Plenty
But still: No One Has Ever Seen A T-Rex
They've never seen neutrinos, either.
In fact, I'll be you've never seen "oxygen" or "air", but if we put you into a chamber and evac all the air out of it, you'll realize it actually was there...
Oklahoma bill would fire teachers for offending Christian morals by teaching biology, allows parents to sue teachers
- Thread starter Morrison71
- Start date
But still: No One Has Ever Seen A T-Rex
They've never seen neutrinos, either.
In fact, I'll be you've never seen "oxygen" or "air", but if we put you into a chamber and evac all the air out of it, you'll realize it actually was there...
My guess is you will avoid this question like you do the others, but what the hell. Are you a creationist?What experimental evidence do you have to prove your hypotheses?
What's the question here? Haven't been paying enough attention. Do you believe creationism or evolution led to humans?What experimental evidence do you have to prove your hypotheses?
There isn't scientific experimental data to support either position. I'm of the reasoned opinion that humans are created beings.
Got it. Created by who? There are quite a few "creators" for different religions/cultures in this country/world. In your reasoned opinion which one should I follow?
Holy shit, how did I not see this? Commies and Trex's?
I am a member of a sub redditt that gottdamnitm (colludes and makes fun of others ( but in a kinda condascending way lol). My words mean everything!
Disclaimer- if you hate Minor Threat, you should buy my new sweat wrap!
I am a member of a sub redditt that gottdamnitm (colludes and makes fun of others ( but in a kinda condascending way lol). My words mean everything!
Disclaimer- if you hate Minor Threat, you should buy my new sweat wrap!
No thanks. I understand that you don't want to share in public though. I think our views on faith would be a bit different.
Of course they are created - the question is whether they were created by evolution or an all-mighty being of some sort. Or maybe you have something else in mind with your "reasoned opinion" so please share with us what you think created humans. Be as specific as possible.
Discussions of faith in a public setting such as this are counter productive and pointless.
This isn't about faith, it's about science. When do you think humans were "created"? Some 2 million years ago with the first hominids? 200,000 years ago as homo sapiens? Somewhere in between, later, earlier? What's your basis for this "reasoned opinion"?
Authority? GTFO with that nonsense. I have no authority over you or anyone else on here. I can, however, expose your cowardice. Support your position and answer the questions posed. Otherwise STFU and take the loss.This is what you sound like when you try to act al alpha.
SOP for the GOP
Underfund whatever they want to privatize, and then claim that the government can't do anything well.
It's amazing how many people fall for that.
I'll just quote you wikipedia because it's easy. Someone needs to take a science class:
"A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.[4] Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."[5]
What facts do you have to support the theories that:
- Abiogenesis is possible.
- Genetic mutations, starting with a single organized cell, can lead to every living thing that we see on earth today.
It destroys your point. But you clearly cannot understand that.
How do you explain that you, or any human, exists? What FACTS do you have to support your THEORY?
Even the most avid young earth creationists believe that life arose from nonliving molecules. They believe that God fashioned man from dirt.
Thus, the question is not whether life originated from non-life but how that could happen. The young earth creationist theory is that life arose by the command of God (Genesis 1:20: "God said, 'Let the waters bring forth in abundance moving creatures that have life.'"). Scientists, of course, have a different theory.
Dude....we KNOW the Bible is true........because the Bible TELLS US everything in the Bible is true, and in case you missed that, everything in the Bible is true....
That is exactly how your "abiogenesis is true because we exist" argument goes.
Not at all.
We have a complex "family tree" of all life, confirmed by DNA evidence (so, two separate lines of evaluation).
But that's all "foreign" to you, because you've never taken a single science class.
You're the creationist - if life was created what was it created from? Were humans spontaneously created in our current form? What is your theory?
Think hard Joe. We know DNA exists because we can see it and study it. We don't know where DNA originated because we didn't see it and we can't study it. We don't have any plausible hypothesis how the first DNA molecule organized itself because all of our theories are scientifically invalidated by lack of experimental data and our inability (at least so far) to replicate DNA self-organization.
Science
Why are you assuming facts about my beliefs to distract from your inability to answer the question of abiogenesis?
No assumption. You stated "I'm of the reasoned opinion that humans are created beings."
When were they created? What were they created from? How were they created? What is your "reasoned opinion" based on?
And I've told you that I'll be happy to answer those question in a PM. Now, stick to the topic at hand. How did DNA self organize.
Do you know how dumb you are when you believe everybody thinks the same? I know by that one thing you are a moron fox news lover. you love stupidity and being told how to think and what to talk about. you are not even a real person at that point. We are making computers that can form an opinion and you have decided that some tv show will form all your opinions.. F!@#$$% SAD!!!!
I resent that in the Periodic Table of Elements Hydrogen gets to be number 1 and Gold only gets to be number 80. If my kid goes to school and some liberal tries to deny that Gold is #1 then I'm gonna sue.
Can we?
Have you "seen" it?
Or did some "scientist" use a machine you don't understand and know nothing about "claim" you can "see it"?
Show me a Polaroid of your DNA
Logically you are correct that both arguments are equally flawed.
The difference is that science has other facts that support its position. Whereas the biblical position has no other support (as far as I know).
Non of your compatriots can show their work. How about you? Where's the empirical data supporting the theory of abiogenesis?
I have no idea what you are looking for.
I'm assuming you aren't challenging basic principles of physics and chemistry. From which we know that atoms and molecules behave in predictable ways.
Those predictable chemical reactions can, do, and have been shown to result in replicating molecules.
No, replicating molecules aren't axiomatically alive in the sense we normally use "alive," but the chemicals of life are there, replication is there.
Given the necessary chemicals and replication - facts with which I assume everyone can agree - which makes more sense: that those chemicals of life combined with replicating molecules to eventually and perhaps necessarily produce what we call "life" . . . or that magic happened?
