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.
As one atheists said earlier I am not going to do your homework for you especially when you should know the answer.
Nice failure on your part. He said that creationists could not describe it. You copied and pasted a definition.
- Thermodynamics is a branch of physics concerned with heat and temperature and their relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables, such as internal energy, entropy, and pressure, that partly describe a body of matter or radiation.
No, that is the refuted claim of some poster that has no clue. Even though over half of his claims have been shown to be false many times over he still keeps making his bogus claim. As we all know, when it comes to debating creationists are amazingly dishonest. Some of them even make a career out of lying.It has also been noted that many fossils that demonstrate 'evolution' are merely the remains of the same species that died during various stages of growth, i.e. juveniles to adults.
Are you claiming RNA existed prior to life and/or evolution? Seems that RNA is hardly a simple chemical.Before "life". Evolution was present long before in simple self reproducing chemicals.
See also, Spiegelman's Monster.
Yes, RNA existed before celular life. RNA was not the first self replicating chemical. RNA was itself the result of evolution.Are you claiming RNA existed prior to life and/or evolution? Seems that RNA is hardly a simple chemical.
I'm flabbergasted by that assertion but cannot say it's in error. Can you provide a source that I can look into? I have never heard of RNA outside of cellular entities.Yes, RNA existed before celular life. RNA was not the first self replicating chemical. RNA was itself the result of evolution.
For one thing, many viruses are RNA based, and they're non cellular. Other than that, the theory that RNA replicators were the biological precursor to DNA and then cellular life as we know it is quite mainstream. Enjoy; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/I'm flabbergasted by that assertion but cannot say it's in error. Can you provide a source that I can look into? I have never heard of RNA outside of cellular entities.
Sorry but dinosaurs getting bigger or smaller depending on food supply is not evolution. That is adaptation. Just like me. if I consume less food I lose weight. I am still me however.
According to scripture God created everything after its own kind. Man/man. Dog/dog. Cat/cat. Tree/tree. Through the years adaptation takes place regularly but that is not evolution becuase the item concerned always stays what they are. No one changes from one thing to another so that blows the theories [sic] of evolution out of the proverbial window.
...and there was a range of both large and small dinosaurs in each epoch. As one finds in any ecology, there's creatures filling different niches, which requires different sizes.Nah. I am talking about different periods of large amounts of time, such as triassic, jurassic, and cretaceous periods. Dinos evolved across those time periods, for example.
Bit of a simplification. It's more of a cycle than a one way trend.My understanding is there was a general trend from smaller to bigger. Not just fatter.
It is. It's just not a straight line from smaller to bigger.I would still classify it as evolution.
/done
You do know that Francis Collins is in that "lunatic fringe" in fact there are many reputable scientists now and in the past that were part of what you are referring to as "the lunatic fringe"
You don't find it remarkable that Genesis has the sequence of living things in almost the exact order in which we find fossil evidence and scientific models representing? The first opening lines of Genesis tells us that the earth was unformed and void, there was ....nothing and there was a darkness upon the face of the deep. I'm going to send you a private message so this thread is not derailed. Just as something to think about.Because the authors of the text couldn't be talking about something which no one of the time had any knowledge. It's like expecting the writers of Genesis to be able to write about the topography of the Yukon Territory.
Divine inspiration does not mean that God gave to the writers a supernatural knowledge of a scientific process which would not even be known for many, many centuries later when it would have benefited nobody--because nobody who would have read these things in the times they were written would have been able to make that kind of connection making those points in the text entirely useless as Scripture for a pre-modern people.
They are made in "kinds", that is, in their diversity. The author does not attempt to spell out "pomegranates, apples, figs, mustard, rose bushes, tulips, wheat, rye, barley" instead the author simply says "of their kinds" that is, of the many kinds of [known] plant life, of the many kinds of things that swim, of the many different kinds of things that fly, etc. This is not about the development of thing after thing, but of the diversity and array of different sorts of things within the grouping listed, "things that creep" "beasts", etc.
-CryptoLutheran
Evidence?Yes, RNA existed before celular life. RNA was not the first self replicating chemical. RNA was itself the result of evolution.
Yes, I know what "illusion of design" means. It means that there is something that looks like something "design" but it is a deceptive appearance or impression. So what it means is there is the appearance or impression of design but it is deceptive. Now if there is this evidence of design which is clearly evident and obvious but someone wishes to claim that appearance or impression is deceptive it is incumbent upon them to show how that "illusion" is produced. It is there for a reason, it is either the obvious reason...design or it is deceptive and an illusion. Now if someone wishes to claim there is another reason other than design it is incumbent upon them to provide evidence that shows it is an illusion. That has not been provided as yet.Do you know what "illusion of design" means? It means that the object was no designed. Snowflakes have an illusion of design.
He has given you the evidence that you required many many times.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?