Creation

Originally posted by SwissGambit

I would not be just a nuffin'
My head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain

🙂

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.

Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279:28-29 (2 January 1998).

DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.

Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354-1356 (20 September 1991). Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536-8 (10 June 1993). Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Paabo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19-30 (Jul 11, 1997). Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature's ancient secrets, Nature 413:358-359 (27 September 2001).

Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.This proves the bacteria could not be more than 10,000 years old

Vreeland, R. H.,W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407:897-900 (19 October 2000).

Soft tissue and blood cells have been found in a dinosaur proving it is less than 10,000 years old.

Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952-1955 (25 March 2005).

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is obvious to many scientists too.

The law of biogensis states that life only comes from other life. Most evolutionists admit that Darwin's theory of evolution does not deal with how the fist life on earth came to exist. That is, evolution can't explain molecules to living cells and it can’t explain the origin of the information in DNA and RNA. The bes ...[text shortened]... is intelligent design by an Intelligent Designer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDN6un3x7E4

We have told you so many times that you should remember at least one of them. Don't you learn anything? The science of evolution doesn't deal with abiogenesis. It's outside evolution. Evolution is about evolution only! Is that so hard to grasp? Evolution isn't about big bang, cosmology, radiology, dendrochronology either, its about evolution, and evolution alone.

Are you getting Alzheimers, RJHinds?

You wrote: "The law of biogensis states that life only comes from other life."

Now listen, if you say that (P) "that life only comes from other life" then every cell must come from another cell, and you say there have always been cells there to generate more cells, not only from the Big Bang and onward, but all the eternity before that. Your postulate (P) then clearly prohibits abiogenesis, as well as divine creation.

If you don't have any knowledge, don't even pretend that you have...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
We have told you so many times that you should remember at least one of them. Don't you learn anything? The science of evolution doesn't deal with abiogenesis. It's outside evolution. Evolution is about evolution only! Is that so hard to grasp? Evolution isn't about big bang, cosmology, radiology, dendrochronology either, its about evolution, and evolutio ...[text shortened]... well as divine creation.

If you don't have any knowledge, don't even pretend that you have...

The law of biogenesis denies that life can come from non-life, like a rock, but states that life must always come from life. It does not deny that there must be an eternal source of life. Obviously, that eternal source of life is God.

God is the one that designed and programmed the different kinds of living things so that they always reproduce after their own kind. That rules out the theory of evolution. Therefore, the theory of evolution is dead.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The law of biogenesis denies that life can come from non-life, like a rock, but states that life must always come from life. It does not deny that there must be an eternal source of life. Obviously, that eternal source of life is God.

God is the one that designed and programmed the different kinds of living things so that they always reproduce after thei ...[text shortened]... own kind. That rules out the theory of evolution. Therefore, the theory of evolution is dead.

Yes, I know, that's a part of your religion. And this is spiritual forum, so you can have this religious opinion in peace, please do.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, I know, that's a part of your religion. And this is spiritual forum, so you can have this religious opinion in peace, please do.

Yes, I believe in freedom of religion. So you can have your atheism religion, too. Good luck with it. I believe you will need it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I believe in freedom of religion. So you can have your atheism religion, too. Good luck with it. I believe you will need it.

I don't need a religion. With religion comes demons. You are full of them. Good luck yourself, it's you who need it.

Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PY0zzh8G3c

Evolution - The Link To Our Past

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PY0zzh8G3c

Why don't you link stuff showing a young Earth from a site like MIT or CERN instead of agenda reeking creationists desperately trying to gain political power?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why don't you link stuff showing a young Earth from a site like MIT or CERN instead of agenda reeking creationists desperately trying to gain political power?

Because they have all bought into the propaganda of an old earth of billions of years. It has become part of their religion now.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Because they have all bought into the propaganda of an old earth of billions of years. It has become part of their religion now.

So you are ok with the creationist agenda: Gaining political power to be used to force evolution out of schools by whatever means they deem useful, whether weaponized pseudoscience or bible thumping, whatever gets them the political power to terrorize the educational system.

You have to realize that's what they are, educational terrorists.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you are ok with the creationist agenda: Gaining political power to be used to force evolution out of schools by whatever means they deem useful, whether weaponized pseudoscience or bible thumping, whatever gets them the political power to terrorize the educational system.

You have to realize that's what they are, educational terrorists.

I view the old earth evolutionists or evilutionists as the terrorists.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I view the old earth evolutionists or evilutionists as the terrorists.

The way it is now, science wins because it goes with evidence and uses the proven methods of science.

If creationism won, it would bring chaos to the world of science, scientists not able to work at their discipline, forced to spout the creationist dogma.

If that happened I would move back to Thailand or Israel or Andros.

I would not live in a religious terrorist country.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not believe that the universe could have came about by an explosion. An explosion would bring disorder instead of the order that is demonstrated by our solar system.

It was not an explosion !! it was the expansion of all time and space and energy but to think of it in terms of an explosion is not correct



Manny