On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

Again, when dealing with microscopic things their environment is homogenous.

1. I didnt say that.

2. Do you have evidence of a similar environment existing in nature?

That process is pretty slow. You can't gaurantee that it won't be struck again. Especially when we are dealing with water. There's been stories of people dying from being electrocuted while in water when the storm was miles away.

 

No. You have the burden of proof with respect to your claims.

Did you learn this trick (attempting to shift the burden of proof) from one of your favorite disingenuous creationist websites?

 

Why should I believe you?

 

His statement is completely false.

AA

 

The genus Homo has more than just Homo sapiens, like H. rudolfensis or the Red Deer Cave people.

 

You should not. This member has shown the tendency to fabricate data and submit opinion as fact. When combined with the obvious intellectual deficiencies portrayed in its posts, nothing typed can be seen as accurate. Attempting to remedy this deficiency through education is also futility as it cannot seem to grasp concepts or accept verified and proven information.

 

I gave my evidence. You made a blanket claim that it was false, now prove it by taking the first claim my link made and prove it false.

- - - Updated - - -

Take any fossil and I'll prove it to you. You still didn't explained what does this have to do with moths.

 

Prove it to me with what? I can watch paleontology videos on YouTube. Moths merely prove chemical evolution happens in response to stimuli from Nature.

 

Homo Sapiens - The Birth of Humanity (NOVA Full Documentary)
[video=youtube;pzmZjO1RDOQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzmZjO1RDOQ[/video]

 

Where did you learn to shift the burden of proof?

 

The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnᵻdiː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes seven extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, the human.[1]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae.

BUT,...
ONLY humans here have 23 chromosomes.
All the other four have 24 chromosomes.

That is the definition of a Human,... 23 ape chromosomes, not 24.

 

Power = E/t

(E = energy
t = time)

- - - Updated - - -

Fused human Chromosome number 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

 

Thanks,but I'm aready quite familiar with textbook definitions,etc.I'm referring to where you're going with it?

 

My statement was pretty clear,...
Energy exists outside of Time.

Once energy is put to use, it is Power.
Power must be inside Space/time.

Before, Energy was outside of Space/time.
It was "nowhere."
It existed before there was a Universe.

 

based on what?

 

Homo sapiens are the sole surviving species in our genus.

 

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. For instance, chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite. A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

 

You could not be more wrong, and not simply wrong, but intentionally, condescendingly, dishonestly wrong.
Thousands of books have been written concerning the evidence of God. Thousands of them. I can't begin to cite the best ones, there are so many.
The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict quotes many scientists, historians, anthropologists, and other scholars who cite profound and compelling evidence for the veracity of the Holy Bible. But let's just look at the first sentence, of the first chapter, of the first book of the Holy Bible.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

It took nearly the entire 2000 years you cited above for science to advance to the state where it could compellingly confirm Genesis 1:1. We now call it "The Big Bang." You call it "poof" in a simplistic play on words, nothing else. Your "theory" of how everything got here from nothing is.., well let's see, what IS it? One wag says there was a "fluctuation in a quantum vacuum." Impressive, no? "Quantum fluctuation"? And you want to call that "science"?

"Hints of accuracy." Wow. Your threshold for believing exactly and only what you want to believe is extremely low. "Hints of accuracy."
Speaking of "hints of accuracy," how is "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" compared with The Big Bang?

Ultimately, atheists reject God because they cannot begin to comprehend how He could be - or, in their words "who made God."

As professor John Lennox says so eloquently in his lecture, "A Matter of Gravity," available to watch and hear on YouTube, "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?"

Just so. Now if you atheists would simply give a SCIENTIFIC explanation, thorough and detailed, on how matter, and organization, and information, and elegance, and correspondence, and beauty all "poofed" into existence, from... nothing.... everyone reading this would be thrilled to hear from you.

Proceed.

 

As pointed out, what had happen was more so due to natural selection rather than a change in chemistry.

 

Name one fossil from that documentary and I'll show you that it's either fully ape, fully human, misidentified, or faked.

 

No you will not, you will instead make up stuff and project it as fact while you ignore everything with documented and verified reality attached to it. Then individuals will rebut your "Understanding" and you will say Nuh Uh.

 

the problem with Religion is that it is not Good enough to be more than "mortal".

 

No I won't. Go ahead and name me one.

 

The more we study, the more that gap is widen. We have eyes similar to squid. That doesn't mean we're related. We are 70% similar to sunflowers but that doesn't mean we came from them. The DNA sequence for our eyes is the same sequence for our liver.

 

In other words, the DNA sequence for a cell in the eye is the same as the DNA sequence for a cell in the liver, but the photo-receptor cells in the eye have been constructed based on a very small segment of that DNA sequence and the cells in the liver have been constructed based on a totally different segment of that same DNA sequence.

Given the complexity that must have been involved in creating an eye in the first place, how could you prove that hundreds of thousands of individual creation events took place, all creating slight variations in the formation of the eye?