26 Jun 12
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are simply not answering the question at all. I ask again, what is the difference? Why do single celled life forms in the modern world often thrive whereas you claim that they would not have done so in the past?
Something so small in a very small area that allows it to maintain itself could
at any time change with drastic swings in temperature and other life ending
events that could cut off food supply or anything else required for life, it
happens now on our planet where life basically thrives in its niches.
Even life that is at one time only found in a very small area frequently manages to multiply and spread over vast areas. Yet you claim this was impossible in the past. Please explain what the difference is.
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe difference is he is taking about the forming of these life forms before they are a fully functional cell with DNA replicating programs and all these many manufacturing molecular machines available in the cell to make reproducing the correct proteins necessary for replication of that cell possible. You have to just assume the cell just formed that way in a slow evolutionary way, which is impossible, as he is trying to point out.
You are simply not answering the question at all. I ask again, what is the difference? Why do single celled life forms in the modern world often thrive whereas you claim that they would not have done so in the past?
Even life that is at one time only found in a very small area frequently manages to multiply and spread over vast areas. Yet you claim this was impossible in the past. Please explain what the difference is.
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI did answer again you don't have eyes to see I guess, one is real the other not.
You are simply not answering the question at all. I ask again, what is the difference? Why do single celled life forms in the modern world often thrive whereas you claim that they would not have done so in the past?
Even life that is at one time only found in a very small area frequently manages to multiply and spread over vast areas. Yet you claim this was impossible in the past. Please explain what the difference is.
The non-real one if it had of been real would have had so much stacked against
it, there would have no way it could have stayed alive let alone thrive. What
we see today is a community of life each with functions that helps the rest of
life move on, from weeding out the sick and lame, from cleaning up the mess,
to moving food supplies from one area to another, to putting air around us and
so on. What is being proposed with a simple life form is one that pops up with
out any support what so ever and it would not only continue but improve.
Kelly
Kelly,
Evolutionists want me to believe that each and every minute step of the functions of this microbiology came about by random mutation and natural selection. Each tiny function, they insist, emerged from microscopic natural selection.
This requires incredibly huge FAITH to believe this:
Journey Inside the Cell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=1fiJupfbSpg&feature=fvwp
Scientists Create Synthetic Organism
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984.html
The probability of spontaneous generation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=nyTUSe99z6o
Bacterial Flagellum
&feature=related
P.S. Notice that the scientists used design techniques and not evolution to create these organisms by copying the design of the Great Designer.
27 Jun 12
Originally posted by jaywillIt doesn't take any faith at all. 😛
Kelly,
Evolutionists want me to believe that each and every minute step of the functions of this microbiology came about by random mutation and natural selection. Each tiny function, they insist, emerged from microscopic natural selection.
This requires incredibly huge FAITH to believe this:
[b]Journey Inside the Cell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=1fiJupfbSpg&feature=fvwp[/b]
27 Jun 12
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you are going to pull the famous 'only Christians can understand' card? Pathetic.
I did answer again you don't have eyes to see.....
The non-real one if it had of been real would have had so much stacked against
it, there would have no way it could have stayed alive let alone thrive.
How do you know this? Can you give at least some details about the life form in question and what environment it was in and why you think the two were so incompatible?
What we see today is a community of life each with functions that helps the rest of
life move on, from weeding out the sick and lame, from cleaning up the mess,
to moving food supplies from one area to another, to putting air around us and
so on.
Not always. Many life forms are perfectly capable of living in isolation and effectively do. Others live in competition with those around them not harmony.
What is being proposed with a simple life form is one that pops up with
out any support what so ever and it would not only continue but improve.
So can you give a bit more detail about the environment in question and why you think no life form could survive in it. I can assure you that in today's world there are plenty of environments which would support a single life form even if they were totally devoid of other life. What I want to know is why you believe that would not have been the case in the past.
27 Jun 12
Originally posted by jaywillIt's a matter of method. I admire truth seekers. I don't care if they believe in God or not. Even if he exists, they still want to know how he did it. None of this process - the figuring out 'how' - requires faith.
Yes it does. It takes a whole lot of trust in a world view. Mountains of trust in a world view.
You're in flat out denial.
27 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadDid you see me say that? You either start treating me with a little more respect
So you are going to pull the famous 'only Christians can understand' card? Pathetic.
[b]The non-real one if it had of been real would have had so much stacked against
it, there would have no way it could have stayed alive let alone thrive.
How do you know this? Can you give at least some details about the life form in question and what environmen ...[text shortened]... r life. What I want to know is why you believe that would not have been the case in the past.[/b]
here or we can drop this conversation, up to you. I said I answered you and
you missed it, NOT that you need to be a Christian to see it. Get real, and stop
being so damn insulting.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Jun 12
Originally posted by KellyJay..."What is being proposed with a simple life form is one that pops up with
I did answer again you don't have eyes to see I guess, one is real the other not.
The non-real one if it had of been real would have had so much stacked against
it, there would have no way it could have stayed alive let alone thrive. What
we see today is a community of life each with functions that helps the rest of
life move on, from weeding out the si ...[text shortened]... t pops up with
out any support what so ever and it would not only continue but improve.
Kelly
out any support what so ever and it would not only continue but improve. "
What is being proposed is not a "simple life form" that has no support "what so ever".
There is no magic moment when a little thing first possessed "life." Whether the simple thing meets some 21st century definition of being alive or not, was no concern at the time it was doing what it was doing, and it was doing it in a "soup" that what of such a temperature and pH and composition that it drew upon the surroundings for its very composition, and as an energy source. That's "support." Lo and behold, eventually some of these little things popped off copies of themselves.
We get such a story from our studies of a book called nature. We get (according to some people) a different story from a book called Genesis. If there were a God, that God could very well have designed the world so that our reading of His book called nature is reliable for science, and our reading of His book called Genesis is reliable for being saved. If God wants us to have two stories for doing two different things, so be it. But it is possible that Genesis represented the best thinking of humans, at the time it was written. This is what you do not seem to have eyes to see, either.
Originally posted by KellyJayYour exact words were "... don't have eyes to see ..." which has a subtly different meaning.
I said I answered you and you missed it,...
Maybe I overacted because in another thread I am told that there is solid proof that the world is getting worse, but only a certain select group of people can see it.
I am still not convinced you have answered the question. Have you considered the possibility that you have not understood the question?
I want to know what modern day life has that ancient life would not have had. Keeping in mind that all the circumstances you have described so far for ancient life would not be barrier to modern life thriving - and we do see instances of modern life thriving under such conditions. So there must be some conditions that you have not specified yet.