• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Man and dinosaur coexisting

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,762
9,016
52
✟385,985.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

There is no force that determines where something is alive or dead.

It is just different electrochemical reactions.

You are engaging in vitalism which has not been supported my any evidence ever.
 
Reactions: Dr GS Hurd
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,762
9,016
52
✟385,985.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

Building up the molecules to make an egg and sperm cell is exactly like rubbing to sticks together.

A chemical reaction is kick started from a state of energetic equilibrium by an external force: either the person rubbing the sticks or the biology of the parent.
 
Upvote 0

BrriKerr

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
237
42
36
UK
✟603.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
When you have done that you can start on:

1. How tall was Jack's beanstalk that led to the giants kingdom?
2. How tall was the giant?
3, How did the giant get up to his kingdom before the beanstalk was planted?
4. Explain the difference between a giant and a Cyclops.
5. What breed of pigs were the "Three little pigs"?
6. How old was little red riding hoods "Granny"?
7. In which woods did the "Three Bears" live?
8. Was the woods where the 3 bears lived a pine forest or a deciduous forests?
9, Explain how the "Cow" was able to jump over the moon.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,294
6,495
63
✟596,843.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Right....Sure, you got it zactly...

So, I go into a forest, no fire around for miles none whatsoever. I take a fire bow and some tinder and go to work and create a fire....

This is exactly the same as your living body producing a living cell that was designed for a specific purpose using the proteins, and other materials your body metabolizes while it is alive.

Ya, I can see the miraculous creation of life there. Not a simple passing of life from one living cell to another.

Are you serious?
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,294
6,495
63
✟596,843.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
There is no force that determines where something is alive or dead.

It is just different electrochemical reactions.

You are engaging in vitalism which has not been supported my any evidence ever.
If it was just electrochemical reactions we could jump start it again, like a car....

I would like to see that.

I'm done, If man could create life, they would and you would hear about it ad nauseum.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,294
6,495
63
✟596,843.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
No we'll leave that to the evolutionists and their farce to explain.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
If it's OK, I will climb on the cladistics soap box and give my own views on the subject.

Then we are all still fish. Neh?

It becomes difficult to sort these descriptions out when you use colloquial categories in cladistics. If we want to be technical, the fish category is paraphyletic.



When people use the term "fish" they are describing the paraphyletic group that includes the aquatic species we are familiar with, but excludes the terrestrial tetrapods that share a common ancestor with those aquatic species (taxon 3 in the image above). It may not be fair to try and redefine "fish" as a monophyletic term since it is not used as a monophyletic term in everyday speech. Rather, we should use the monophyletic terms which are Gnathostomata and Sarcopterygii, depending on how many fish you want to include or exclude.

http://tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843
http://tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922

The term "ape" is the same thing. It is a paraphyletic term, which is fine for speaking in colloquial terms but improper in scientific discussions. The monophyletic term is Catarrhini or Hominidae, depending on how many traditional ape species you want to include or exclude.

http://tolweb.org/Catarrhini/16293
http://tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299

When speaking to the public who don't understand cladistics or systematics, it might be worth explaining that paraphyletic groups are arbitrary since you can draw up the dividing lines any way you see fit without any rules are criteria. For example, you could put gorillas and chimps in a grouping and orangutans in another if you so chose.

Monophyletic groups are objective. That's why scientists use monophyletic terms. They are defined as the common ancestor and ALL ancestors of that common ancestor, not just some.
 
Reactions: Dr GS Hurd
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
If it was just electrochemical reactions we could jump start it again, like a car....

Prove it.

With the technology we have today, please show us how we can repair the damage in cells caused by the lack of oxygen. You need to show how we can stop the process of apoptosis and necrosis, repair cleaved proteins, and stitch digested DNA back together to the exact state the cell was at prior to the damage caused by the lack of oxygen.

Until you do so, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
So, If God is hokery pokery and Evolution is hokery pokery, we have agreed the no body has any evidence as to how life came to exist.

Thus, both should be taught, in schools, as the "theories" man has to explain how we got here.

Or, neither.

Evolution no more explains the origin of life than the germ theory of disease. Do you reject the scientific theory explaining how infectious diseases spread because the theory doesn't explain where the original germs came from? You don't, do you. Evolution only explains how life changed once it was here, not how life first came about.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic

Which step in that process uses something other than chemical reactions?
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,762
9,016
52
✟385,985.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
If it was just electrochemical reactions we could jump start it again, like a car....

People are not cars so that is a poor analogy. When the elctrochemical pathways stop being used in a living organism for long enough they are irrevocably changed. That does not happen with a car.
 
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Site Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟130,556.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Bit of a delay where on different time zones.

I do think God always existed ( he said """I am"""") Is a better explanation than it just Popped up.
Ok well This what is wrong with your ideal ology. Your mocking creationists. Your taking the high morale ground scientifically. ( Yet your an atheist with morals and strong beliefs, explain that to me again ? That's more anomalies. oh blast that's another subject out of topic )
Your going against the greatest scientists of our time. Who say that. The whole universe is running on the principle that: For there to be an effect. There must be a cause. You haven't answered that. Instead your mocking it. Yet you think your more scientific than that. Then you expect me to take you seriously.

Annoyingly enough G S Hurd who called me Dougie. So I'll call him Gazzer. Old Gazzer is running around (not really, that's not literal, its symbolic ) Old gazzer is running around posting all these references of a whole lot of literature of different topics and posting hints about big bang scientists and making incorrect comments like this. ""I see only 1 correct statement, and 5 false statements. Worse than average even for a creationist."" And won't answer me when I have shown him it's incorrect what he said.
Gazzer does have a point that where out of topic. I won't say the H word about him but I'm willing finish things off here and make another thread and carry on.
 
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Site Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟130,556.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am not mocking anyone all I am doing is asking questions.
Well, we have both been mocking one another's statements. come on be honest.
Why do you believe that God always existed? why would you even want to believe something like that?
I've explained the logic several times. cause: effect. You can't get something from nothing.
 
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Site Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟130,556.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Or God created the universe using correct science.
 
Upvote 0

BrriKerr

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
237
42
36
UK
✟603.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That's a claim, not logic. Where did you demonstrate that you can't get something from nothing?
They haven't because they can't, they just keep repeating it until they believe it.
It's crazy but their brains won't allow them to see it, in one breath they say you can't get something from nothing and in the next they say their god came from nothing by always being there.
 
Upvote 0