Does God Exist?

[Newtonian]

Again, the link to the abstract (you need $40 to view the article):

The atmosphere of the primitive Earth and the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids - Discover Life

The atmosphere of the Earth at the time of its formation is now generally believed to have been reducing, an idea proposed by Oparin and extensively discussed by Urey. This atmosphere would have contained CH4, N2 with traces of NH3, water and hydrogen. Only traces of NH3 would have been present...

link.springer.com

Excerpt:

""The first prebiotic electric discharge synthesis of amino acids showed that surprisingly high yields of amino acids were synthesized. Eleven amino acids were identified, four of which occur in proteins. Hydroxy acids, simple aliphatic acids and urea were also identified. These experiments have been repeated recently, and 33 amino acids were identified, ten of which occur in proteins, including all of the hydrophobic amino acids. ""

While this is relatively useless as I posted - one point is useful: the ratio of proteinous to non proteinous amino acids identified in the unidentified experiments. In the first case, 4 out of 11; in the second case 10 out of 33. This is consistent with the actual chemical reaction product proportions identified by Miller as per the chart (fig. 3-2) I am researching - I researched the top 10 in proportion, 3 of which are proteinous (found in proteins) - that is a ratio of 3 out of 10 - similar to the ratios in the above abstract quote.

Well here is where I left off:

Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂ - proportion: 440
Alanine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 790
alpha-aminobutyric acid - C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion: 270
a(alpha)-Hydroxy-aminobutyric acid - C4H8O3 - proportion: 74
Norvaline - ‎C5H11NO2 - proportion: 61
Sarcosine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 55
Aspartic acid - C4H7NO4 - proportion: 34
2,4 [alpha/gamma]-diaminobutyric acid- C4H10N2O2 - proportion: 33

Note that only 3 of these (alanine, Glycine, aspartic acid) are among the 20 amino acids found in proteins - which are:

1. alanine - ala - A
2. arginine - arg - R
3. asparagine - asn - N
4. aspartic acid - asp - D
5. cysteine - cys - C
6. glutamine - gln - Q
7. glutamic acid - glu - E
8. glycine - gly - G
9. histidine - his - H
10. isoleucine - ile - I
11. leucine - leu - L
12. lysine - lys - K
13. methionine - met - M
14. phenylalanine - phe - F
15. proline - pro - P
16. serine - ser - S
17. threonine - thr - T
18. tryptophan - trp - W
19. tyrosine - tyr - Y
20. valine - val - V

So, now, back to my research:

The next 2 by proportion identified by Miller (proportion 30 for both) - from the chart here (p. 23, fig. 3-2) [see my previous posts on the first 8 by proportion]

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

a-Aminoisobutyric acid [a=alpha] - proportion 30 - from Bing search:

"2-Aminoisobutyric acid, or α-aminoisobutyric acid (AIB) or α-methylalanine or 2-methylalanine, is the non-proteinogenic amino acid with the structural formula H2N-C(CH3)2-COOH.....
chemical formula C₄H₉NO₂"

=============================

N-Ethylglycine

From:

N-Ethylglycine

N-Ethylglycine | C4H9NO2 | CID 316542 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.

pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

= 2-(ethylamino)acetic acid

"N-ethylglycine is a N-alkylglycine. It is a tautomer of a N-ethylglycine zwitterion.....
N-ethylglycine belongs to the family of Alpha Amino Acids and Derivatives. These are amino acids in which the amino group is attached to the carbon atom immediately adjacent to the carboxylate group (alpha carbon)[1].....C4H9NO2"

A tautomer is an interchangeable isomer in equilibrium with at least one other isomer.

Zwitterion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"
Jump to search
A zwitterion (/ˈtsvɪtəˌraɪən/ TSVIT-ə-rye-ən; from German Zwitter [ˈtsvɪtɐ], meaning 'hermaphrodite') is a molecule that contains an equal number of positively-charged functional group(s) and negatively-charged functional group(s).[1] Zwitterions may also be called inner salts. With amino acids, for example, in solution a chemical equilibrium will be established between the "parent" molecule and the zwitterion.....
Amino acids[edit]


An amino acid contains both acidic (carboxylic acid fragment) and basic (amine fragment) centres. The isomer on the right is a zwitterion.

The zwitterion is formed in two stages. In stage 1, a proton is transferred from the carboxyl group to a water molecule.

In stage 2 a proton is transferred from the hydronium ion to the amine group

The reverse reactions occur in the reverse order. Overall, the reaction is an isomerization reaction

"

I have already posted that numerous amino acids have numerous isomers (in this case tautomers).
N-Ethylglycine is one isomer/tautomer.

So N-Ethylglycine is not found in proteins (=non-proteinous/biologic) and was identified by Miller as relative proportion 30.

 

[alang1216]

Macro-evolution has zero evidence. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to post an example you are thinking of.

Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. Note that elephants were on the ark - the elephant kind survived. The mammoth species went extinct.

There is mammoth evidence for this! (pun intended).

When you look at rocks that contain dinosaurs you find no evidence of elephants. Only later, when dinosaurs became extinct, do you find evidence for elephants. Where did the elephants come from?

 

[james bond]

the image, ignoring the text, illustrates the cyclical BB where all matter is projected from the moment past singularity along a finite angle of trajectory that will return all matter at the same time to its original point of origin without changing direction as a mirror image and will again repeat the consolidation for a repeat conclusion to a new moment of singularity.

Why should we ignore the text? It makes more sense than your text haha. Anything makes more sense that your text. Physics tells us there was no singularity and thus no big bang. None of it follows any king of science unless it's BS science (which it is .

 

[Newtonian]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

I already posted we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution. Can you post an example in your own words?

My example was cats - multiple 'species' but one 'kind'

I will also post a specific Bible verse concerning this - please post whether you agree or disagree:

Genesis 1:11
And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,+ fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds,*+ the seed of which is in it,+ upon the earth.” And it came to be so.

NW ref. footnote for "according to their kinds_ -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

So, do you agree that if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a watermelon vine? But what about a different variety of carrot? Ditto any plant btw.

Bottom line: Two bee or not two bee.

Bee's can cross pollinate but the seed resulting will only produce a plant within the same kind even if the bees mixed pollen from different plants.

You don’t seem to understand the term “speciation” or “macro-evolution”.

“Kinds” is a meaningless term. Creationists have varying interpretations but like so much in Christian apologetics, there’s no identifiable standard.

So yes, the links supplied do document speciation.

We are not creationists. I have told you that numerous times. Are you hard of hearing?

Also I have told you we believe in speciation - we agree on that.

Try posting a specific example of macro-evolution.

So, what do you think the definition of Hebrew leminoh is in Genesis 1:11? Or did you even read the NW ref. footnote on this Hebrew word for 'kind?'

Odd that you claim “we are not creationists” when you consistently use ID creationists (individuals associated with the Disco’tute), to pose creationist dogma.

You mean like Miller - Urey?

Still waiting for a specific example of macro-evolution in your own words.

Meanwhile, I am researching the relative chemical reaction product proportion of amino acids identified by Miller - feel free to post a list/chart you found giving the specific names of the amino acids Miller found and in what proportion.

 

[james bond]

Them apples are rotten. Can you identify where the heaven is located where Satan and his demons live?

I’m curious because with all of the spacecraft that NASA has sent into geostationary orbit and those leaving earth gravity, they have never encountered any of the boogeymen who haunt your world.

Wrong. Atheists are usually wrong.

Satan and his demons have been witnessed by trained observers. That is the level of criteria that atheist scientist Carl Sagan stated. I provide evidence that is observable and valid and you still have nothing for evolution. Satan is the "prince of the power of the air."

We will never know what the UFO and UAP was because Satan wants to hide as I've been stating.

 

[james bond]

So, if someone is willing to spend $40 and post the full content of Miller's article - I am interested. But having studied Thaxton's book I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the chart.

I watched Stanley Miller's description of the experiment if this covers the $40 topic of Hollie haha.

You can download his two videos here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

 

[Newtonian]

Macro-evolution has zero evidence. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to post an example you are thinking of.

Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. Note that elephants were on the ark - the elephant kind survived. The mammoth species went extinct.

There is mammoth evidence for this! (pun intended).

When you look at rocks that contain dinosaurs you find no evidence of elephants. Only later, when dinosaurs became extinct, do you find evidence for elephants. Where did the elephants come from?

Would you believe mice? [you need to be smart like Maxwell]

Seriously:

I am not sure what is the oldest variety of elephant found in the fossil record - please enlighten me. I cannot research that while researching the amino acids Miller identified in his experiment. If I try to do both at the same time I may experience information overload.

Another subject - but I believe there were a number of condensation catastrophes with extinctions resulting. But my research on that is also incomplete. I think elephants were created after Dinosaurs went extinct - but I have not researched the fossil record to be sure of that.

Bottom line: rocks don't lie. That goes for K-40 dating of shield rock, over 64 million petagrams of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates deposited by the geologic carbon cycle, and the fossil record - for 3 examples.

 

[james bond]

As for interpretation, in science you interpret data and formulate a theory that explains it. If your theory continues to explain new data as they are collected and no new data conflict with it, it will eventually become accepted as 'fact'.

Not fact but theory once it passes peer review which is something most forgot to mention. Facts are something we can all use. Creationists and evolutionists have the same facts, but come up with different conclusions and theories. What you mean is "law," like duh.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Its pretty hilarious watching this fraud copy paste scientific research he doesn't understand, when literally all the scientific evidence points to the fact of evolution.

 

[Newtonian]

Them apples are rotten. Can you identify where the heaven is located where Satan and his demons live?

I’m curious because with all of the spacecraft that NASA has sent into geostationary orbit and those leaving earth gravity, they have never encountered any of the boogeymen who haunt your world.

Wrong. Atheists are usually wrong.

Satan and his demons have been witnessed by trained observers. That is the level of criteria that atheist scientist Carl Sagan stated. I provide evidence that is observable and valid and you still have nothing for evolution. Satan is the "prince of the power of the air."

We will never know what the UFO and UAP was because Satan wants to hide as I've been stating.

Interesting. When I researched UFO's decades ago I found most sources were linked to spiritism. Abductions especially. Etc.

I only have seen one UFO myself, btw. While on the front stoop of an elder in my congregation who also saw it. We have no idea what caused it. I do not like researching the subject in depth since I want nothing to do with spiritism.

The UFO started out like a shooting star - i.e. like a meteorite. But it made two right angle turns! It was very fast - like a meteorite. We ignored it - the safe thing to do. But, of course, meteorites do not make right angle turns.

 

[Newtonian]

As for interpretation, in science you interpret data and formulate a theory that explains it. If your theory continues to explain new data as they are collected and no new data conflict with it, it will eventually become accepted as 'fact'.

Not fact but theory once it passes peer review which is something most forgot to mention. Facts are something we can all use. Creationists and evolutionists have the same facts, but come up with different conclusions and theories. What you mean is "law," like duh.

Interesting. Yes, scientific observations and Scriptures may be accurately observed and still come up with widely variant interpretations.

I have found a key to determining truth is to see how all observations in all fields of scientific study and all Scriptures in the Bible can be harmonized. E.g Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21.

Interpretations may contradict but the truth does not contradict itself.

 

[james bond]

OK, I recognize the face, I have heard him on TV. I agree with some of what he believes but disagree on other things. I would not choose Kaku as a user name - I do agree with most of what Newton believed (and Galileo, etc.)- hence my user name.

Did you know that Newton predicted the earliest end of the world of the past Christians? It is supposed to be 2060. Probably better than Nostradamus WW III and other prophecies. Nostradamus wasn't really very accurate. I'm not sure about Newton.

In 1704, Isaac Newton Predicts the World Will End in 2060

We have become quite used to pronouncements of doom, from scientists predicting the sixth mass extinction due to the measurable effects of climate change, and from religionists declaring the apocalypse due to a surfeit of sin.

www.openculture.com

 

[james bond]

Them apples are rotten. Can you identify where the heaven is located where Satan and his demons live?

I’m curious because with all of the spacecraft that NASA has sent into geostationary orbit and those leaving earth gravity, they have never encountered any of the boogeymen who haunt your world.

Wrong. Atheists are usually wrong.

Satan and his demons have been witnessed by trained observers. That is the level of criteria that atheist scientist Carl Sagan stated. I provide evidence that is observable and valid and you still have nothing for evolution. Satan is the "prince of the power of the air."

We will never know what the UFO and UAP was because Satan wants to hide as I've been stating.

Interesting. When I researched UFO's decades ago I found most sources were linked to spiritism. Abductions especially. Etc.

I only have seen one UFO myself, btw. While on the front stoop of an elder in my congregation who also saw it. We have no idea what caused it. I do not like researching the subject in depth since I want nothing to do with spiritism.

The UFO started out like a shooting star - i.e. like a meteorite. But it made two right angle turns! It was very fast - like a meteorite. We ignored it - the safe thing to do. But, of course, meteorites do not make right angle turns.

I've seen something similar when I was in middle school delivering newspapers. However, we aren't trained observers so what we saw can be discounted.

 

[Hollie]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

I already posted we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution. Can you post an example in your own words?

My example was cats - multiple 'species' but one 'kind'

I will also post a specific Bible verse concerning this - please post whether you agree or disagree:

Genesis 1:11
And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,+ fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds,*+ the seed of which is in it,+ upon the earth.” And it came to be so.

NW ref. footnote for "according to their kinds_ -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

So, do you agree that if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a watermelon vine? But what about a different variety of carrot? Ditto any plant btw.

Bottom line: Two bee or not two bee.

Bee's can cross pollinate but the seed resulting will only produce a plant within the same kind even if the bees mixed pollen from different plants.

You don’t seem to understand the term “speciation” or “macro-evolution”.

“Kinds” is a meaningless term. Creationists have varying interpretations but like so much in Christian apologetics, there’s no identifiable standard.

So yes, the links supplied do document speciation.

We are not creationists. I have told you that numerous times. Are you hard of hearing?

Also I have told you we believe in speciation - we agree on that.

Try posting a specific example of macro-evolution.

So, what do you think the definition of Hebrew leminoh is in Genesis 1:11? Or did you even read the NW ref. footnote on this Hebrew word for 'kind?'

Odd that you claim “we are not creationists” when you consistently use ID creationists (individuals associated with the Disco’tute), to pose creationist dogma.

You mean like Miller - Urey?

Still waiting for a specific example of macro-evolution in your own words.

Meanwhile, I am researching the relative chemical reaction product proportion of amino acids identified by Miller - feel free to post a list/chart you found giving the specific names of the amino acids Miller found and in what proportion.

I gave you numerous links documenting speciation (what you mistakenly call macro-evolution).

Regarding your amino acid cut and paste frenzy, is there a purpose fo that other than your need to cut and paste the entire contents of creationist dogma?

 

[james bond]

Its pretty hilarious watching this fraud copy paste scientific research he doesn't understand, when literally all the scientific evidence points to the fact of evolution.

That's very stupid of you even if you are stupid. You can't even copy and paste nor provide a link you imbecile haha.

 

[Newtonian]

Its pretty hilarious watching this fraud copy paste scientific research he doesn't understand, when literally all the scientific evidence points to the fact of evolution.

Who is he? If you mean me - I do understand what I posted - perhaps you didn't though.

For example, do you know the significance of specific amino acids with the same chemical formula having different isomers, not to mention chirality/polarization?

Oh, but you are not totally wrong - I am learning while researching. For example, I did not know a tautomer is an interchangeable isomer in equilibrium with another isomer, nor did I know zwiterions are isomers with different placement of electrical charge but also in equilibrium with the parent molecule in solution. [I.e. a reversible reaction from the parent and its zwiterion]

But the main point is that the amino acid in question is not found in proteins - neither the parent amino acid molecule nor its zwiterion/tautomer/isomer.

 

[Newtonian]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

I already posted we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution. Can you post an example in your own words?

My example was cats - multiple 'species' but one 'kind'

I will also post a specific Bible verse concerning this - please post whether you agree or disagree:

Genesis 1:11
And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,+ fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds,*+ the seed of which is in it,+ upon the earth.” And it came to be so.

NW ref. footnote for "according to their kinds_ -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

So, do you agree that if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a watermelon vine? But what about a different variety of carrot? Ditto any plant btw.

Bottom line: Two bee or not two bee.

Bee's can cross pollinate but the seed resulting will only produce a plant within the same kind even if the bees mixed pollen from different plants.

You don’t seem to understand the term “speciation” or “macro-evolution”.

“Kinds” is a meaningless term. Creationists have varying interpretations but like so much in Christian apologetics, there’s no identifiable standard.

So yes, the links supplied do document speciation.

We are not creationists. I have told you that numerous times. Are you hard of hearing?

Also I have told you we believe in speciation - we agree on that.

Try posting a specific example of macro-evolution.

So, what do you think the definition of Hebrew leminoh is in Genesis 1:11? Or did you even read the NW ref. footnote on this Hebrew word for 'kind?'

Odd that you claim “we are not creationists” when you consistently use ID creationists (individuals associated with the Disco’tute), to pose creationist dogma.

You mean like Miller - Urey?

Still waiting for a specific example of macro-evolution in your own words.

Meanwhile, I am researching the relative chemical reaction product proportion of amino acids identified by Miller - feel free to post a list/chart you found giving the specific names of the amino acids Miller found and in what proportion.

I gave you numerous links documenting speciation (what you mistakenly call macro-evolution).

Regarding your amino acid cut and paste frenzy, is there a purpose fo that other than your need to cut and paste the entire contents of creationist dogma?

You did NOT post any specific example of macro-evolution.

And clearly you have not examined any of the links in my posts about the amino acids Miller identified in his experiment - nor have you posted any links that list these amino acids and their relative chemical reaction product proportions that you have found.

Also, how many times do I have to tell you that we are not creationists and that we do believe in speciation but reject macro-evolution?

 

[Newtonian]

Ok, to review the top 10 amino acids identified by Miller in order of their product proportion:

Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂ - proportion: 440
Alanine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 790
alpha-aminobutyric acid - C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion: 270
a(alpha)-Hydroxy-aminobutyric acid - C4H8O3 - proportion: 74
Norvaline - ‎C5H11NO2 - proportion: 61
Sarcosine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 55
Aspartic acid - C4H7NO4 - proportion: 34
2,4 [alpha/gamma]-diaminobutyric acid- C4H10N2O2 - proportion: 33
alpha[2]-Aminoisobutyric acid - H2N-C(CH3)2-COOH; C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion 30
N-Ethylglycine -C4H9NO2 - proportion: 30

That is from:

S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139

As I have already posted, the next amino acids in proportion are all below 20 - i.e. there were no amino acids with a chemical reaction product proportion of between 20 and 30 identified by Miller.

Number 11 by proportion is:

Valine - proportion 19.5

It is important to note that Valine is found in proteins - it is #20 in alphabetic order of the 20 amino acids in proteins - see my above posted list of these 20 amino acids. And it is the 4th of 11 that Miller identified. That would be 4 out of 11 which is actually a higher ratio than the examples Miller gave in his abstract - but if you research futher you will see that is just coincidence - the ratio is actuallyu lower.

More on Valine later.

 

[Hollie]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

I already posted we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution. Can you post an example in your own words?

My example was cats - multiple 'species' but one 'kind'

I will also post a specific Bible verse concerning this - please post whether you agree or disagree:

Genesis 1:11
And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,+ fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds,*+ the seed of which is in it,+ upon the earth.” And it came to be so.

NW ref. footnote for "according to their kinds_ -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

So, do you agree that if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a watermelon vine? But what about a different variety of carrot? Ditto any plant btw.

Bottom line: Two bee or not two bee.

Bee's can cross pollinate but the seed resulting will only produce a plant within the same kind even if the bees mixed pollen from different plants.

You don’t seem to understand the term “speciation” or “macro-evolution”.

“Kinds” is a meaningless term. Creationists have varying interpretations but like so much in Christian apologetics, there’s no identifiable standard.

So yes, the links supplied do document speciation.

We are not creationists. I have told you that numerous times. Are you hard of hearing?

Also I have told you we believe in speciation - we agree on that.

Try posting a specific example of macro-evolution.

So, what do you think the definition of Hebrew leminoh is in Genesis 1:11? Or did you even read the NW ref. footnote on this Hebrew word for 'kind?'

Odd that you claim “we are not creationists” when you consistently use ID creationists (individuals associated with the Disco’tute), to pose creationist dogma.

You mean like Miller - Urey?

Still waiting for a specific example of macro-evolution in your own words.

Meanwhile, I am researching the relative chemical reaction product proportion of amino acids identified by Miller - feel free to post a list/chart you found giving the specific names of the amino acids Miller found and in what proportion.

I gave you numerous links documenting speciation (what you mistakenly call macro-evolution).

Regarding your amino acid cut and paste frenzy, is there a purpose fo that other than your need to cut and paste the entire contents of creationist dogma?

You did NOT post any specific example of macro-evolution.

And clearly you have not examined any of the links in my posts about the amino acids Miller identified in his experiment - nor have you posted any links that list these amino acids and their relative chemical reaction product proportions that you have found.

Also, how many times do I have to tell you that we are not creationists and that we do believe in speciation but reject macro-evolution?

I posted many examples of speciation which you still confuse with something you call macro-evolution.

You can deny your creationism, but why? So many of your links are to creationists and creationist ministries. Are you confused by that term?

 

[Hollie]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

I already posted we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution. Can you post an example in your own words?

My example was cats - multiple 'species' but one 'kind'

I will also post a specific Bible verse concerning this - please post whether you agree or disagree:

Genesis 1:11
And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,+ fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds,*+ the seed of which is in it,+ upon the earth.” And it came to be so.

NW ref. footnote for "according to their kinds_ -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

So, do you agree that if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a watermelon vine? But what about a different variety of carrot? Ditto any plant btw.

Bottom line: Two bee or not two bee.

Bee's can cross pollinate but the seed resulting will only produce a plant within the same kind even if the bees mixed pollen from different plants.

You don’t seem to understand the term “speciation” or “macro-evolution”.

“Kinds” is a meaningless term. Creationists have varying interpretations but like so much in Christian apologetics, there’s no identifiable standard.

So yes, the links supplied do document speciation.

We are not creationists. I have told you that numerous times. Are you hard of hearing?

Also I have told you we believe in speciation - we agree on that.

Try posting a specific example of macro-evolution.

So, what do you think the definition of Hebrew leminoh is in Genesis 1:11? Or did you even read the NW ref. footnote on this Hebrew word for 'kind?'

Odd that you claim “we are not creationists” when you consistently use ID creationists (individuals associated with the Disco’tute), to pose creationist dogma.

You mean like Miller - Urey?

Still waiting for a specific example of macro-evolution in your own words.

Meanwhile, I am researching the relative chemical reaction product proportion of amino acids identified by Miller - feel free to post a list/chart you found giving the specific names of the amino acids Miller found and in what proportion.

I gave you numerous links documenting speciation (what you mistakenly call macro-evolution).

Regarding your amino acid cut and paste frenzy, is there a purpose fo that other than your need to cut and paste the entire contents of creationist dogma?

You did NOT post any specific example of macro-evolution.

And clearly you have not examined any of the links in my posts about the amino acids Miller identified in his experiment - nor have you posted any links that list these amino acids and their relative chemical reaction product proportions that you have found.

Also, how many times do I have to tell you that we are not creationists and that we do believe in speciation but reject macro-evolution?

I don’t have any reason view links to amino acids taken from creationist sites.

Is there a reason why you’re cutting and pasting huge volumes of that material?