth, but YOU do?
But, though YWC and I are taking different approaches to this and disagree on conclusions here and there, he is coming from a position of some strength of knowledge of what the prevailing scientific opinion is. I am not about to get into an argument over the biology because I've already discerned he knows a hell of lot more about that than I do.
But however it happened or whatever the conditions that existed, it ultimately it all comes down to a living cell magically appearing out of non living matter, and the improbability of that occurring. Or, we can go with the much more plausible theory of some kind of intelligence being behind the event.
At some point, you must attach the chain to the ceiling or it falls. If you feel life had to be created to by an intelligence, then why did that intelligence not need to itself be created.
If the proposition is that life cannot occur naturally, then life could not occur. At some point, life had to just happen. That is the basis of both theories.
We have proof of natural life so we know that natural life exists. We have no proof of supernatural life. We cannot, therefore, know that this exists.
We can prove that life exists now. We can postulate that life did not exists at some point in the past, but not actually prove this. Maybe the protein hitched a ride on a comet and splashed down into a particularly accommodating puddle.
Maybe in the Big Bang when every particle of every bit of matter and anti matter and black matter and whatever other matter there was was blown apart in the explosion, the seed of life was concocted in ways we will never know during the cooling.
We simply cannot know this.
But, though YWC and I are taking different approaches to this and disagree on conclusions here and there, he is coming from a position of some strength of knowledge of what the prevailing scientific opinion is. I am not about to get into an argument over the biology because I've already discerned he knows a hell of lot more about that than I do.
But however it happened or whatever the conditions that existed, it ultimately it all comes down to a living cell magically appearing out of non living matter, and the improbability of that occurring. Or, we can go with the much more plausible theory of some kind of intelligence being behind the event.
At some point, you must attach the chain to the ceiling or it falls. If you feel life had to be created to by an intelligence, then why did that intelligence not need to itself be created.
If the proposition is that life cannot occur naturally, then life could not occur. At some point, life had to just happen. That is the basis of both theories.
We have proof of natural life so we know that natural life exists. We have no proof of supernatural life. We cannot, therefore, know that this exists.
We can prove that life exists now. We can postulate that life did not exists at some point in the past, but not actually prove this. Maybe the protein hitched a ride on a comet and splashed down into a particularly accommodating puddle.
Maybe in the Big Bang when every particle of every bit of matter and anti matter and black matter and whatever other matter there was was blown apart in the explosion, the seed of life was concocted in ways we will never know during the cooling.
We simply cannot know this.
No, nor can we KNOW that there was actually a big bang. But we can logically and rationally conclude the probability of some sort of cosmic event that we call the 'big bang' based on the orderly progression and behavior of the universe that we can observe.
And it is as reasonable to conclude that all the stuff of the universe has always existed as it is to conclude that an intelligence behind it all has always existed. Or that the intelligence exists within the whole of all the stuff of the universe. These are things that we cannot know.
But it is the very precision in the behavior of the universe and the living things in it, and the unimaginable improbability that it all could have happened purely by chance, that led great minds like Spinoza and Einstein to rationally and logically see a probability of an intelligence within the process.
There is absolutely no scientific theory or any means to measure in any way the factors that causes a person to fall in love with another person. Yet we know it happens with great predictability. There are simply many wonderful things for which there is no scientific explanation, but that nevertheless are within the field of science.
Your assertion was not that cells could reproduce. Your assertion was that protein could not be created outside of a cell.
Protien can be and has been created outside of a cell.
Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough a cell could not form under natural conditions one reason is free oxygen would prevent it. Then the cell must be complete so it can produce more cells. Creating a cell in the lab does not qualify because they don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell come into condition. This was not achieved from a natural process it was done through intelligence. a designer get it ?
If we don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell was created, how can you state with confidence that it could not have happened for any reason like free oxygen? You don't know the conditions, perhaps there was no free oxygen at the time.
Don't try to rebut an idea based on ignorance, then claim knowledge in the same paragraph. Or are you saying the scientists involved in this did not know the conditions of the earth, but YOU do?
If we don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell was created, how can you state with confidence that it could not have happened for any reason like free oxygen? You don't know the conditions, perhaps there was no free oxygen at the time.
Don't try to rebut an idea based on ignorance, then claim knowledge in the same paragraph. Or are you saying the scientists involved in this did not know the conditions of the earth, but YOU do?
But, though YWC and I are taking different approaches to this and disagree on conclusions here and there, he is coming from a position of some strength of knowledge of what the prevailing scientific opinion is. I am not about to get into an argument over the biology because I've already discerned he knows a hell of lot more about that than I do.
But however it happened or whatever the conditions that existed, it ultimately it all comes down to a living cell magically appearing out of non living matter, and the improbability of that occurring. Or, we can go with the much more plausible theory of some kind of intelligence being behind the event.
At some point, you must attach the chain to the ceiling or it falls. If you feel life had to be created to by an intelligence, then why did that intelligence not need to itself be created.
If the proposition is that life cannot occur naturally, then life could not occur. At some point, life had to just happen. That is the basis of both theories.
We have proof of natural life so we know that natural life exists. We have no proof of supernatural life. We cannot, therefore, know that this exists.
We can prove that life exists now. We can postulate that life did not exists at some point in the past, but not actually prove this. Maybe the protein hitched a ride on a comet and splashed down into a particularly accommodating puddle.
Maybe in the Big Bang when every particle of every bit of matter and anti matter and black matter and whatever other matter there was was blown apart in the explosion, the seed of life was concocted in ways we will never know during the cooling.
We simply cannot know this.
At some point, you must attach the chain to the ceiling or it falls. If you feel life had to be created to by an intelligence, then why did that intelligence not need to itself be created.
If the proposition is that life cannot occur naturally, then life could not occur. At some point, life had to just happen. That is the basis of both theories.
We have proof of natural life so we know that natural life exists. We have no proof of supernatural life. We cannot, therefore, know that this exists.
We can prove that life exists now. We can postulate that life did not exists at some point in the past, but not actually prove this. Maybe the protein hitched a ride on a comet and splashed down into a particularly accommodating puddle.
Maybe in the Big Bang when every particle of every bit of matter and anti matter and black matter and whatever other matter there was was blown apart in the explosion, the seed of life was concocted in ways we will never know during the cooling.
We simply cannot know this.
No, nor can we KNOW that there was actually a big bang. But we can logically and rationally conclude the probability of some sort of cosmic event that we call the 'big bang' based on the orderly progression and behavior of the universe that we can observe.
And it is as reasonable to conclude that all the stuff of the universe has always existed as it is to conclude that an intelligence behind it all has always existed. Or that the intelligence exists within the whole of all the stuff of the universe. These are things that we cannot know.
But it is the very precision in the behavior of the universe and the living things in it, and the unimaginable improbability that it all could have happened purely by chance, that led great minds like Spinoza and Einstein to rationally and logically see a probability of an intelligence within the process.
There is absolutely no scientific theory or any means to measure in any way the factors that causes a person to fall in love with another person. Yet we know it happens with great predictability. There are simply many wonderful things for which there is no scientific explanation, but that nevertheless are within the field of science.
I still don't see how we can decide the probabilities of the various events in the past. How can probability be calculated when there are so many unknown factors?
I was unaware there is a way to predict someone falling in love.
At some point, you must attach the chain to the ceiling or it falls. If you feel life had to be created to by an intelligence, then why did that intelligence not need to itself be created.
If the proposition is that life cannot occur naturally, then life could not occur. At some point, life had to just happen. That is the basis of both theories.
We have proof of natural life so we know that natural life exists. We have no proof of supernatural life. We cannot, therefore, know that this exists.
We can prove that life exists now. We can postulate that life did not exists at some point in the past, but not actually prove this. Maybe the protein hitched a ride on a comet and splashed down into a particularly accommodating puddle.
Maybe in the Big Bang when every particle of every bit of matter and anti matter and black matter and whatever other matter there was was blown apart in the explosion, the seed of life was concocted in ways we will never know during the cooling.
We simply cannot know this.
No, nor can we KNOW that there was actually a big bang. But we can logically and rationally conclude the probability of some sort of cosmic event that we call the 'big bang' based on the orderly progression and behavior of the universe that we can observe.
And it is as reasonable to conclude that all the stuff of the universe has always existed as it is to conclude that an intelligence behind it all has always existed. Or that the intelligence exists within the whole of all the stuff of the universe. These are things that we cannot know.
But it is the very precision in the behavior of the universe and the living things in it, and the unimaginable improbability that it all could have happened purely by chance, that led great minds like Spinoza and Einstein to rationally and logically see a probability of an intelligence within the process.
There is absolutely no scientific theory or any means to measure in any way the factors that causes a person to fall in love with another person. Yet we know it happens with great predictability. There are simply many wonderful things for which there is no scientific explanation, but that nevertheless are within the field of science.
I still don't see how we can decide the probabilities of the various events in the past. How can probability be calculated when there are so many unknown factors?
I was unaware there is a way to predict someone falling in love.
Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough a cell could not form under natural conditions one reason is free oxygen would prevent it. Then the cell must be complete so it can produce more cells. Creating a cell in the lab does not qualify because they don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell come into condition. This was not achieved from a natural process it was done through intelligence. a designer get it ?
If we don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell was created, how can you state with confidence that it could not have happened for any reason like free oxygen? You don't know the conditions, perhaps there was no free oxygen at the time.
Don't try to rebut an idea based on ignorance, then claim knowledge in the same paragraph. Or are you saying the scientists involved in this did not know the conditions of the earth, but YOU do?
How would you explain oxygen in rocks dated way before free oxygen showed up ?
How would you explain life existing 3.6 billion years ago and oxygen was not here until 2.6 billion years ago ?
I don't believe any of this we are discussing I believe the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 13,000 years old. But I base that off of my belief in the bible. And i have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise. But my belief is faith based and I don't have a problem admitting it. Man has no way to know the past our knowledge is very limited.
My point all along is to show evidence of design and show the contradictions in what you believe and how your view goes logic and against evidence that can be tested,studied,and observed.
But, though YWC and I are taking different approaches to this and disagree on conclusions here and there, he is coming from a position of some strength of knowledge of what the prevailing scientific opinion is. I am not about to get into an argument over the biology because I've already discerned he knows a hell of lot more about that than I do.
But however it happened or whatever the conditions that existed, it ultimately it all comes down to a living cell magically appearing out of non living matter, and the improbability of that occurring. Or, we can go with the much more plausible theory of some kind of intelligence being behind the event.
At some point, you must attach the chain to the ceiling or it falls. If you feel life had to be created to by an intelligence, then why did that intelligence not need to itself be created.
If the proposition is that life cannot occur naturally, then life could not occur. At some point, life had to just happen. That is the basis of both theories.
We have proof of natural life so we know that natural life exists. We have no proof of supernatural life. We cannot, therefore, know that this exists.
We can prove that life exists now. We can postulate that life did not exists at some point in the past, but not actually prove this. Maybe the protein hitched a ride on a comet and splashed down into a particularly accommodating puddle.
Maybe in the Big Bang when every particle of every bit of matter and anti matter and black matter and whatever other matter there was was blown apart in the explosion, the seed of life was concocted in ways we will never know during the cooling.
We simply cannot know this.
That is a reasonable question and the only answer I can give is he needed no creation he has always existed. This to I take on faith as well but if there is a being that exists and created all we see I won't question him being eternal.
If we don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell was created, how can you state with confidence that it could not have happened for any reason like free oxygen? You don't know the conditions, perhaps there was no free oxygen at the time.
Don't try to rebut an idea based on ignorance, then claim knowledge in the same paragraph. Or are you saying the scientists involved in this did not know the conditions of the earth, but YOU do?
How would you explain oxygen in rocks dated way before free oxygen showed up ?
How would you explain life existing 3.6 billion years ago and oxygen was not here until 2.6 billion years ago ?
I don't believe any of this we are discussing I believe the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 13,000 years old. But I base that off of my belief in the bible. And i have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise. But my belief is faith based and I don't have a problem admitting it. Man has no way to know the past our knowledge is very limited.
My point all along is to show evidence of design and show the contradictions in what you believe and how your view goes logic and against evidence that can be tested,studied,and observed.
Seems like the Bible might pick up the story following the thaw leading to the current interglacial.
The melt of the glacial ice led to many events of flooding including the filling of the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. These would have been spectacular sights and would have completely drowned any society in this low lands.
Is it your belief that the whole creation occurred 6 to 13 thousand years ago or that just the Earth was created 6 to 13 thousand years ago?
At some point, you must attach the chain to the ceiling or it falls. If you feel life had to be created to by an intelligence, then why did that intelligence not need to itself be created.
If the proposition is that life cannot occur naturally, then life could not occur. At some point, life had to just happen. That is the basis of both theories.
We have proof of natural life so we know that natural life exists. We have no proof of supernatural life. We cannot, therefore, know that this exists.
We can prove that life exists now. We can postulate that life did not exists at some point in the past, but not actually prove this. Maybe the protein hitched a ride on a comet and splashed down into a particularly accommodating puddle.
Maybe in the Big Bang when every particle of every bit of matter and anti matter and black matter and whatever other matter there was was blown apart in the explosion, the seed of life was concocted in ways we will never know during the cooling.
We simply cannot know this.
That is a reasonable question and the only answer I can give is he needed no creation he has always existed. This to I take on faith as well but if there is a being that exists and created all we see I won't question him being eternal.
If you have faith, you need no proof. If you have proof, you need no faith.
How would you explain oxygen in rocks dated way before free oxygen showed up ?
How would you explain life existing 3.6 billion years ago and oxygen was not here until 2.6 billion years ago ?
I don't believe any of this we are discussing I believe the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 13,000 years old. But I base that off of my belief in the bible. And i have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise. But my belief is faith based and I don't have a problem admitting it. Man has no way to know the past our knowledge is very limited.
My point all along is to show evidence of design and show the contradictions in what you believe and how your view goes logic and against evidence that can be tested,studied,and observed.
Seems like the Bible might pick up the story following the thaw leading to the current interglacial.
The melt of the glacial ice led to many events of flooding including the filling of the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. These would have been spectacular sights and would have completely drowned any society in this low lands.
Is it your belief that the whole creation occurred 6 to 13 thousand years ago or that just the Earth was created 6 to 13 thousand years ago?
Not sure,if we go by mans timeline 6,000 years if we go by Gods timeline 13,000. The heavens and the earth were created according to the scriptures on the first day of creation how long was a day to God. The bible say's a day to God is one thousand years.
So I just don't know what to believe and I wish the bible went into more detail on how he created things but he didn't. The key is believe in Christ and have faith and that I do.
Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Neither.
Evolution
