The true living God

[james bond]

The answer is easy, whales did not grow legs to crawl out of the water. Whatever first crawled out of the water was not a whale, it wasn't even a mammal.

How did it get there in the first place?

I thought of another question I had around that time to question evolution. What happened to hydrogen?

I don't understand either question. What are you asking?

You have the mountain of evidence. Why can't you explain briefly in scientific terms how a whale came to be?

Also, I am asking you to explain how chemical evolution came to be?

The evolution of whales:

Even today we see otters, seals, and manatees filling these niches.

If by chemical evolution you mean abiogenesis, I can offer you no proof, only theories.

One of the problems with the whale evolving from a hippopotamus is that prior to it evolutionists claimed whales came from a wolf. This meant trying to find transitional fossils from a wolf. Later, they analyzed the whale DNA and found it was closer to hippo DNA than wolf DNA. Thus, one of the problems you have with whale evolution is that your evidence contradicts each other. DNA contradicts the original evolution of whales fairy tale. Second, we ended up with the above diagram and a need for transitional fossils to make sure that this one is correct. However, there is scant evidence as depicted in the skull fossils.

"From four-legged landlubbers to streamlined ocean dwellers, whales represent one of the most dramatic evolutionary transformations. But what their terrestrial ancestors were and how whales are related to other living mammals have eluded scholars for over a century. Paleontologists have long held that whales are most closely related to extinct, wolflike creatures called mesonychians, based on striking dental similarities. A few years ago, however, molecular biologists weighed in with DNA data suggesting that whales are actually highly specialized artiodactyls (the group that includes hippopotamuses, camels, pigs and ruminants) and are closer to one of those living subgroups than mesonychians.

Now key fossils-50-million-year-old whale ankle bones from Pakistan-have been unearthed. But instead of shedding light on whale origins as expected, they have left researchers even more puzzled than before.

…

He [University of Michigan paleontologist William J. Sanders] points out that the earliest known branching of hippos was 15 to 18 million years ago in the Eocene epoch. Thus, if whales and hippos shared a common ancestor, it would have to have persisted for at least 32 million years-but there is no fossil evidence for such a creature spanning that immensity of time"

Wong, Scientific American, January 1999, page 26

As for chemical evolution, I like to know 1) how things were before the big bang and how many years ago was that? 2) how Darwin came up with life as a glob of jello.

 

[james bond]

If by chemical evolution you mean abiogenesis, I can offer you no proof, only theories.

One doesn't need to offer existential proof of abiogenesis. It is a foregone conclusion.

Where once there was no life, later there was life. What connects these two states of affairs is abiogenesis.

The problems with your assumption is that there is no explanation. Abiogenesis is considered a chemical process. You give no time or how things formed before the big bang. This is part of the problem with the big bang theory and why its being challenged. I've read Hawking and now I have read other things since he died.

Compare that with the Genesis and the Bible theory. God, his existence, before he created the universe, Earth, and everything in it was explained. Even his creation of heaven and angels were explained. I am asking for the evolutionary history from before the big bang. This is part of chemical evolution. It could involve aliens. I dunno. It's not my hypothesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abiogenesis is considered a chemical process.

So is evolution. And you know equally little about either topic.

The correct assumption is that once there was no life here, then there was, and abiogenesis connects the two states of affairs. The only alternative you offer is magic. Which is why you get laughed out of the room.

 

[alang1216]

One of the problems with the whale evolving from a hippopotamus is that prior to it evolutionists claimed whales came from a wolf. This meant trying to find transitional fossils from a wolf. Later, they analyzed the whale DNA and found it was closer to hippo DNA than wolf DNA. Thus, one of the problems you have with whale evolution is that your evidence contradicts each other. DNA contradicts the original evolution of whales fairy tale. Second, we ended up with the above diagram and a need for transitional fossils to make sure that this one is correct. However, there is scant evidence as depicted in the skull fossils.

So many errors here...

1. The whale did not evolve from a hippopotamus, they evolved from a now extinct common ancestor.
2. If initial evidence pointed to the wolf and later and better evidence pointed to a hippo that is not a contradiction, that is an improvement and how science always works; science doesn't have divine revelation that must be accepted, it has ever more evidence that must be evaluated. If the evidence doesn't fit the revelation the evidence is rejected, if the evidence doesn't fit the theory the theory is rejected. That is the difference between religion and science.
3. It's true that fossil evidence tends to be scanty; on the other hand evidence for how creationism works is completely non-existent.

 

[james bond]

One of the problems with the whale evolving from a hippopotamus is that prior to it evolutionists claimed whales came from a wolf. This meant trying to find transitional fossils from a wolf. Later, they analyzed the whale DNA and found it was closer to hippo DNA than wolf DNA. Thus, one of the problems you have with whale evolution is that your evidence contradicts each other. DNA contradicts the original evolution of whales fairy tale. Second, we ended up with the above diagram and a need for transitional fossils to make sure that this one is correct. However, there is scant evidence as depicted in the skull fossils.

So many errors here...

1. The whale did not evolve from a hippopotamus, they evolved from a now extinct common ancestor.
2. If initial evidence pointed to the wolf and later and better evidence pointed to a hippo that is not a contradiction, that is an improvement and how science always works; science doesn't have divine revelation that must be accepted, it has ever more evidence that must be evaluated. If the evidence doesn't fit the revelation the evidence is rejected, if the evidence doesn't fit the theory the theory is rejected. That is the difference between religion and science.
3. It's true that fossil evidence tends to be scanty; on the other hand evidence for how creationism works is completely non-existent.

1. The extinct common ancestor is bullshit because the hippo is still around. The chart you posted has hippopotamus. What the evos did was look at what animals were around and started to put them together like that in your chart for common ancestor. Afterward, they made up fairy tale of common ancestor because these animals were still around and did not evolve. You have to use the scientific method to back what you state, but you can't. It's a fairy tale.
2. Sure, it's a contradiction. Are you going to change back to a wolf again if we find out more about DNA? How is DNA a driver of evolution? We have -- mutation, migration, genetic drift, and microevolution. One has to back up the method they used to reach their conclusions. That's science.
3. Creation has all of the mechanisms for evolution, too. We just don't have common ancestor, tree of life, long-time, and mutation as a driver for macroevolution..

 

[james bond]

So is evolution. And you know equally little about either topic.

The correct assumption is that once there was no life here, then there was, and abiogenesis connects the two states of affairs. The only alternative you offer is magic. Which is why you get laughed out of the room.

Well, you didn't explain anything about chemical evolution. Nor abiogenesis. Nor evolution and how it connects the two states of affairs. Nor glob of life like jello. You are a troll.

ETA: You claim evolution is a fact, but do not know enough to have the facts. Evolution and creation have the same facts. It's how we use those facts and reach our conclusions that is different. It's nice to ask the questions and then be able to point out the negatives for the theory of evolution. There is science there, but it's all historical or forensic science.

 

[james bond]

alang1216

Here is one of the new things I read about chemical evolution. It explains what happened before the big bang and what time it was. It talks about primitive earth. I never could get into singularity as a quantum point of infinite temperature and infinite density of Stephen Hawking. Anything infinite cannot happen in the physical world. And an explosion, or even an expansion, of randomness would not produce order. Nor would it produce events that violate the laws of physics. We still have this problem with your fairy tale, but at least the following explains more and I can visualize some of it happening, but I can't visualize infinite temperature and density, no cosmic inflation.

"The chemical and physical conditions of the primitive Earth are invoked to explain the origin of life, which was preceded by chemical evolution of organic chemicals. Astronomers believe that 20-30 billion years ago, all matter was concentrated in a single mass, and that it blew apart with a "big bang." In time, a disk-shaped cloud of dust condensed and formed the Sun, and the peripheral matter formed its planets. Heat produced by compaction, radiation, and impacting meteorites melted Earth. Then, as the planet cooled, Earth's layers formed. The first atmosphere was made up of hot hydrogen gas, too light to be held by Earth's gravity. Water vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and methane replaced the hydrogen atmosphere. As Earth cooled, water vapor condensed and torrential rains filled up its basins, thereby forming the seas. Also present were lightning, volcanic activity, and ultraviolet radiation. It was in this setting that life began."

Chemical Evolution - The primitive Earth

 

[Hollie]

So is evolution. And you know equally little about either topic.

The correct assumption is that once there was no life here, then there was, and abiogenesis connects the two states of affairs. The only alternative you offer is magic. Which is why you get laughed out of the room.

View attachment 270074

Well, you didn't explain anything about chemical evolution. Nor abiogenesis. Nor evolution and how it connects the two states of affairs. Nor glob of life like jello. You are a troll.

ETA: You claim evolution is a fact, but do not know enough to have the facts. Evolution and creation have the same facts. It's how we use those facts and reach our conclusions that is different. It's nice to ask the questions and then be able to point out the negatives for the theory of evolution. There is science there, but it's all historical or forensic science.

Actually, supernatural creation has no facts. Your claim is that a unique set of gods (as opposed to an entire catalog of competing gods), are responsible for existence. let's see the preponderance of evidence, and let's apply critical thinking to it and see if it withstands scrutiny. As a matter of course, everything that you delineate in your appeals to gods we must also (in order to be fair and impartial) hold supernaturalism against by way of standard.

Furthering the idea of objective standards, the relevant science community has vast amounts of verifiable data to show that existence has natural causes.

That leaves you to present your evidence for supernaturalism and the existence of your unique collection of gods. So, present your evidence,

 

[alang1216]

3. Creation has all of the mechanisms for evolution, too.

What exactly was the mechanism used for creation? How did the creator create?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

3. Creation has all of the mechanisms for evolution, too.

What exactly was the mechanism used for creation? How did the creator create?

Magic, silly.

 

[alang1216]

alang1216

Here is one of the new things I read about chemical evolution. It explains what happened before the big bang and what time it was. It talks about primitive earth. I never could get into singularity as a quantum point of infinite temperature and infinite density of Stephen Hawking. Anything infinite cannot happen in the physical world. And an explosion, or even an expansion, of randomness would not produce order. Nor would it produce events that violate the laws of physics. We still have this problem with your fairy tale, but at least the following explains more and I can visualize some of it happening, but I can't visualize infinite temperature and density, no cosmic inflation.

"The chemical and physical conditions of the primitive Earth are invoked to explain the origin of life, which was preceded by chemical evolution of organic chemicals. Astronomers believe that 20-30 billion years ago, all matter was concentrated in a single mass, and that it blew apart with a "big bang." In time, a disk-shaped cloud of dust condensed and formed the Sun, and the peripheral matter formed its planets. Heat produced by compaction, radiation, and impacting meteorites melted Earth. Then, as the planet cooled, Earth's layers formed. The first atmosphere was made up of hot hydrogen gas, too light to be held by Earth's gravity. Water vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and methane replaced the hydrogen atmosphere. As Earth cooled, water vapor condensed and torrential rains filled up its basins, thereby forming the seas. Also present were lightning, volcanic activity, and ultraviolet radiation. It was in this setting that life began."

Chemical Evolution - The primitive Earth

No one knows what happened before the big bang. I'm not sure you can trust anything in this article since they don't seem to know that In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

 

[james bond]

Actually, supernatural creation has no facts. Your claim is that a unique set of gods (as opposed to an entire catalog of competing gods), are responsible for existence. let's see the preponderance of evidence, and let's apply critical thinking to it and see if it withstands scrutiny. As a matter of course, everything that you delineate in your appeals to gods we must also (in order to be fair and impartial) hold supernaturalism against by way of standard.

Furthering the idea of objective standards, the relevant science community has vast amounts of verifiable data to show that existence has natural causes.

That leaves you to present your evidence for supernaturalism and the existence of your unique collection of gods. So, present your evidence,

The facts are the same for both sides. You are trolling again, so I will put you on ignore.

 

[james bond]

3. Creation has all of the mechanisms for evolution, too.

What exactly was the mechanism used for creation? How did the creator create?

"The Creation of the World

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

It's creatio ex nihilo. The atheist scientists tried universe ex nihilo. However, they have that chemical evolution problem.

 

[james bond]

alang1216

Here is one of the new things I read about chemical evolution. It explains what happened before the big bang and what time it was. It talks about primitive earth. I never could get into singularity as a quantum point of infinite temperature and infinite density of Stephen Hawking. Anything infinite cannot happen in the physical world. And an explosion, or even an expansion, of randomness would not produce order. Nor would it produce events that violate the laws of physics. We still have this problem with your fairy tale, but at least the following explains more and I can visualize some of it happening, but I can't visualize infinite temperature and density, no cosmic inflation.

"The chemical and physical conditions of the primitive Earth are invoked to explain the origin of life, which was preceded by chemical evolution of organic chemicals. Astronomers believe that 20-30 billion years ago, all matter was concentrated in a single mass, and that it blew apart with a "big bang." In time, a disk-shaped cloud of dust condensed and formed the Sun, and the peripheral matter formed its planets. Heat produced by compaction, radiation, and impacting meteorites melted Earth. Then, as the planet cooled, Earth's layers formed. The first atmosphere was made up of hot hydrogen gas, too light to be held by Earth's gravity. Water vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and methane replaced the hydrogen atmosphere. As Earth cooled, water vapor condensed and torrential rains filled up its basins, thereby forming the seas. Also present were lightning, volcanic activity, and ultraviolet radiation. It was in this setting that life began."

Chemical Evolution - The primitive Earth

No one knows what happened before the big bang. I'm not sure you can trust anything in this article since they don't seem to know that In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

I'm certain that the secular/atheist scientists will increase the age of the universe more than that once the James Webb telescope comes online. They are already seeing the edge of the universe and it's more than 13.772 billion years away. Maybe over 15 billion years old. Thus, one cannot trust these ages.

To me, the age isn't that important because evolution needs billions of years or else they cannot say their all these things evolved. What's more important is establishing whether the young earth theory is more correct or the evolution long-time theory? I guess we can eliminate discussing the primitive earth even though it explains the chemical evolution better.

 

[james bond]

Magic, silly.

Not as silly as universe ex nihilo because you cannot explain the steps.



Here are the differences between the two. Which one uses magic?

I think we can conclude that we live in determinism.

 

[james bond]

Here is another argument. The ontological argument for creation.

 

[james bond]

One more because I didn't want to leave atheist Richard Dawkins' argument against the ontological argument out. That guy is ridiculous even when he's trying to be funny with a parody.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They are already seeing the edge of the universe and it's more than 13.772 billion years away. Maybe over 15 billion years old.

Well, there's a shameless lie you just made up.

Not only do you not accept baseline facts, you make shit up at will. Nobody can have an honest discussion with a liar like you.

 

[alang1216]

3. Creation has all of the mechanisms for evolution, too.

What exactly was the mechanism used for creation? How did the creator create?

"The Creation of the World

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

It's creatio ex nihilo. The atheist scientists tried universe ex nihilo. However, they have that chemical evolution problem.

It's easy to say from nothing but exactly how did He do it?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
genesis, then down the road something happened back then and now they need a messiah to save it for them ... the romans.

Finally, in 476, the Germanic leader Odoacer staged a revolt and deposed the Emperor Romulus Augustulus. From then on, no Roman emperor would ever again rule from a post in Italy, leading many to cite 476 as the year the Western Empire suffered its deathblow.

less than 100 years after writing their christian bible - they got what they deserved ... no wonder there are no original copies in existence they were all mercifully destroyed.