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.
According to evolution, what had to come first? The baby or egg. This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did. How do I know what happened. We have God's autobiography. He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
That's why I brought up design. We find there is intelligence behind the design. Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be. Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
For example:
2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?
and so on. We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables. Yet, if we see the design, then our minds fill in the blanks.
2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...
Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first. However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen. Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first. Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie. Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge. I can give you more complex examples if you want.
How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg. We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3 Notice, he didn't create the sun. He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.
So you believe that you are the product of pond scum.According to evolution, what had to come first? The baby or egg. This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did. How do I know what happened. We have God's autobiography. He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
That's why I brought up design. We find there is intelligence behind the design. Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be. Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
For example:
2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?
and so on. We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables. Yet, if we see the design, then our minds fill in the blanks.
2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...
Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first. However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen. Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first. Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie. Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge. I can give you more complex examples if you want.
How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg. We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3 Notice, he didn't create the sun. He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.
you can present NO ARGUMENT that would cause me to worship YOUR rotten god.
if YOUR god does exist then as a FREE MAN with MORALS and ETHICS I denounce him
I would rather burn in hell for all eternity than worship YOUR devil
So you believe that you are the product of pond scum.According to evolution, what had to come first? The baby or egg. This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did. How do I know what happened. We have God's autobiography. He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
That's why I brought up design. We find there is intelligence behind the design. Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be. Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
For example:
2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?
and so on. We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables. Yet, if we see the design, then our minds fill in the blanks.
2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...
Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first. However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen. Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first. Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie. Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge. I can give you more complex examples if you want.
How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg. We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3 Notice, he didn't create the sun. He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.
you can present NO ARGUMENT that would cause me to worship YOUR rotten god.
if YOUR god does exist then as a FREE MAN with MORALS and ETHICS I denounce him
I would rather burn in hell for all eternity than worship YOUR devil
LOL
Yes, the environments and chemicals that appear can be considered "random", when, for example, talking about what an unknown planet may have on it. We are on the same page, there. But the physical selection operating on the system is nonrandom. The precursors to life kept emerging due to this nonrandom selection. The same new chemicals, appearing over and over and over. That's what i mean.of course it was random.The selection for persistent forms that were the precursors to life was not random. The reason one complex protein persisted and another did not was not a random event. The same rules applied everywhere and the same complex proteins kept forming and persisting. That's nonrandom selection operating.I don't think anything was selected. the beginning of life was a random thing so it could not have been selected.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions etc etc random events over billions of years so it only makes sense that some of those random events and chemical processes produced the precursors of life as we know it and most likely some life we can't imagine at all
i doubt i know much more than you do. I am getting into mathematical concepts, at this point. What is random and what is not random about events in abiogenesis & evolution.I have a better than layman's knowledge of evolution, but you two are arguing above me.
See I knew that you would see it my way.So you believe that you are the product of pond scum.According to evolution, what had to come first? The baby or egg. This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did. How do I know what happened. We have God's autobiography. He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
That's why I brought up design. We find there is intelligence behind the design. Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be. Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
For example:
2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?
and so on. We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables. Yet, if we see the design, then our minds fill in the blanks.
2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...
Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first. However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen. Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first. Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie. Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge. I can give you more complex examples if you want.
How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg. We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3 Notice, he didn't create the sun. He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.
you can present NO ARGUMENT that would cause me to worship YOUR rotten god.
if YOUR god does exist then as a FREE MAN with MORALS and ETHICS I denounce him
I would rather burn in hell for all eternity than worship YOUR devil
LOL
No .
I believe YOU are the product of pond scum
I am a more highly evolved specimen of civility
you are human garbage.
Do you not kill because killing is wrong or because you are afraid of god?
There is no knowledge of evolution so you know exactly as mush as the other fool who knows nothingThe "laws of evolution" are just the laws of physics. Randomness and chaos may lead to different physiologies, but nonrandom selection is what produces the ones that persist. He and i are on the same page. You are that flat earther languishing at odds with all the facts.That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.
Yes, I've read of it. It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).
"Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another
IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.
To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.
This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.
Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (New Scientist, 6 February, p 28).
The chaos theory of evolution
Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after anotherwww.newscientist.com
--
I have a better than layman's knowledge of evolution, but you two are arguing above me. I'll leave you two to it.
However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen. Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first. Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
Then get out of the science section, Frannie sock trollThere is no knowledge of evolution
He fooled two homosexual atheists. How impressive.
You have never provided anything that supports your claimed non-zero probability.
However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen. Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first. Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
Do you have a citation that says enzymes from chicken ovaries are on the outer shell of lizard eggs, fish eggs, daisy eggs? ... what about the vast majority of organisms that don't produce eggs, bacteria, yeast, many forms of algae? ... eggs appear in the fossil record 100's of millions of years before life occurs on land ... chickens are strictly Holocene ...
Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia ...
Abiogenesis was a deterministic, physical process. Anyone is free to sprinkle god on it ("God did that! It's his plan!)...but any claims abiogenesis wasn't a deterministic, physical process -- like star formation -- do not belong in the science section. Those go in the paranormal section or the religion section.
Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia
News Article
They've cracked it at last! The chicken DID come before the egg
Researchers found that the formation of egg shells relies on a protein that is only found in a chicken's ovaries.www.dailymail.co.uk
I have to question why you bother ''quoting'' anything from scientists when the science text of the Bible answers all questions about existence. The fact is, Hawking's hypothesis is no more valid than some others. There are still unknowns about the universe that are being studied. There lies the great divide between science and religious claims. Science will explore and discover where religion is forever constrained by dogma that supports the religious ideology.He fooled two homosexual atheists. How impressive.You have never provided anything that supports your claimed non-zero probability.
It wasn't me who said it first. I just pointed out > non-zero probability means the chances are really small as in no chance and slim chance. It's all about chances, remember? This is why we get these close to infinite type examples such as aliens exist because of near infinite number of planets, etc. Or near infinite conditions where life could pop up. Instead, we observe it doesn't happen. What I did say was if your professor writes on the whiteboard "It's all about chances," then leave the class. He's gonna be BS'ing you.
Let's look at Hawking's final paper on the multiverse. Surprisingly, he admits the universe is finite like the creation scientists claim (he doesn't mention edge nor boundaries). Maybe you can explain what he means. I haven't read much on string theory.
'"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "
In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."
"We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking."'
Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang
Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.phys.org
Ah. The all-knowing, all-seeing eye. Only the gods could have developed the eye. That's one of the classically retrograde arguments of the ID creationer ministries.Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia
Apparently, not this enzyme as it could only be produced in the ovaries of a hen.
Besides, the egg with the chick inside is a complex system similar to the eye. It would have to be developed as a fully functional organic system.
News Article
They've cracked it at last! The chicken DID come before the egg
Researchers found that the formation of egg shells relies on a protein that is only found in a chicken's ovaries.
"Metadynamics simulations show that the eggshell protein ovocleidin‐17 induces the formation of calcite crystals from amorphous calcium carbonate nanoparticles. Multiple spontaneous crystallization and amorphization events were simulated; these simulations suggest a catalytic cycle that explains the role of ovocleidin‐17 in the first stages of eggshell formation"
Computer simulations ... that "suggest" the results you claim ... no where do they claim chicken enzymes are found on willow eggs ...
Is your claim the first chicken came out of a red junglefowl's egg? ... where did the first red junglefowl come from? ...
Besides, the egg with the chick inside is a complex system similar to the eye. It would have to be developed as a fully functional organic system.
Where's your proof? ... why couldn't the first chicken come from a red junglefowl's egg? ...
.
Ah. The all-knowing, all-seeing eye. Only the gods could have developed the eye. That's one of the classically retrograde arguments of the ID creationer ministries.Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia
Apparently, not this enzyme as it could only be produced in the ovaries of a hen.
Besides, the egg with the chick inside is a complex system similar to the eye. It would have to be developed as a fully functional organic system.
Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:
- This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
- photosensitive cell
- aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
- an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
- pigment cells forming a small depression
- pigment cells forming a deeper depression
- the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
- muscles allowing the lens to adjust
- All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
I have to question why you bother ''quoting'' anything from scientists when the science text of the Bible answers all questions about existence. The fact is, Hawking's hypothesis is no more valid than some others. There are still unknowns about the universe that are being studied. There lies the great divide between science and religious claims. Science will explore and discover where religion is forever constrained by dogma that supports the religious ideology.He fooled two homosexual atheists. How impressive.You have never provided anything that supports your claimed non-zero probability.
It wasn't me who said it first. I just pointed out > non-zero probability means the chances are really small as in no chance and slim chance. It's all about chances, remember? This is why we get these close to infinite type examples such as aliens exist because of near infinite number of planets, etc. Or near infinite conditions where life could pop up. Instead, we observe it doesn't happen. What I did say was if your professor writes on the whiteboard "It's all about chances," then leave the class. He's gonna be BS'ing you.
Let's look at Hawking's final paper on the multiverse. Surprisingly, he admits the universe is finite like the creation scientists claim (he doesn't mention edge nor boundaries). Maybe you can explain what he means. I haven't read much on string theory.
'"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "
In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."
"We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking."'
Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang
Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.
