how do atheist refute this.
how do atheist refute this.
posted by digital muscle originally:
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements ? all of which are found in the earth.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: ?In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)?Then God said, ?Let there be light (energy).? No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be ?parted? and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago ? God declared this four millennia ago!
looking for serious responses.
Question to what? If you are Christian then all your questions can be answered between you and god and the Bible. Do not displace logic because we at the moment haven't the technology to describe a thing. Science is about logic and agreeing through hypothesis why things are the way they are. Religion is about emotion and the fight from within. A way to describe a thing because you lack the techonology to describe it through science.
Thermodynamics, the law is incorrectly stated and applied to the wrong situation. The actual physical law refers to an isolated system (essentially theoretical) and relates an invented state variable of internal energy to the concepts of work and heat.
The one below this refers to "Observable evidence" that no other religion agrees with, but the only evidence it uses is the existence of time, space, matter and energy. It loosely relates them to biblical notions.
The one below this I have seen used before and is quoted badly out of context. There was no indication that there would be night and day at the same time. If you look you'll see this reference uses a bible source over three section (Luke 17:34-36). Should ring alarm bells when you see no direct quotation anyway. Additionally, the existence of night and day simultaneously is not sufficient to deduce a spherical Earth, and the new testament never set out to give information on God's workings... Luke is a gospel and therefore only an account at Jesus' time.
The final one about light being divided, as I have said in another thread, white light can be divided but the bible does not talk about white light. A photon is a fundemental particle). To say "white light can be split implies light can be split" is like saying "a group of marbles can be divided therefore a marbel can be divided".
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together. God of the gaps.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements ? all of which are found in the earth. lol, I've heard this one before. Were you aware that animals and plants also contain the same elements as the earth's soil? Or that plant and human chemical make-up is identical? Yet, 'god' didn't make us from plants. Anyone with a knowledge of trophic dynamics will understand how this works. Put in the simplest terms possible: Plants gather nutrients from the soil, animals eat the plants, we eat the animals and plants. When we eat the food is digested, broken down into monosaccharides and amino acids, and absorbed into our cells. Thus is is no surprise that we contain the same elements which came from the plants, animals, and soil.
But either way I'm sure you're already content with your 'god did it' theory, and that there is absolutely no other scientific explaination sufficient enough.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis. Out of context, samian has this one.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: ?In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)?Then God said, ?Let there be light (energy).? No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence. What, 2000 years ago humans were not aware of time, space, matter, and light? How you interpret this as proof of god is beyond me. And why only mention light, which represents only a small fraction of the entire electromagnetic spectrum? Why only mention normal matter, which makes up only approximately 4% of the universe? Sounds suspiciously like something someone would have written 2000 years ago who had no knowledge or modern science.
wasnt this ENTIRE post already systematically destroyed in the holes thread?
/thread
/arguement
usually insults or mockery
God of the gaps.
So thats your refutation.
Brilliant
usually insults or mockery heck, sometimes we even completely smash the arguement for lulz
So thats your refutation.
Brilliant lol. as good of a refutation as using god as a reason
wasnt this ENTIRE post already systematically destroyed in the holes thread?
/thread
/arguement x2
So thats your refutation.
Brilliant What he meant was that just because you don't know the reason for something doesn't mean god did it.
So thats your refutation.
Brilliant Apparently you missed the point. Read below:
What he meant was that just because you don't know the reason for something doesn't mean god did it.
Proteins came first. They can assemble themselves in complex patterns and can self replicate. The patterns that were better able at self replicating would lead eventually to more complex structures like DNA.
Proteins came first. They can assemble themselves in complex patterns and can self replicate. The patterns that were better able at self replicating would lead eventually to more complex structures like DNA. thank you, finally. I had heard a guy speak about something kinda like this. I didnt totally follow on what he was saying but...............he used the bombardier beetle as an example. And said how it couldnt have evolved, or slowly devoloped. Mostly because of its chemicals etc.......
has anyone else heard anything like this. Please dont yell at me if it sounds retarded. lol
posted by digital muscle originally:
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements ? all of which are found in the earth.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: ?In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)?Then God said, ?Let there be light (energy).? No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be ?parted? and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago ? God declared this four millennia ago!
looking for serious responses. 1. Which came first, the simple answer is neither, an amino acid came first. DNA is required to make complex proteins, Hence Proteins are required to stablise complex double helical DNA. This is the whole argument you can make amino acids chemically and two amino acids make a protein. If you can make simple stable RNA strands and dipeptides chemically you can evovle into prokaryotic cells.
2. Go on take a handfull of dirt and try and turn it in to a human, I'm waiting. Things that evolved from the earth are made of the same elements hasn't this been proven time over and the basis for scientific theory of evolution and existance.
3. The existence of something is not an argument to the fact that it was created. By that logic you believe god exists therefore to support such a theory you would have to acept the ultimate he was created.
4. This contradicts your above statement, for one you would have to believe that a devine being exists beyond the realm of space something I believe to be impossible. Similarly for energy or matter they were never created they always existed time didn't start and will never end it's an infinite line in both directions it's mathmatically possible to prove infinity exists.
5.Don't know what Bible you're reading but scripture says the earth if flat, and is in the center of the universe revolving around it. Several scientists theorized the true nature of the earth and were condemned by Christan society until someone went west and ended up back where they began
6. Rainbows, the spliting of the spectrum of white light existed since the first combination of water and light. What's more god didn't declare this some religious figure did several thousand years ago because someone made the observation before newton and attributed to a god doesn't prove divine existence.
What's more each and every quote is completely open to their own context and interpretation. Ultimate explanation for all of your observations the bible is of pure human invention
thank you, finally. I had heard a guy speak about something kinda like this. I didnt totally follow on what he was saying but...............he used the bombardier beetle as an example. And said how it couldnt have evolved, or slowly devoloped. Mostly because of its chemicals etc.......
has anyone else heard anything like this. Please dont yell at me if it sounds retarded. lol It's a classic. I don't know the answer off of the top of my head, but here are a few links about it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310_1.html
1. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.
All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.
so how do theists refute the atheists refuting the how do atheists refute digitalmuscle's post?
so how do theists refute the atheists refuting the how do atheists refute digitalmuscle's post? They can't, as usual.
But of course, this won't phase them. They'll still hold on to their little fairy-tale beliefs and ignore logic.
posted by digital muscle originally:
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements ? all of which are found in the earth.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: ?In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)?Then God said, ?Let there be light (energy).? No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be ?parted? and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago ? God declared this four millennia ago!
looking for serious responses.
Answer:
Question to what? If you are Christian then all your questions can be answered between you and god and the Bible. Do not displace logic because we at the moment haven't the technology to describe a thing. Science is about logic and agreeing through hypothesis why things are the way they are. Religion is about emotion and the fight from within. A way to describe a thing because you lack the techonology to describe it through science.
Answer:
Thermodynamics, the law is incorrectly stated and applied to the wrong situation. The actual physical law refers to an isolated system (essentially theoretical) and relates an invented state variable of internal energy to the concepts of work and heat.
The one below this refers to "Observable evidence" that no other religion agrees with, but the only evidence it uses is the existence of time, space, matter and energy. It loosely relates them to biblical notions.
The one below this I have seen used before and is quoted badly out of context. There was no indication that there would be night and day at the same time. If you look you'll see this reference uses a bible source over three section (Luke 17:34-36). Should ring alarm bells when you see no direct quotation anyway. Additionally, the existence of night and day simultaneously is not sufficient to deduce a spherical Earth, and the new testament never set out to give information on God's workings... Luke is a gospel and therefore only an account at Jesus' time.
The final one about light being divided, as I have said in another thread, white light can be divided but the bible does not talk about white light. A photon is a fundemental particle). To say "white light can be split implies light can be split" is like saying "a group of marbles can be divided therefore a marbel can be divided".
Answer:
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together. God of the gaps.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements ? all of which are found in the earth. lol, I've heard this one before. Were you aware that animals and plants also contain the same elements as the earth's soil? Or that plant and human chemical make-up is identical? Yet, 'god' didn't make us from plants. Anyone with a knowledge of trophic dynamics will understand how this works. Put in the simplest terms possible: Plants gather nutrients from the soil, animals eat the plants, we eat the animals and plants. When we eat the food is digested, broken down into monosaccharides and amino acids, and absorbed into our cells. Thus is is no surprise that we contain the same elements which came from the plants, animals, and soil.
But either way I'm sure you're already content with your 'god did it' theory, and that there is absolutely no other scientific explaination sufficient enough.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis. Out of context, samian has this one.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: ?In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)?Then God said, ?Let there be light (energy).? No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence. What, 2000 years ago humans were not aware of time, space, matter, and light? How you interpret this as proof of god is beyond me. And why only mention light, which represents only a small fraction of the entire electromagnetic spectrum? Why only mention normal matter, which makes up only approximately 4% of the universe? Sounds suspiciously like something someone would have written 2000 years ago who had no knowledge or modern science.
Answer:
wasnt this ENTIRE post already systematically destroyed in the holes thread?
/thread
/arguement
Answer:
usually insults or mockery
Answer:
God of the gaps.
So thats your refutation.
Brilliant
Answer:
usually insults or mockery heck, sometimes we even completely smash the arguement for lulz
Answer:
So thats your refutation.
Brilliant lol. as good of a refutation as using god as a reason
Answer:
wasnt this ENTIRE post already systematically destroyed in the holes thread?
/thread
/arguement x2
Answer:
So thats your refutation.
Brilliant What he meant was that just because you don't know the reason for something doesn't mean god did it.
Answer:
So thats your refutation.
Brilliant Apparently you missed the point. Read below:
What he meant was that just because you don't know the reason for something doesn't mean god did it.
Answer:
Proteins came first. They can assemble themselves in complex patterns and can self replicate. The patterns that were better able at self replicating would lead eventually to more complex structures like DNA.
Answer:
Proteins came first. They can assemble themselves in complex patterns and can self replicate. The patterns that were better able at self replicating would lead eventually to more complex structures like DNA. thank you, finally. I had heard a guy speak about something kinda like this. I didnt totally follow on what he was saying but...............he used the bombardier beetle as an example. And said how it couldnt have evolved, or slowly devoloped. Mostly because of its chemicals etc.......
has anyone else heard anything like this. Please dont yell at me if it sounds retarded. lol
Answer:
posted by digital muscle originally:
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements ? all of which are found in the earth.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: ?In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)?Then God said, ?Let there be light (energy).? No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be ?parted? and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago ? God declared this four millennia ago!
looking for serious responses. 1. Which came first, the simple answer is neither, an amino acid came first. DNA is required to make complex proteins, Hence Proteins are required to stablise complex double helical DNA. This is the whole argument you can make amino acids chemically and two amino acids make a protein. If you can make simple stable RNA strands and dipeptides chemically you can evovle into prokaryotic cells.
2. Go on take a handfull of dirt and try and turn it in to a human, I'm waiting. Things that evolved from the earth are made of the same elements hasn't this been proven time over and the basis for scientific theory of evolution and existance.
3. The existence of something is not an argument to the fact that it was created. By that logic you believe god exists therefore to support such a theory you would have to acept the ultimate he was created.
4. This contradicts your above statement, for one you would have to believe that a devine being exists beyond the realm of space something I believe to be impossible. Similarly for energy or matter they were never created they always existed time didn't start and will never end it's an infinite line in both directions it's mathmatically possible to prove infinity exists.
5.Don't know what Bible you're reading but scripture says the earth if flat, and is in the center of the universe revolving around it. Several scientists theorized the true nature of the earth and were condemned by Christan society until someone went west and ended up back where they began
6. Rainbows, the spliting of the spectrum of white light existed since the first combination of water and light. What's more god didn't declare this some religious figure did several thousand years ago because someone made the observation before newton and attributed to a god doesn't prove divine existence.
What's more each and every quote is completely open to their own context and interpretation. Ultimate explanation for all of your observations the bible is of pure human invention
Answer:
thank you, finally. I had heard a guy speak about something kinda like this. I didnt totally follow on what he was saying but...............he used the bombardier beetle as an example. And said how it couldnt have evolved, or slowly devoloped. Mostly because of its chemicals etc.......
has anyone else heard anything like this. Please dont yell at me if it sounds retarded. lol It's a classic. I don't know the answer off of the top of my head, but here are a few links about it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310_1.html
1. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.
All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.
Answer:
so how do theists refute the atheists refuting the how do atheists refute digitalmuscle's post?
Answer:
so how do theists refute the atheists refuting the how do atheists refute digitalmuscle's post? They can't, as usual.
But of course, this won't phase them. They'll still hold on to their little fairy-tale beliefs and ignore logic.