Noah's Ark

If you look at and compare DNA structures, the DNA of humans and other apes are all very similar. It's pretty interesting how a few small tweaks here and there can make such a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_e...onary_genetics

pigs hearts are closer to human hearts and are used for some of their parts are used in humans

That oft-quoted 1.5 percent difference between ourselves and chimps, then is really larger than it looks … More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps. … Despite our general resemblance to our primate cousins, then, evolving a human from an apelike ancestor probably required substantial genetic change. 11 [italics his]

He is pretty close to the truth here. We’ve shown before that the allegedly small genetic difference between apes and man is a fictitious result of some artful mathematics. 12 There really is a substantial genetic difference between apes and humans which evolutionists don’t like to admit because it weakens their argument that we share a common biological ancestor.


Also look at the DNA structure of alligators and Crocodiles and you swear they are identical- in fact they are so different that Crocs and Gators can't even mate and reproduce offspring.

Also, as Bouljay has mentioned several times- there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever of macroevolution ever taking place on any scale.

RNA the simplest component of DNA is made up of nucleotides.
Just to have one nucleotide spontaneously generate would have
the odds of 1 in 1 with 109 zeros, that is a number larger than
the number of electrons in the universe, and you haven't even
gotten a molecule of RNA yet which still needs protein to work.

And sorry about your luck RNA needs protein to work and protein
needs RNA to exist, and you haven't even gotten to DNA yet.

THe odds are better that you would win the lottery every day
for an eternity.

Guess that's why Dawkins now goes with the Alien angle.




ET phone Dawkins......Now about those Pink Unicorns, ha ha ha ha

The beginning of a life form is complex, delicate and immediate,
no long, slow, gradual process of natural selection can ever explain it.

Even the simplest living cell has a complexity that is on a grand scale.
We're talking about a living cell with complex structures, components,
and processes that all have to be in place, in order, and functioning
exactly as they are suppose to for the cell even to exist.

Not the same as say growing a stalagmite in a cave for a few thousand years.

This is where their little theory recedes back into the darkness from which it came.

You see there was a time when simple life forms were thought to be just that, simple.
That was before science came to understand the huge complexity involved in the
simplest of living cells.

The evolutionary model is so ingrained in scientific thought and Darwinian Evolutionist
have such a stranglehold on science they will never give it up, or at least not in
a way that would give any credence to the existence of God.

They would even go as far as to postulate some alien theory like Dawkins, before
they would do that.

The beginning of a life form is complex, delicate and immediate,
no long, slow, gradual process of natural selection can ever explain it.

Even the simplest living cell has a complexity that is on a grand scale.
We're talking about a living cell with complex structures, components,
and processes that all have to be in place, in order, and functioning
exactly as they are suppose to for the cell even to exist. Originally Posted by bojulay

You have absolutely no idea what types of organism preceded the cell. Nor does anyone else. All of the evidence was microscopic and existed a billion years ago. So there are no fossils at that size level.

Viruses are far less complex than cells. So there are simpler structures that can exist below cell level.

So, you don't know what came before the cell and cannot make broad statements about the requirements for the "first" cell to exist.

You have absolutely no idea what types of organism preceded the cell. Nor does anyone else. All of the evidence was microscopic and existed a billion years ago. So there are no fossils at that size level.

Viruses are far less complex than cells. So there are simpler structures that can exist below cell level.

So, you don't know what came before the cell and cannot make broad statements about the requirements for the "first" cell to exist. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Short answer.
Sure I do, organisms that consisted of at least RNA.
A virus consists of RNA and most agree that cells came first
because a virus needs a cell to replicate its self.

No cell, no replication. Cells do not replicate from viruses and
viruses do not replicate on their own.

There is no organism that cells could come from that would not consist of RNA
and you also have to have proteins for RNA to work.

Refer to my earlier post about the complexity of RNA and the nucleotides
that it consists of.

Just saying there might be some organism no one knows about doesn't cut it
when there is no conceivable way to fit it into the equation.

You have absolutely no idea what types of organism preceded the cell. Nor does anyone else. All of the evidence was microscopic and existed a billion years ago. So there are no fossils at that size level.

Viruses are far less complex than cells. So there are simpler structures that can exist below cell level.

So, you don't know what came before the cell and cannot make broad statements about the requirements for the "first" cell to exist. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Short answer.
Sure I do, organisms that consisted of at least RNA.
A virus consists of RNA and most agree that cells came first
because a virus needs a cell to replicate its self.

No cell, no replication. Cells do not replicate from viruses and
viruses do not replicate on their own.

There is no organism that cells could come from that would not consist of RNA
and you also have to have proteins for RNA to work.

Refer to my earlier post about the complexity of RNA and the nucleotides
that it consists of.

Just saying there might be some organism no one knows about doesn't cut it
when there is no conceivable way to fit it into the equation.

You are always left with some kind of impossible spontaneous generation
event.

Science finally proving the fact of the complexity of life has also in doing
so proven that bad science wont work.

Short answer.
Sure I do, organisms that consisted of at least RNA.
A virus consists of RNA and most agree that cells came first
because a virus needs a cell to replicate its self.

No cell, no replication. Cells do not replicate from viruses and
viruses do not replicate on their own.
I never said they did. I only pointed out that there are smaller, simpler structures than cells that can replicate. So it is entirely possilbe that other simpler protein structures that we don't know about eventually because more complex over time and many replications - until the first "cell" was formed. However you determine that.

There is no organism that cells could come from that would not consist of RNA
and you also have to have proteins for RNA to work.

Refer to my earlier post about the complexity of RNA and the nucleotides
that it consists of.

Just saying there might be some organism no one knows about doesn't cut it
when there is no conceivable way to fit it into the equation.
Why not? You don't know that there is no conceivable way to "fit it into the equation" Because mankind does not have complete knowledge yet. Not even close. Originally Posted by bojulay

But you know what really doesn't "cut it"?

Declaring "God did it" whenever you can't figure something out.

Yeah, real scientists don't give up that easily.

But you know what really doesn't "cut it"?

Declaring "God did it" whenever you can't figure something out.

Yeah, real scientists don't give up that easily. Originally Posted by ExNYer

E-Nyer give it up you been taken to school- you lost this argument please just admit defeat!!!!

ExNyer give it up you been taken to school- you lost this argument please just admit defeat!!!! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

If only you had been taken to school at some point in your life - a real one that taught science.

If only you had been taken to school at some point in your life - a real one that taught science. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Ex-Nyer when I was in school the science teacher as well as my text boo told me the earth is 3 billions years old- now in 2013 they say the earth is 4.5 to 5 billions years old. Can you please tell me how in 25 to 30 years the data is off by so many years? We not talking about off by 10, 100 or even a thousand years but off by nearly 2.5 BILLION years- and yet you want to trust that data????

I believe there was a pre Adam and Eve world.

One of the key verses from genesis is where God tells them to replenish
the world, it is the same word that means to restock something.

This scripture bothered theologians for years because it
clearly implies that something existed before.

It's a case of too little information being revealed.

With Adam and Eve God was doing something different.
The original hebrew also reads, And God said let us make Adam
in our image not man, but it got translated man.

The scripture that says the earth was without form and void could
also have been translated the earth became without form and void
implying some cataclysmic event occurred.

bojulay since you are so intent on converting all us non-believing sinners, how exactly are you going to be judged as a hooktard yourself? doesn't the bible forbid consorting with prostitutes?

http://www.gotquestions.org/prostitution.html

God forbids involvement with prostitutes because He knows such involvement is detrimental to both men and women. "For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey, And her mouth is smoother than oil; But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, Sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death, Her steps lay hold of hell" (Proverbs 5:3-5 NKJV).

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/prostitu...#ixzz2aV9YvRZK

i mean, you do see hookers, don't you? of course you can claim your 8 reviews are fiction, right? that'll fix things with the Almighty and get ya in the Pearly Gates!
oh snap! i get it now, you'll just say ten Hail Mary's after each session and you good to go! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Mary Magdalene was said to be a prostitute. Jesus and she were seen together quite a bit.

Jim