Jump to content
IGNORED

What was the first living thing like according to evolutionists


MarkNigro

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  428
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   61
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/10/2013
  • Status:  Offline

What was the first living thing (if you can call it living) like?

 

Was just comprised of proteins and other atoms?

If so how many amino acids were in each protein?

What was the sequence of the amino acids?

 

Or

 

Was it composed of RNA and proteins?

For the proteins,

 

how many amino acids were in each protein?

What was the sequence of the amino acids?

For the RNA,

How many nucleotides total was there?

What was the sequence of nucleotides?

 

Or

 

did it have DNA and all the other things needed to be DNA based?

 

How many nucleotides total was there?

What was the sequence of nucleotides?

 

The answer to these should be known by now.

 

Any answer will help.

Please also deal with at least the second through 100th creature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  428
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   61
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/10/2013
  • Status:  Offline

What was the first living thing (if you can call it living) like?

 

Was just comprised of proteins and other atoms?

If so how many amino acids were in each protein?

What was the sequence of the amino acids?

 

Or

 

Was it composed of RNA and proteins?

For the proteins,

 

how many amino acids were in each protein?

What was the sequence of the amino acids?

For the RNA,

How many nucleotides total was there?

What was the sequence of nucleotides?

 

Or

 

did it have DNA and all the other things needed to be DNA based?

 

How many nucleotides total was there?

What was the sequence of nucleotides?

 

The answer to these should be known by now.

 

Any answer will help.

So far no one has given any answer to these questions. They are being honest in that they do now know the answer. In fact no evolutionists knows the answer to this question.

 

Many try to hide this or evade this altogether. The reason is simple. Any answer can easily be shown to be false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  428
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   61
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/10/2013
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/16/2013 at 1:15 PM, D-9 said:

If you're really interested, this subject gets into abiogenesis (which is a separate field to evolution). There's a good video series on the origins of life on YouTube by cdk007, which focuses on work done by Jack Szostak. There's some creationist bashing in the beginning, but I think the overall substance and the great music makes up for it. If you want to skip the creationist bashing skip to 2:45

The attempt to divide out abiogensis from evolution is one of the most fraudulent acts of pure deception. Many people are not even aware of this con job which just shows that they have been deceived.

 

 

The claim is evolution from chemicals to mankind. This would include the first living creature, The evolutionists try to divide into 2 separate pieces. But logically the 2 pieces must add up to the whole. Thus the 2 pieces must be from atoms to the first living creature and from the first living creature to mankind. But the evolutionist does not want to talk about the first creature at all, but starts with a much more advanced creature.

 

Even if you divide out abiogenesis, the evolutionist must start at the first creature, else it is a fraud and con job of hiding a very important gap. . Then they must talk about the second, third, fourth, fifth, through at least the millionth creature which is still more primitive than where the evolutionists starts.

 

The con job then allows for biogenesis to be no more than a small chain of amino acids. But that is not the first creature at all, And you will not get to man from there.

 

 

I know a con job when I see it. Did they fool you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  8
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  438
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/02/2013
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/16/2013 at 1:15 PM, D-9 said:

If you're really interested, this subject gets into abiogenesis (which is a separate field to evolution). There's a good video series on the origins of life on YouTube by cdk007, which focuses on work done by Jack Szostak. There's some creationist bashing in the beginning, but I think the overall substance and the great music makes up for it. If you want to skip the creationist bashing skip to 2:45

 

Thank you for the link!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  8
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  438
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/02/2013
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/16/2013 at 2:25 PM, MarkNigro said:

 

On 8/16/2013 at 1:15 PM, D-9 said:

If you're really interested, this subject gets into abiogenesis (which is a separate field to evolution). There's a good video series on the origins of life on YouTube by cdk007, which focuses on work done by Jack Szostak. There's some creationist bashing in the beginning, but I think the overall substance and the great music makes up for it. If you want to skip the creationist bashing skip to 2:45

The attempt to divide out abiogensis from evolution is one of the most fraudulent acts of pure deception. Many people are not even aware of this con job which just shows that they have been deceived.

 

 

The claim is evolution from chemicals to mankind. This would include the first living creature, The evolutionists try to divide into 2 separate pieces. But logically the 2 pieces must add up to the whole. Thus the 2 pieces must be from atoms to the first living creature and from the first living creature to mankind. But the evolutionist does not want to talk about the first creature at all, but starts with a much more advanced creature.

 

Even if you divide out abiogenesis, the evolutionist must start at the first creature, else it is a fraud and con job of hiding a very important gap. . Then they must talk about the second, third, fourth, fifth, through at least the millionth creature which is still more primitive than where the evolutionists starts.

 

The con job then allows for biogenesis to be no more than a small chain of amino acids. But that is not the first creature at all, And you will not get to man from there.

 

 

I know a con job when I see it. Did they fool you?

 

 

 

Even more outrageous are the number of people who believe that pigs do not have wings and cannot fly!  The claim that they do not is one of the most fraudulent acts of pure deception, because I say so!  So many people aren't even aware that they've been conned into thinking these pink little creatures are land bound.  But it's a plot!  A conspiracy of epic proportions!  

 

I know a con job when I see it!  Did they fool you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  428
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   61
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/10/2013
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/17/2013 at 12:41 AM, TsukinoRei said:

 

On 8/16/2013 at 2:25 PM, MarkNigro said:

 

On 8/16/2013 at 1:15 PM, D-9 said:

If you're really interested, this subject gets into abiogenesis (which is a separate field to evolution). There's a good video series on the origins of life on YouTube by cdk007, which focuses on work done by Jack Szostak. There's some creationist bashing in the beginning, but I think the overall substance and the great music makes up for it. If you want to skip the creationist bashing skip to 2:45

 

 

The attempt to divide out abiogensis from evolution is one of the most fraudulent acts of pure deception. Many people are not even aware of this con job which just shows that they have been deceived.

 

 

The claim is evolution from chemicals to mankind. This would include the first living creature, The evolutionists try to divide into 2 separate pieces. But logically the 2 pieces must add up to the whole. Thus the 2 pieces must be from atoms to the first living creature and from the first living creature to mankind. But the evolutionist does not want to talk about the first creature at all, but starts with a much more advanced creature.

 

Even if you divide out abiogenesis, the evolutionist must start at the first creature, else it is a fraud and con job of hiding a very important gap. . Then they must talk about the second, third, fourth, fifth, through at least the millionth creature which is still more primitive than where the evolutionists starts.

 

The con job then allows for biogenesis to be no more than a small chain of amino acids. But that is not the first creature at all, And you will not get to man from there.

 

 

I know a con job when I see it. Did they fool you?

 

 

 

Even more outrageous are the number of people who believe that pigs do not have wings and cannot fly!  The claim that they do not is one of the most fraudulent acts of pure deception, because I say so!  So many people aren't even aware that they've been conned into thinking these pink little creatures are land bound.  But it's a plot!  A conspiracy of epic proportions!  

 

I know a con job when I see it!  Did they fool you?

 

Of course an evolutionist actually wrote a book called The Wonderful Egg (I think that was the title.) In it a dinosaur laid an egg and out popped a bird which flew into a tree and sang.

 

It was meant for children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.90
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

A book teaching saltationism to kids?

lol

that isnt the ToE anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  764
  • Topics Per Day:  0.18
  • Content Count:  7,626
  • Content Per Day:  1.82
  • Reputation:   1,559
  • Days Won:  44
  • Joined:  10/03/2012
  • Status:  Offline

Closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...