Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

The theistic consensus is that the Earth is around six thousand years old.
Have you ever noticed the striking similarity between the neural construct of the human brain synapses and the new more accurate pictures of the cosmic tentacles that are now being mapped as a whole diagram of the observable universe? How do we know there isn't a thought process taking place right in front of us? The very first time I saw a picture of the cosmic web it's the first thing that occurred to me.


JO
 
Pangea_animation_03.gif


The Bible does not mention Pangea or supercontinent by name, but mentions, "And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so." The Earth was one supercontinent and then broke up into seven due to plate tectonics and the global flood. Creationist Alfred Wegener more fully developed this continental drift idea into the theory of plate tectonics.

The gif above doesn't do a good job of showing how the global flood waters rose from the "fountains of the deep." It shows how the continents broke apart, but does not show how the Earth became covered with water.
Oh shit... and here I was thinking all this time that Pangea was a Soup and Bread restaurant chain.....my bad.
 
Have you ever noticed the striking similarity between the neural construct of the human brain synapses and the new more accurate pictures of the cosmic tentacles that are now being mapped as a whole diagram of the observable universe? How do we know there isn't a thought process taking place right in front of us? The very first time I saw a picture of the cosmic web it's the first thing that occurred to me.


JO
Would we be the equivalent to cells or organs?
 
And so have I. The Himalayas were created by the fountains of the deep as well as the seven continents by plate tectonics catastrophism, i.e. global flood. The evidence is found in sedimentary layers, worldwide flood stories (based on a true event), land being displaced, the mid-Atlantic ridge circling the Earth, fossil remains of marine life atop the mountains, and more.

I can't help it if you have fallen for atheist lies and evolutionary science which real science does not back up.
None of what you say is proof of anything. You are simply stating conclusions that you find on creationists sites. That is not science. It is speculation on geology that creationists try to fit to the bible.
.
 
I think I read a theory that enables the potentiality that life originated from viruses.
Actually viruses are RNA relying on the mechanism of more complex hosts to replicate.

However I read something, like you suggest, that there has been some work that shows in certain cases that RNA encapsulated in lipids alone has the potential to replicate. It is chemically much more easy to form from the "primordial soup". It is similar to viruses without the need for a host and a cell penetration mechanism.
.
 
Actually viruses are RNA relying on the mechanism of more complex hosts to replicate.

However I read something, like you suggest, that there has been some work that shows in certain cases that RNA encapsulated in lipids alone has the potential to replicate. It is chemically much more easy to form from the "primordial soup". It is similar to viruses without the need for a host and a cell penetration mechanism.
.
Would a longitudinal run of the Miller-Urey experiment potentially, eventually evolve a virus?
 
Nobody said that the creative days were only 24 hours a piece..... the Hebrew word for day in the original Genesis text is not constrained to a solar day.....it could and likely does mean a period of thousands of years.

JO
Or, we accept such tales and fables for what they are.
 
Would a longitudinal run of the Miller-Urey experiment potentially, eventually evolve a virus?
Potentially, yes. But probably no. Even a M-U experiment in a huge space over a period of 100 years is no match for the surface of the earth over many millions of years.

I think there would be more luck in creating controlled experiments on how subsystems might be built up and how these subsystems might be pieced together to develop a self replicating system.

If we can experimentally synthesize it, we are more able to determine the probability that each synthesis step will happen, and the probability of the full synthesis of the primitive cell.

Breaking the synthesis of a cell into smaller steps allow a Markov Chain analysis which would more accurately lead to the probability of spontaneous formation of life. (Google "Markov Chain" for an explanation.)
.
 
Yep everywhere we look out there the only thing that makes any sense at all is that somebody tampered with the surroundings to allow life.....
...to you.

To academics, scientists, intellectuals, and casual appreciators of science, it seems obvious that this is nonsense and what has happened is that evolution has caused life to be fine tuned to its environment, not the other way around.
 
Have you ever noticed the striking similarity between the neural construct of the human brain synapses and the new more accurate pictures of the cosmic tentacles that are now being mapped as a whole diagram of the observable universe?
No. Or yes, in the sense that you can show the same not really striking similarity in any interconnected Network.
 
None of what you say is proof of anything. You are simply stating conclusions that you find on creationists sites. That is not science. It is speculation on geology that creationists try to fit to the bible.
.
It's hard evidence and much more than what you have with radiometric dating, the only evidence you have for evolution, or lies made up to support lies. It's such a weak argument that no one remembers the nerd who came up with radiometric dating.

220px-Xi_Jinping_2019_%2849060546152%29_2.jpg


Evolution, evolutionary thinking, and radiometric dating fits Communism, Marxism. and Nazism perfectly. Creation science is much more conservative, not libturd.
 
Last edited:
It's hard evidence and much more than what you have with radiometric dating, the only evidence you have for evolution, or lies made up to support lies. It's such a weak argument that no one remembers the nerd who came up with radiometric dating.

Evolution, evolutionary thinking, and radiometric dating fits perfectly. Creation science is much more conservative, not libturd.
Jeez buddy you are really ticked off. You are even pulling the Communism, Marxism. and Nazism cards. It would help if you sat in a quiet room and chanted ooommmmm.

Radiometric dating is here to stay.

.
 
Any studies showing how that could be accomplished in that relatively short time frame?
The mid-Atlantic ridge shows that Pangea broke apart rapidly (in one year's time) and today we see the marine life fossils and mountain ranges underneath the oceans.

 
Jeez buddy you are really ticked off. You are even pulling the Communism, Marxism. and Nazism cards. It would help if you sat in a quiet room and chanted ooommmmm.

Radiometric dating is here to stay.

.

220px-Xi_Jinping_2019_%2849060546152%29_2.jpg


You need to admit atheism is the foundation of Communism, Marxism, and Nazism. Are you communist? Is that your fearless leader above?

Atheism, radiometric dating, evolution, and evolutionary thinking lies will continue on as stated in the Bible, "For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." Romans 1:25

I just disproved radiometric dating and provided radiocarbon dating which does not need assumptions. We know thru world history that Darwinism + atheism led to Nazism and the Holocaust and social Darwinism. I know that you have to have radiometric dating because it is the only thing that backs up evolution. It is lies to back up a bigger lie.
 
The theistic consensus is that the Earth is around six thousand years old.
Yes, I think this is true. The 6K years is based on Biblical genealogies. If there are missing genealogies, then 6K years would be off. However, the Bible makes no mention of the age of the Earth because it isn't important. The age of the Earth could be 50,000 to 200,000 years. I think all we can get is a rough estimate, but it is still much younger than the 4.5 billion years old Earth lie of the evolutionists.
 

Forum List

Back
Top