Creationists

[daws101]

Wrong.


A Tour of the Cell - YouTube

right! your little clip is not an answer.
any one who took high school bio understands cell structure .
the question is: what scientifically valid proof do you have it did not happen gradually...
you've shown none.

I already have explained it to you. The cell could not have slowly wevolved as you claim. All the parts of the cell had to be developed and then some how come together.

That could not happen either because in any eviornment the things that make up the cell would be destroyed by water,oxygen,and or the sun.

The only way cells form are already in living organisms.

your point?
It's still is not evidence god did it ....the only real answer is no one knows.... yet.
but again your religious terror of a void precludes you from seeing it...more's the pity.

 

[Youwerecreated]

this nonsense again... last time I checked it was abogenesis.. your point?

" i is responsible for making it happen." -ywc great grammar!

what is you responsible for making whatever happen?

yeah! your ignorance makes me laugh too.

Although the idea of life forming by random chance isn’t taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce ‘Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:

“Human DNA contains more organized information than the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica.’ If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces.” Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so.

First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
Source(s):
Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.

If you would like to read his complete and utter destruction of another theory you cling to.

Abiogenic Origin of Life:
A theory in crisis
2005 Arthur v. Chadewick Ph.D
Professor of Geology and Biology

 

[daws101]

yeah! your ignorance makes me laugh too.

Although the idea of life forming by random chance isn’t taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce ‘Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:

“Human DNA contains more organized information than the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica.’ If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces.” Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so.

First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
Source(s):
Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.

Protein: http://www.herbertarmstrong.org/Miscella…

404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
2) You haven't uploaded content.
If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
(It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)

even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.

their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving your basic premise : god exists.
if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

right! your little clip is not an answer.
any one who took high school bio understands cell structure .
the question is: what scientifically valid proof do you have it did not happen gradually...
you've shown none.

I already have explained it to you. The cell could not have slowly wevolved as you claim. All the parts of the cell had to be developed and then some how come together.

That could not happen either because in any eviornment the things that make up the cell would be destroyed by water,oxygen,and or the sun.

The only way cells form are already in living organisms.

your point?
It's still is not evidence god did it ....the only real answer is no one knows.... yet.
but again your religious terror of a void precludes you from seeing it...more's the pity.

You don't get it magic was needed for it to happen.

 

[Youwerecreated]

yeah! your ignorance makes me laugh too.

Although the idea of life forming by random chance isn’t taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce ‘Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:

“Human DNA contains more organized information than the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica.’ If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces.” Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so.

First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
Source(s):
Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.

Protein: http://www.herbertarmstrong.org/Miscella…

404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
2) You haven't uploaded content.
If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
(It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)

even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.

their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving your basic premise : god exists.
if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.

If you would like to read his complete and utter destruction of another theory you cling to.

Abiogenic Origin of Life:
A theory in crisis
2005 Arthur v. Chadewick Ph.D
Professor of Geology and Biology

 

[Youwerecreated]

yeah! your ignorance makes me laugh too.

Although the idea of life forming by random chance isn’t taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce ‘Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:

“Human DNA contains more organized information than the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica.’ If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces.” Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so.

First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
Source(s):
Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.

Protein: http://www.herbertarmstrong.org/Miscella…

404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
2) You haven't uploaded content.
If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
(It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)

even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.

their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving your basic premise : god exists.
if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.

Here is a working link.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

 

[Youwerecreated]

The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.

 

[Hollie]

Although the idea of life forming by random chance isn’t taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce ‘Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:

“Human DNA contains more organized information than the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica.’ If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces.” Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so.

First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
Source(s):
Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.

Protein: http://www.herbertarmstrong.org/Miscella…

404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
2) You haven't uploaded content.
If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
(It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)

even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.

their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving your basic premise : god exists.
if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.

Here is a working link.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

The article is nothing more than a reiteration of every silly, boilerplate creationist claim. The references are a roll call of creationist hacks.

 

[Hollie]

The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.

Creationists are terrified of abiogenesis because eventual confirmation of the process is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.

Creationists are terrified of abiogenesis because eventual confirmation of the process is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed.

Hollie, you are the best case for evolution, just have not figured out what species you are but you are on the bottom of the evolutionist tree of life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
2) You haven't uploaded content.
If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
(It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)

even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.

their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving your basic premise : god exists.
if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.

Here is a working link.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

The article is nothing more than a reiteration of every silly, boilerplate creationist claim. The references are a roll call of creationist hacks.

Hollie you have not evolved far enough to understand what you are reading but I think Daws is though.

 

[Hollie]

The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.

Creationists are terrified of abiogenesis because eventual confirmation of the process is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed.

Hollie, you are the best case for evolution, just have not figured out what species you are but you are on the bottom of the evolutionist tree of life.

Well thanks but its just hilarious to see your failed attempts at pick and choose christianity.

 

[ima]

The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.

At least scientists are looking for answers. Not long ago, people of religion thought the earth was flat, among other now since disproven concepts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Creationists are terrified of abiogenesis because eventual confirmation of the process is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed.

Hollie, you are the best case for evolution, just have not figured out what species you are but you are on the bottom of the evolutionist tree of life.

Well thanks but its just hilarious to see your failed attempts at pick and choose christianity.

Fact ! cells reproduce cells the question is how was it possible for the first cell to form ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.

At least scientists are looking for answers. Not long ago, people of religion thought the earth was flat, among other now since disproven concepts.

Wrong that Idea was pushed by evolutionist although some believers did believe and some still do most believers never believed that lie. Who started the sciences ? that is right creationist.

So you are saying creationist are not working on evidence to know how God did it ? Trust me the creationist work with the secularlist and see the same evidence. If secular scientist are eliminating the evidence for design are they really looking for truth ?

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, you are the best case for evolution, just have not figured out what species you are but you are on the bottom of the evolutionist tree of life.

Well thanks but its just hilarious to see your failed attempts at pick and choose christianity.

Fact ! cells reproduce cells the question is how was it possible for the first cell to form.

There is not yet a definitive answer.

The fundie demand is that because we don't yet know, it must be "the gods did it" when we have no reason to believe the gods did anything.

You may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bible but that would require that humanity never proceed beyond ancient superstitions.

 

[ima]

The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.

At least scientists are looking for answers. Not long ago, people of religion thought the earth was flat, among other now since disproven concepts.

Wrong that Idea was pushed by evolutionist although some believers did believe and some still do most believers never believed that lie. Who started the sciences ? that is right creationist.

So you are saying creationist are not working on evidence to know how God did it ? Trust me the creationist work with the secularlist and see the same evidence. If secular scientist are eliminating the evidence for design are they really looking for truth ?

So you're saying that secular scientists have dismissed proof of design? Like what?

 

[HUGGY]

Well thanks but its just hilarious to see your failed attempts at pick and choose christianity.

Fact ! cells reproduce cells the question is how was it possible for the first cell to form.

There is not yet a definitive answer.

The fundie demand is that because we don't yet know, it must be "the gods did it" when we have no reason to believe the gods did anything.

You may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bible but that would require that humanity never proceed beyond ancient superstitions.

Some are trying to use single cells of modern states of evolution to suggest that even the single cell is too complex to have occured spontaneously. Duh. EVERYTHING is a billion years down the road from when life officially took off. The envoronment is not remotely now what it was then. Radiation was much higher.. Volcanic activity was off the charts. Bombardment from space stuff ... meteors... asteroids..etc happened thousand of times more frequently. The atmosphere was completely different.

You might as well be asking why the first toaster didn't occur a billion years ago.

 

[Youwerecreated]

At least scientists are looking for answers. Not long ago, people of religion thought the earth was flat, among other now since disproven concepts.

Wrong that Idea was pushed by evolutionist although some believers did believe and some still do most believers never believed that lie. Who started the sciences ? that is right creationist.

So you are saying creationist are not working on evidence to know how God did it ? Trust me the creationist work with the secularlist and see the same evidence. If secular scientist are eliminating the evidence for design are they really looking for truth ?

So you're saying that secular scientists have dismissed proof of design? Like what?

Pretty much,exactly what we are talking about for starters. It is taboo to bring up design because you are infering a creator.

This planet was designed for life it didn't happen by chance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fact ! cells reproduce cells the question is how was it possible for the first cell to form.

There is not yet a definitive answer.

The fundie demand is that because we don't yet know, it must be "the gods did it" when we have no reason to believe the gods did anything.

You may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bible but that would require that humanity never proceed beyond ancient superstitions.

Some are trying to use single cells of modern states of evolution to suggest that even the single cell is too complex to have occured spontaneously. Duh. EVERYTHING is a billion years down the road from when life officially took off. The envoronment is not remotely now what it was then. Radiation was much higher.. Volcanic activity was off the charts. Bombardment from space stuff ... meteors... asteroids..etc happened thousand of times more frequently. The atmosphere was completely different.

You might as well be asking why the first toaster didn't occur a billion years ago.

Your sarcasm is noted but that which you imply is only opinion.