MarkNigro Posted August 10, 2013 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 Author Share Posted August 10, 2013 I looked over all the information. I do want to thank you for the information. However abiogenesis has to be part of the theory of evolution, since one cannot then account for any life on the earth at all. Most evolutionists run from that like the plague. Again I want to thank you for the information, Mark This is just false. you can say it 100 times and it will still be false. I did look at the information. What I got from it was that there is no answer to what the first living creature was. I also now want to discuss one of the great con jobs of evolutionary theory. Evolutionists want to divide the atoms to mankind evolution into 2 parts. Abiogenesis and then evolution from something to mankind. Abiogenesis would go from atoms to the first creature. But the other half must go from the first creature to mankind. So whether you divide it into 2 parts, the first creature must be known. Now here is the great con job. Evolutionist want to teach evolution in the schools without answering abiogenesis, which of course is impossible and against all observation. But where do evolutionists begin the second part? With a very large and complex creature with RNA maybe even DNA. Then abiogenesis is just to get a chain of maybe 50 amino acids, all the same kind. They have now avoided a great gap where the impossible was. That is a great con job. The technique is repeated in all parts of atheistic origin science. I have studied it all. Those that believe this are being fooled by a very clever technique. Divide into pieces and hide the impossible parts in none of the pieces. You are right, there is no good answer for what the first living creature was. Where you go wrong is that you claim that the theory of evolution should answer this question. that is false. The TOE does not deal with the origins of life, only the diversity of life. one does not need to answer the first to address the 2nd. I showed you the game (con job) that is being played. They must answer the first creature question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted August 10, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted August 10, 2013 I showed you the game (con job) that is being played. They must answer the first creature question. yes, you showed me what you view as a con job, but no, they don't have to answer the first creature question. any answer to the first creature question will always be nothing but an assumption, even for a young earth creationist like yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkNigro Posted August 10, 2013 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 Author Share Posted August 10, 2013 I showed you the game (con job) that is being played. They must answer the first creature question. yes, you showed me what you view as a con job, but no, they don't have to answer the first creature question. any answer to the first creature question will always be nothing but an assumption, even for a young earth creationist like yourself But without the first creature how does evolution explain the jump the second creature, then the third creature ,.... Therefore it isn't even the first creature that is being skipped but possibly a whole lot. And we do not know how many because we dod not know the first creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meta_Agape Posted August 12, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 43 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/30/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/26/1986 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsukinoRei Posted August 12, 2013 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 Share Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis Oh gosh, that article doesn't appear reliable to me http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html http://www.nas.edu/evolution/CreationistPerspective.html Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur." This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations. Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter. Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them. Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning. This contention that nobody has seen evolution occurring further ignores the overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place and is continuing to occur. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics are both products of evolutionary forces. Another example of ongoing evolution is the appearance of mosquitoes resistant to various insecticides, which has contributed to a resurgence of malaria in Africa and elsewhere. The transitional fossils that have been found in abundance since Darwin's time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that, over time, produce radically changed body forms and functions. It also is possible to directly observe many of the specific processes by which evolution occurs. Scientists regularly do experiments using microbes and other model systems that directly test evolutionary hypotheses. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/CreationistPerspective.html Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. Edited August 12, 2013 by TsukinoRei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkNigro Posted August 12, 2013 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 Author Share Posted August 12, 2013 Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted August 12, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things. Again, disproving one does not prove the other. it is not an either or. each must stand in their own merit. Going with your logic one could say since evolution is false then that proves everything came from Tiamat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkNigro Posted August 12, 2013 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 Author Share Posted August 12, 2013 Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things. Again, disproving one does not prove the other. it is not an either or. each must stand in their own merit. Going with your logic one could say since evolution is false then that proves everything came from Tiamat Disproving without God origin science does prove with God origin sciecne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted August 12, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things. Again, disproving one does not prove the other. it is not an either or. each must stand in their own merit. Going with your logic one could say since evolution is false then that proves everything came from Tiamat Disproving without God origin science does prove with God origin sciecne No it does not. this is an error of logic that a 5th grader would know better than. You cannot prove something by disproving something else. This is the logical flaw of bifurcation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsukinoRei Posted August 12, 2013 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 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science. http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. That would be a logical fallacy. The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God. This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts. If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true. Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true. Therefore God created all things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts