Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Larniavc]

Well, something must leave. Something is different. I call it a life force. A force that cannot be controlled. Once it's gone, even if the body is a healthy young adult who has just drown, we, as the technological advanced medical experts we are, cannot bring this life force back. Sometimes we are fortunate and restart a heart and the person is revived. However, once it goes beyond a certain point, we are powerless. Then, a perfectly healthy vessel for life is devoid of life and man cannot give it life. We only use processes to maintain an existing life that the organism had from conception.

That is my idea, that is my support.

What do you call the force that determines if an organism is living or dead. Something is there that is not quantifiable but needs to be there for life to exist.

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.

 

[Larniavc]

This is not creating life. If I have a fire and take a little twig and put it in the fire and it ignites, I did not create fire. I passed existing fire on to another object.

This is what you are doing.

Rubbing two sticks together on a winter day and eventually having a flame where there was no previous flame. That's creating fire.
You have never created life.

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.

 

[BrriKerr]

Creationist Test:
Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.

1. Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".
2. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ in the lab.
3. The triune Godhead is a violation of what scientific law?
4. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
5. What day was Adam created on?
6. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
7. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
8. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
9. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.

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.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

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?

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

No we'll leave that to the evolutionists and their farce to explain.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

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

 

[Larniavc]

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.

 

[BrriKerr]

No we'll leave that to the evolutionists and their farce to explain.

You are the people who explain the myths to your children and friends and expect them to believe you, believing the unbelievable is your line of work.

 

[dougangel]

That's what I said, for your God just to pop into existence is hokery pokery, where did he pop from and where did he pop to?
and it's all supposed to have happened in the supernatural which is outside of space and time were no one can see,
and I'm the crazy one for living in and letting myself be bound by the walls of reality.

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.

 

[BrriKerr]

I do think God always existed

I am not mocking anyone all I am doing is asking questions.

Why do you believe that God always existed? why would you even want to believe something like that?

 

[dougangel]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've explained the logic several times. cause: effect. You can't get something from nothing.

That's a claim, not logic. Where did you demonstrate that you can't get something from nothing?

 

[BrriKerr]

I've explained the logic several times. cause: effect. You can't get something from nothing.

OK enough is enough and I've had enough.

 

[dougangel]

The same way I was taught. Simply put.... there are two views on how life originated and became what we have today. One is a spontainious arrival of life from a soup in a puddle with all organisms existing from this organism evolving over vast amounts of time. The other is the view that God created the universe and the life that is on it.

When I was in school the teachers had no trouble teaching both views and taught that they were two un proven theories.

Back then a theory was a theory until it could be proven wrong or proven to be fact.

If you want you could even add a third with the whole scientology belief of Aliens seeding a volcanoe..... we must give everyone a shot.

Or God created the universe using correct science.

 

[BrriKerr]

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.

 

[BrriKerr]

Or God created the universe using correct science.

What God? where did this God come from? your imagination or from someone else's?