• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Evolution is a lie. Dinosaur remains are not a lie. Dinosaur remains prove the earth is less than 50,000 years old by secular dating methods, which is an important refutation of evolution.

P.S. Is your avatar a pretty boy or what?
Earth is only about 6000 years old
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I do not believe that anything roamed the Earth hundreds of millions of years ago but certainly do not deny that dinosaurs existed.
I believe some big lizards may have lived and died in the flood.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
We can explain the processes that form littoral features.

You don't get to piggyback your nonsense in on a known process.

Explain how sunlight powers genetic development as we can explain why beaches form.
I think that there were particular primordial conditions on earth, this is something different than the Goldie Locks condition's to support life. These conditions are no longer in effect at least in part. There were temperate nutrient zones with electric storms. Within the ocean chemical reactions and physical properties of the environment created spheroid chambers like bubbles with a lipid bilayer. Sometimes amino acids were trapped in the bubble. Over a million years some bubbles split in two when the amino acids orientation was disengaged by a random protein present in enough quantity. This resulted in two bubbles with mirror amino acid combinations in them.

Someday in an accelerated fashion we will be able to simulate these primordial conditions enough to be more secure in our understanding of how this happened.
 
Last edited:

marke

Well-known member
I think that there were particular primordial conditions on earth, this is something different than the Goldie Locks condition's to support life. These conditions are no longer in effect at least in part. There were temperate nutrient zones with electric storms. Within the ocean chemical reactions and physical properties of the environment created spheroid chambers like bubbles with a lipid bilayer. Sometimes amino acids were trapped in the bubble. Over a million years some bubbles split in two when the amino acids orientation was disengaged by a random protein present in enough quantity. This resulted in two bubbles with mirror amino acid combinations in them.

Someday in an accelerated fashion we will be able to simulate these primordial conditions enough to e more secure in our understanding of how this happened.
There has never been any serious defense of the silly theory of abiogenesis by even the most ardent atheist evolutionist scientist. Although most may not have admitted it, George Wald likely expressed the opinions of thousands of intellectuals when he said:

quote-one-has-only-to-contemplate-the-magnitude-of-this-task-to-concede-that-the-spontaneous-george-wald-57-79-96.jpg





3629047f9dbb56a36f7413445c30a2a0.jpg
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Spontaneous generation theory held that mice were generated from dirty rags. Spontaneous generation does not occur and never occurred in that complex a fashion; but generation of protocells did occur by chance and by chemical necessity under the slimest of odds.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Temp Banned
... generation of protocells did occur by chance
did you stamp your little foot when you said that? 😅😅
... and by chemical necessity under the slimest of odds.
As a professional chemist with a master's degree and years of lab work under my belt, I'm at a loss for what you think you mean by "chemical necessity"

Whenever I consider a chemical process, I always consider that there is an equilibrium constant at play. The process can be driven in one direction or the other by catalysts or conditions, but not willy-nilly, as you seem to be proposing.
 

marke

Well-known member
Spontaneous generation theory held that mice were generated from dirty rags. Spontaneous generation does not occur and never occurred in that complex a fashion; but generation of protocells did occur by chance and by chemical necessity under the slimest of odds.
You think? Nobel Prize winners like George Wald and Francis Crick did not think so.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I think that there were particular primordial conditions on earth, this is something different than the Goldie Locks condition's to support life. These conditions are no longer in effect at least in part. There were temperate nutrient zones with electric storms. Within the ocean chemical reactions and physical properties of the environment created spheroid chambers like bubbles with a lipid bilayer. Sometimes amino acids were trapped in the bubble. Over a million years some bubbles split in two when the amino acids orientation was disengaged by a random protein present in enough quantity. This resulted in two bubbles with mirror amino acid combinations in them.

Someday in an accelerated fashion we will be able to simulate these primordial conditions enough to be more secure in our understanding of how this happened.

The problem is that you're starting with amino acids already in existence.

Water is a problem for your position.
 
Top