Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by AngryManatee
...scientists are some of the most skeptical people in the world. To say that they are influenced by a belief is false, but to say that they are influenced by data and observation would be proper, since data and observations are what influence a scientist to accept or reject a hypothesis. Your choice of words makes it sound like scientists support evolution like it's a religion, which is an erroneous claim.

Let us take the (relatively) recent discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. The question asked was, "How could this tissue have survived for so long?" A reasonable question, to be sure. However, how many asked themselves, "How could this fossil be millions of years old?" How many entertained the idea when it was brought up to them, and how many dismissed it with a "lol, ur dumb"?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
This one's pretty good

Thank you for the information. Unfortunately, what you've provided only additionally confirms what Feceman has already alluded to, specifically the dogmatism many subscribe to when following scientific theories. I initially asked you the question, "Who started the big bang?" Rather than directly answer it with a simple "I don't know"..you went off into a tangent about singularity, which based on the link you've provided, is entirely a theoretical concept as opposed to being an absolute one.

Even if one holds the concept of singularity to be true, believing that the universe is limited and that time and space had a definite starting point, would then logically bring one to ask question how these things came into existence if they weren't present before hand, or a more simplified question would be..how can something come from nothing? This in turn then begs answers to the questions, why was this something started and who started it?(All of these questions of course, you have already avoided answering.)

So based solely on what you've provided, one can clearly see that singularity doesn't answer such questions, and how flawed and illogical it is for one to assert such theories as being factual, when in reality..they are primarily supported by one's faith in them.

All of this being stated, before we go off on another tangent about singularity, please provide some tangible evidence which can be used to answer the questions posed above. Thus far, the only thing you've provided us with is primarily stuff supported by theoretical suppositions, mixed with personal religious bias.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I do believe that many scientists support evolution as though it is a religioin.

Let us take the (relatively) recent discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. The question asked was, "How could this tissue have survived for so long?" A reasonable question, to be sure. However, how many asked themselves, "How could this fossil be millions of years old?" How many entertained the idea when it was brought up to them, and how many dismissed it with a "lol, ur dumb"?

Did you not read this?

Competition will eradicate any bias.

Originally posted by Thundar
Thus far, the only thing you've provided us with is primarily stuff supported by theoretical suppositions, mixed with personal religious bias.

And you have given us religious supperstitions mixed with personal theories.

Some how you seem to have missed that despite the imperfection of scientific evidence about the begining of the world there is absolutely no evidence that God was resposible for creating it.

Some Evidence >>> No Evidence

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And you have given us religious supperstitions mixed with personal theories.

Some how you seem to have missed that despite the imperfection of scientific evidence about the begining of the world there is absolutely no evidence that God was resposible for creating it.

Some Evidence >>> No Evidence

A DNA strand isn't an example of design? It doesn't show intelligence in its complexity? I'd really like for you or AngryManatee to explain how DNA evolved, with no force guiding it. Please do this for us when you get done answering the other questions.

And also please take note that the structure of DNA is much more complex than that of any man made machines(note: key phrase here is "man made"😉

Originally posted by Thundar
A DNA strand isn't an example of design? It doesn't show intelligence in its complexity? I'd really like for you or AngryManatee to explain how DNA evolved, with no force guiding it. Please do this for us when you get done answering the other questions.

And also please take note that the structure of DNA is much more complex than that of any man made machines(note: key phrase here is "man made"😉

Please show how it was designed. Complexity is not proof of a designer.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I do believe that many scientists support evolution as though it is a religioin.

Let us take the (relatively) recent discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. The question asked was, "How could this tissue have survived for so long?" A reasonable question, to be sure. However, how many asked themselves, "How could this fossil be millions of years old?" How many entertained the idea when it was brought up to them, and how many dismissed it with a "lol, ur dumb"?

If scientists supported evolution as if it were a religion, then they'd still be reading On the Origin of the Species and viewing what Darwin wrote back then as the one true answer to life.

As for the Rex article, this is the first time it's been discovered, and it was mainly due to the fact that they had to break the thigh bone in two in order to transport it, which is a rarity because usually every effort is made to bring it back intact. It was serendipity so to speak. The bone itself has been dated to 70 million years, and the scientists have even admitted that this means they're going to have to re-think their methods of fossil excavation. This means that they're going to FIND OUT, to the best of their knowledge, how it was preserved. You keep talking like they're sitting there talking about how it might've happened and are just speculating and asking questions, which is not the case, seeing as how usually when scientists are met with a hypothesis such as this, they tend to run experiments on it, as I stated before. Remember, this was a relatively recent discovery, and it takes time to perform studies and build up data (look at how long it took to map the human genome, not to mention how long it took to know what DNA is).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please show how it was designed.

I have faith that it was designed by God. Okay now its your turn to answer the question..don't bother, save yourself from posting, I'll do it for you...

"I have faith that Darwin was right and the TOE is right and it evolved.."

Perhaps its now time to close this thread..😉

Originally posted by Thundar
I have faith that it was designed by God. Okay now its your turn to answer the question..don't bother, save yourself from posting, I'll do it for you...

"I have faith that Darwin was right and the TOE is right and it evolved.."

Perhaps its now time to close this thread..😉

So you give up? You have no idea? You just believe something and stake everything on that? 😆

Take the right set of chemicals; mix well with a close moon for a billion years. Presto! You have DNA.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So you give up? You have no idea? You just believe something and stake everything on that? 😆

Take the right set of chemicals; mix well with a close moon for a billion years. Presto! You have DNA.

"It evolved I tell ya it did..poof out of nowhere came teh DNA..aliens had sex first..and there sperm mixed with teh erth..impregnating it..and thats how we got here..dont ask me bout who created teh aliens who spermed on teh earth..cause i havent gotten that far yet..science is still looking into to that...but we know that life does exit on other planets..even if there is know life rite now..cause we found hydro molecules..which exit everywhere in the galaxy..thats why evolution is true..the end.."

oh yeah..and please study up on evolution..stupid bible thumpers..😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Take the right set of chemicals; mix well with a close moon for a billion years. Presto! You have DNA.

Originally posted by Thundar
"It evolved I tell ya it did..poof out of nowhere came teh DNA..aliens had sex first..and there sperm mixed with teh erth..impregnating it..and thats how we got here..dont ask me bout who created teh aliens who spermed on teh earth..cause i havent gotten that far yet..science is still looking into to that...but we know that life does exit on other planets..even if there is know life rite now..cause we found hydro molecules..which exit everywhere in the galaxy..thats why evolution is true..the end.."

oh yeah..and please study up on evolution..stupid bible thumpers..😆

You are out of line... Your attach is not a good reflection on the teachings of Jesus. You are the one shutting down the conversation.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No. Even people who believe in abiogenesis know that this is not correct.

How is that not correct? Over simplified, yes, but not incorrect.

At the subatomic level there is no difference between life and not alive.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are out of line... Your attach is not a good reflection on the teachings of Jesus. You are the one shutting down the conversation.

Oh stop being silly. It was just a little joke, in response to the joke that you made. BTW, you still haven't answered the question. AngryManatee is gone, as is Symmetric Chaos, I'd really like to get a serious and educated opionion from you regarding how DNA could have evolved. The floor is now yours.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How is that not correct? Over simplified, yes, but not incorrect.

you forgot distance from the sun, which is probally more important than the moon.

But, Thundar, what will you think when life is found elsewhere in the galaxy?

A few more questions for you to answer..

Originally posted by Thundar
..how can something come from nothing? This in turn then begs answers to the questions, why was this something started and who started it?(All of these questions of course, you have already avoided answering.)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How is that not correct? Over simplified, yes, but not incorrect.

At the subatomic level there is no difference between life and not alive.

Originally posted by Thundar
Oh stop being silly. It was just a little joke, in response to the joke that you made. BTW, you still haven't answered the question. AngryManatee is gone, as is Symmetric Chaos, I'd really like to get a serious and educated opionion from you regarding how DNA could have evolved. The floor is now yours.

Time is the answer; also, there is no difference between life and non life at the subatomic level. If you start with basic chemistry, and add enough time, life always start, if the conditions are right.

Originally posted by Thundar
A few more questions for you to answer..

If that's directed at me, I'm not getting involved in this argument. I've been there and done that.

I'm just wondering what you'd think when life was found elsewhere in the galaxy.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Abiogenesis does not teach that DNA was formed in the 'primodial soup.' It would suggest that biphosolipid membranes formed and that ribozymes (ultimately impossible in chemistry) were captured within the membranes. The ribozymes would then have made a primitive type of RNA that would later miracuously (this is another impossibility) evolved into DNA.

I do not believe that it is an impossibility.