Was stumped by a Creationist

[bripat9643]

Selection simply formed them. Just as selection dictates the shape of a water molecule or the shape of large objects in outer space.

Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins. Another one of your RNA is simple claims that hasn't been demonstrated. It's only hypothesis.

How could humans who have only been on this Earth for 100,000 years observe a process that takes at least 100 million years?

 

[james bond]

Selection simply formed them. Just as selection dictates the shape of a water molecule or the shape of large objects in outer space.

Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins. Another one of your RNA is simple claims that hasn't been demonstrated. It's only hypothesis.

How could humans who have only been on this Earth for 100,000 years observe a process that takes at least 100 million years?

It's pure fantasy. It doesn't happen and didn't happen. Why? Because scientific experiment does not show this to be. Also, nature does not do this. Fort Fun Indiana's trick is all one has to have to start is simple RNA. His selection is nature. Or else please explain how it happens in the lab? You mock creation science as magical voodoo and Christianity as being founded by evil, but you believe in doodoo. It's worse than fantasy haha. How dumb can anyone be?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins.

So what? Nobody has ever seen an electron, either.and most certainly nobody has ever seen magical sky daddy or a zombie King.

 

[james bond]

Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins.

So what? Nobody has ever seen an electron, either.and most certainly nobody has ever seen magical sky daddy or a zombie King.

What we have SEEN is DNA --> RNA --> Proteins happen in a cell. This can be demonstrated in the lab. However, we have not seen what you claim outside the cell and in the lab. We have not seen it occur in nature. Now, bripat9643 brought in the long time which you casually tossed in your comment to overcome the complexity of DNA. Do you know how we can figure out what you claim to happen when we bring in millions of year?

 

[bripat9643]

Yet, nobody has observed this happened for DNA --> RNA --> Proteins.

So what? Nobody has ever seen an electron, either.and most certainly nobody has ever seen magical sky daddy or a zombie King.

What we have SEEN is DNA --> RNA --> Proteins happen in a cell. This can be demonstrated in the lab. However, we have not seen what you claim outside the cell and in the lab. We have not seen it occur in nature. Now, bripat9643 brought in the long time which you casually tossed in your comment to overcome the complexity of DNA. Do you know how we can figure out what you claim to happen when we bring in millions of year?

In other words, we don't know yet how 'A' came about, therefor God did it. That's what ignorant Christians used to believe about diseases like small pox and Syphilis.

 

[danielpalos]

Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government.

Good capitalists do.

 

[james bond]

In other words, we don't know yet how 'A' came about, therefor God did it. That's what ignorant Christians used to believe about diseases like small pox and Syphilis.

You got it bass-ackwards. God did it came way early on per Genesis. Your RNA abiogenesis came in during the millennium.

How could humans who have only been on this Earth for 100,000 years observe a process that takes at least 100 million years?

Why don't you answer my question in the last sentence of post #404? You wanted to know about how humans who have on Earth 200,000 years (wrong again) observe a process that takes 100 M+ years. I can explain it to you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In other words, we don't know yet how 'A' came about, therefor God did it.

Oh, it's even dumber than that. What he is saying is that , since we haven't watched with our eyeballs the millions-year-long process of trillions of chemical reactions which produced DNA from its constituents, then the entire theory of evolution, along with all the principles of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and oceanogoraphy,etc., on which it is based, are all WRONG.

It's mind numbingly stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, we don't know yet how 'A' came about, therefor God did it. That's what ignorant Christians used to believe about diseases like small pox and Syphilis.

You got it bass-ackwards. God did it came way early on per Genesis. Your RNA abiogenesis came in during the millennium.

In other words, what I just said. I didn't specify any order, and certainly not the order that your book of fairy-tales says.

How could humans who have only been on this Earth for 100,000 years observe a process that takes at least 100 million years?

Why don't you answer my question in the last sentence of post #404? You wanted to know about how humans who have on Earth 200,000 years (wrong again) observe a process that takes 100 M+ years. I can explain it to you.

Whether I know how science is going to figure it out is beside the point. That still doesn't prove that God did it. Science has figured out all kinds of things that nobody ever imagined it could do. Prior to 1945, no one ever imagined that something like the atom bomb was possible. Prior to 1903 no one believed man could fly. Neither your ignorance nor my ignorance about nature proves that the Bible is true.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, we don't know yet how 'A' came about, therefor God did it.

Oh, it's even dumber than that. What he is saying is that , since we haven't watched with our eyeballs the millions-year-long process of trillions of chemical reactions which produced DNA from its constituents, then the entire theory of evolution, along with all the principles of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and oceanogoraphy,etc., on which it is based, are all WRONG.

It's mind numbingly stupid.

I agree. That's why I asked how would any human could observe a process that takes 100 million years. You have to be incredibly resistant to logic to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

Notice that when I asked him how God could be moral when he condoned slavery that he didn't answer. That's one issue the Bible thumpers just can't get around with any manner of weaseling.

 

[james bond]

It's mind numbingly stupid.

Are you talking about yourself again? You do not have to watch it. How stupid is that? You just have to know what you're doing like me.

 

[james bond]

In other words, what I just said. I didn't specify any order, and certainly not the order that your book of fairy-tales says.

It's not YOUR order. It's historical order. I'm not surprised you can't figure that out.

Whether I know how science is going to figure it out is beside the point. That still doesn't prove that God did it. Science has figured out all kinds of things that nobody ever imagined it could do. Prior to 1945, no one ever imagined that something like the atom bomb was possible. Prior to 1903 no one believed man could fly. Neither your ignorance nor my ignorance about nature proves that the Bible is true.

I didn't think you did because you keep posting diatribe. In order to estimate whether something will happen in a million or billion of years, one uses probability based on what the facts are. In the case of RNA forming DNA outside the cell, we know that there are no laboratory tests showing this. We also know that it didn't happen in nature. However, we know that RNA molecules did form a strand. I don't know the exact numbers since it's your theory, but the probability is pretty low. We are trying to estimate something that isn't readily observed in nature like natural selection. We also can estimate what the probability is for what testing in the lab has produced. Again, that's pretty low. We take these probabilities and put them in a computer simulation. The simulation will provide statistics on whether it happened in the distant past. With the low probabilities, it probably did not happen in the distant past. However, success in the lab will raise the probabilities. Or finding more occurrences in nature will raise the probabilities. Both will increase the statistics showing that it happened in the distant past. However, we know RNA replication doesn't happen much in the lab nor nature.

And why do you continue to bring up God in a science forum? God did it according to Genesis. I keep saying that, but it goes over your head. It is the Bible theory. Creation scientists and I are taking scientific theory from a historical and non-fiction book. Secular scientists have done this. For example, Einstein thought the universe was static, but he read Lemaitre's and Hubble's papers, discussed it with them and changed his mind to the universe is expanding. He updated the calculations for his Theory of Relativity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You just have to know what you're doing like me.

Of course, I'm right and you're wrong. The things you say are mind numbingly stupid, and i have said why. That is why you and your "creation science" are a laughingstock and you would fail a 7th grade science test.

 

[bripat9643]

You just have to know what you're doing like me.

Of course, I'm right and you're wrong. The things you say are mind numbingly stupid, and i have said why. That is why you and your "creation science" are a laughingstock and you would fail a 7th grade science test.

The dumbest thing he's said is "why do you keep bringing up the Bible?" That made me laugh out loud.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, what I just said. I didn't specify any order, and certainly not the order that your book of fairy-tales says.

It's not YOUR order. It's historical order. I'm not surprised you can't figure that out.

The Bible isn't history. It's a fairy tale.

Whether I know how science is going to figure it out is beside the point. That still doesn't prove that God did it. Science has figured out all kinds of things that nobody ever imagined it could do. Prior to 1945, no one ever imagined that something like the atom bomb was possible. Prior to 1903 no one believed man could fly. Neither your ignorance nor my ignorance about nature proves that the Bible is true.

I didn't think you did because you keep posting diatribe. In order to estimate whether something will happen in a million or billion of years, one uses probability based on what the facts are. In the case of RNA forming DNA outside the cell, we know that there are no laboratory tests showing this. We also know that it didn't happen in nature. However, we know that RNA molecules did form a strand. I don't know the exact numbers since it's your theory, but the probability is pretty low. We are trying to estimate something that isn't readily observed in nature like natural selection. We also can estimate what the probability is for what testing in the lab has produced. Again, that's pretty low. We take these probabilities and put them in a computer simulation. The simulation will provide statistics on whether it happened in the distant past. With the low probabilities, it probably did not happen in the distant past. However, success in the lab will raise the probabilities. Or finding more occurrences in nature will raise the probabilities. Both will increase the statistics showing that it happened in the distant past. However, we know RNA replication doesn't happen much in the lab nor nature.

I'm not going to deconstruct your mumbo-jumbo. There are so many fallacies in there that it would take days to explain them all.

And why do you continue to bring up God in a science forum? God did it according to Genesis.

That has to be the funniest thing ever posted in this forum. You asked me why I bring up God, then you bring up God. Do you even realize what you did?

I keep saying that, but it goes over your head. It is the Bible theory.

ROFL! And then you wonder why I critique the Bible as a source! You are simply amazing!

Creation scientists and I are taking scientific theory from a historical and non-fiction book. Secular scientists have done this. For example, Einstein thought the universe was static, but he read Lemaitre's and Hubble's papers, discussed it with them and changed his mind to the universe is expanding. He updated the calculations for his Theory of Relativity.

The Bible is a work of fiction. There isn't a single verified fact in it. The term "creation scientist" is an Oxymoron.

When are you going to realize that creationism is pure horseshit? It certainly isn't science.

 

[james bond]

The Bible isn't history. It's a fairy tale.

How many times can someone be wrong? If it was fantasy, then it would've been disproven already like the others. It's held true since the 1st century discovery. The only reason people do not take it more seriously in science is creation science has been systematically eliminated by the atheist scientists.

 

[james bond]

Of course, I'm right and you're wrong. The things you say are mind numbingly stupid, and i have said why. That is why you and your "creation science" are a laughingstock and you would fail a 7th grade science test.

Is your daughter still in the 7th grade? I've known you for years and you keep referring to 7th grade. It's tough being held back. My daughter just started college. My son is a junior.

How can it be wrong or stupid when it has been scientifically observed?

 

[bripat9643]

The Bible isn't history. It's a fairy tale.

How many times can someone be wrong? If it was fantasy, then it would've been disproven already like the others. It's held true since the 1st century discovery. The only reason people do not take it more seriously in science is creation science has been systematically eliminated by the atheist scientists.

It has been disproven thousands upon thousands of times. I've aready done it several dozen times.

Allow me to do it again:

If God is moral, then how can he approve of slavery? Can anything be more clearly immoral than slavery?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Scientists continue not to be stumped by creationists:

Origin of Life --"Complexity Can Emerge Spontaneously, Without Evolution" | The Daily Galaxy

 

[rightwinger]

The Bible isn't history. It's a fairy tale.

How many times can someone be wrong? If it was fantasy, then it would've been disproven already like the others. It's held true since the 1st century discovery. The only reason people do not take it more seriously in science is creation science has been systematically eliminated by the atheist scientists.

There is no creation science