paleontology, for those who loves dinosaurs

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,792
Reaction score
3,481
Points
1,115
Actually,

Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it. What observable evidence does it have? What is the self-replicating molecule? How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. What is the last common ancestor? If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha? Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life. Remember, I said only life begats life. Not chemistry.
Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.

You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,792
Reaction score
3,481
Points
1,115
Adam was formed from dirt
Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,

but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
There are 40,000 colleges and public / private teaching universities in the US which counter your claim of no proof of biological evolution.

Shouldn't you be rummaging around the Carl Baugh "College for the Silly"?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,891
Reaction score
622
Points
155
Adam was formed from dirt
Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides life begats life. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,177
Reaction score
4,607
Points
280
Location
Washington
"creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)." - one can't "disprove" anything simply "by claiming" something else. However, using science, one theoretically could demonstrate flaws in a scientifically established theory which would likely result in the theory simply being amended, not deemed (entirely) "wrong" or disproven.
The facts disprove, i.e. show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs, because dinos had moving femurs. Birds have fixed femurs to prevent their lungs from collapsing when they inhale. Their lung formations are different as discovered by Oregon State University researchers.
In reality, the "it" in "creationists trying to disprove it (by claiming that Archaeopteryx is simply a bird)" was referring to "evolution." Creationists idiotically trying to "disprove" evolution, i.e. the entire theory of biological evolution. If one could indeed scientifically "show that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs" that would simply mean the evolution of birds differs from the established scientific consensus.. regarding the evolution of birds!
People who do not believe evolution use science to argue against it. One is the fact that femur of the bird is fixed while the theropod is moving. It means that birds could descend from theropods. The other argument is the fibers on the fossils are just fibers from the leathery skin as it aged. It isn't part of feathers. Furthermore, if they did "evolve" into birds, then we should have transitional fossils to see that they did.

I don't really follow your argument. On one hand, you are saying creationists are trying to "disprove" evolution by saying Archaeopteryx is simply a bird. How do you know what an Archaeopteryx is? Has anyone taken a pic of one? You do not present anything to show how this evolution happened and what the evidence is.
There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs. Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.

Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect. In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't. And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all. Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found. Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from. But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,792
Reaction score
3,481
Points
1,115
Adam was formed from dirt
Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides life begats life. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?
Curiously, it is the discipline of the scientific method that you use to vilify science in favor of your appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

Can you provide one example, just one, of any discovery in science that has supernaturalism as its cause?
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
15,831
Reaction score
3,360
Points
290
life begats life
So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???
How is it out of context?
you not only edited it,,, but pulled it out of stream so others cant even see the context he was talking about,,,

very dishonest if you ask me,, but standard procedure for evo's,,,

carry on,,
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,407
Reaction score
982
Points
245
Location
Virginia
life begats life
So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???
How is it out of context?
you not only edited it,,, but pulled it out of stream so others cant even see the context he was talking about,,,

very dishonest if you ask me,, but standard procedure for evo's,,,

carry on,,
Let's ask james bond what he thinks. Did he mean that "life begats life" or did he mean something else entirely?
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
15,831
Reaction score
3,360
Points
290
life begats life
So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?
why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???
How is it out of context?
you not only edited it,,, but pulled it out of stream so others cant even see the context he was talking about,,,

very dishonest if you ask me,, but standard procedure for evo's,,,

carry on,,
Let's ask james bond what he thinks. Did he mean that "life begats life" or did he mean something else entirely?

it would help if his entire statement were here so he and others can see the context of his comment,,,
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
3,655
Reaction score
569
Points
140
Actually,

Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it. What observable evidence does it have? What is the self-replicating molecule? How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. What is the last common ancestor? If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha? Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life. Remember, I said only life begats life. Not chemistry.
Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.

You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
Actually, I wasn't even addressing 007. However, I was presuming to rebut progressive hunter's claim aimed at Fort Fun: "you think we all came from a rock,,,"
And, actually, I happen to have a degree in Chemistry and have a daughter who's an active biologist. But I'd still mainly rely on Google, even just to refresh my memory, perhaps even ask Seri or Alexa like practically everyone else does these days. Know what I'd never do? Pompously demand some stranger on a stupid political forum personally answer such questions. That would be really dumb and sadistic.
And, actually, since I clearly wasn't even talking to 007, why would he think I gave a rat's ass what he "said" about life begatting itself or what TF ever?
And, actually, Wikipedia is a damned fine, refreshingly unbiased source in general and only getting better with time. For finding great, quick answers to questions such as those asked by 007 in particular. The only reason to bother going to college anymore is to obtain degrees that unlock the higher income slots needed to keep pouring food on one's family or pay off student loans in this phony, stinking corporate rat race. Thank goodness I'm long retired!
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
15,831
Reaction score
3,360
Points
290
Actually,

Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it. What observable evidence does it have? What is the self-replicating molecule? How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. What is the last common ancestor? If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha? Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life. Remember, I said only life begats life. Not chemistry.
Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.

You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
Actually, I wasn't even addressing 007. However, I was presuming to rebut progressive hunter's claim aimed at Fort Fun: "you think we all came from a rock,,,"
And, actually, I happen to have a degree in Chemistry and have a daughter who's an active biologist. But I'd still mainly rely on Google, even just to refresh my memory, perhaps even ask Seri or Alexa like practically everyone else does these days. Know what I'd never do? Pompously demand some stranger on a stupid political forum personally answer such questions. That would be really dumb and sadistic.
And, actually, since I clearly wasn't even talking to 007, why would he think I gave a rat's ass what he "said" about life begatting itself or what TF ever?
And, actually, Wikipedia is a damned fine, refreshingly unbiased source in general and only getting better with time. For finding great, quick answers to questions such as those asked by 007 in particular. The only reason to bother going to college anymore is to obtain degrees that unlock the higher income slots needed to keep pouring food on one's family or pay off student loans in this phony, stinking corporate rat race. Thank goodness I'm long retired!

wikipedia isnt biased MY ASS!!!!


and hate to break it to you but under evolution we all came from a primordial/prebiotic soup which is basically rock soup,,,

so yeah evo's think we came from a rock,,,
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,177
Reaction score
4,607
Points
280
Location
Washington
Adam was formed from dirt
Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,

but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
thats why they call it a religion based on faith
Evolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence. There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths. Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.

Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally. Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally? If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,792
Reaction score
3,481
Points
1,115
Actually,

Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[11] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[284] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[285] and the assembly of simple cells.
Since you brought it up, you should be able to explain highly energetic chemistry and answers questions on it. What observable evidence does it have? What is the self-replicating molecule? How do you know it was half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. What is the last common ancestor? If I ask a person on the street, then would they know of it haha? Go on, explain your RNA[285] and how assembly of simple cells relates to creation of life. Remember, I said only life begats life. Not chemistry.
Actually, haha, your really naive questions are addressed in any college level biology / chemistry course, haha.

You obviously, haha, never had such classes, haha.
Actually, I wasn't even addressing 007. However, I was presuming to rebut progressive hunter's claim aimed at Fort Fun: "you think we all came from a rock,,,"
And, actually, I happen to have a degree in Chemistry and have a daughter who's an active biologist. But I'd still mainly rely on Google, even just to refresh my memory, perhaps even ask Seri or Alexa like practically everyone else does these days. Know what I'd never do? Pompously demand some stranger on a stupid political forum personally answer such questions. That would be really dumb and sadistic.
And, actually, since I clearly wasn't even talking to 007, why would he think I gave a rat's ass what he "said" about life begatting itself or what TF ever?
And, actually, Wikipedia is a damned fine, refreshingly unbiased source in general and only getting better with time. For finding great, quick answers to questions such as those asked by 007 in particular. The only reason to bother going to college anymore is to obtain degrees that unlock the higher income slots needed to keep pouring food on one's family or pay off student loans in this phony, stinking corporate rat race. Thank goodness I'm long retired!

wikipedia isnt biased MY ASS!!!!


and hate to break it to you but under evolution we all came from a primordial/prebiotic soup which is basically rock soup,,,

so yeah evo's think we came from a rock,,,
It's clear that the science curriculum was not a priority at your madrassah.
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
15,831
Reaction score
3,360
Points
290
Adam was formed from dirt
Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,

but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
thats why they call it a religion based on faith
Evolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence. There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths. Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.

Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally. Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally? If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.

but what if youre not christian or an evo???
and just want something that makes sense,,,

cause right now based on the evidence the christians make more sense than evo's
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,177
Reaction score
4,607
Points
280
Location
Washington
Adam was formed from dirt
Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides life begats life. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?
You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
15,831
Reaction score
3,360
Points
290
Adam was formed from dirt
Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides life begats life. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?
You seem to believe God created man out of a pile dirt, yet you didn't see it and no one else has.
and thats why its a religion based on faith,,,

whats your excuse for believing we came from a rock???
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,177
Reaction score
4,607
Points
280
Location
Washington
Adam was formed from dirt
Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,

but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
thats why they call it a religion based on faith
Evolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence. There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths. Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.

Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally. Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally? If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.

but what if youre not christian or an evo???
and just want something that makes sense,,,

cause right now based on the evidence the christians make more sense than evo's
What evidence of creation do you have other than the Bible?
 
Last edited:

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
15,831
Reaction score
3,360
Points
290
Adam was formed from dirt
Proof? Evidence? Anything other than the hearsay of the Bible?
thats why they call it a religion based on faith,,,

but the evo's dont have any proof and claim it to be fact,,,and use tax payer money to have it taught in public schools
thats why they call it a religion based on faith
Evolutionists don't have any facts, they have evidence. There are no facts in science; that is there are no absolute truths. Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible which creates a huge difference of opinion between many Christians and scientists.

Evolutionists claim scientific evidence as authority and Creationists claim the Bible as the authority. The basis for creationists argument is a literal interpretation of the story of creation in the Bible. Some say that man was created by God from the earth in his image as stated in the Bible. Others claim that scientific evidence points to man evolving over a period of millions of years. A minority of Christians insist that the only valid interpretation of the Bible is a literal one (Gallup). The larger portion of Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but not always to be taken literally. Can the major tenets of the Bible exist without taking the Bible literally? If so, then the differences between Christians and evolutionists can be resolved.

but what if youre not christian or an evo???
and just want something that makes sense,,,

cause right now based on the evidence the christians make more sense than evo's
What evidence of creation you they have other than the Bible?

thats the faith part,,,

but I will say the evidence points towards a young earth and not a billion yr earth,,,

fact is right now we have no idea, and that most of the evo stuff is made up crazy talk,,,
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top