Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

[Youwerecreated]

Ok my apologies, it's equally crazy to think a 450 foot long boat could carry 2 of every species of dinosaur ever "created" along with every other animal, and it's even crazier still to say T-Rex, lions and sabertooth cats were grass munching herbivores.

The Bible saying it doesn't make it any less crazy.

Why are you willing to accept explanations from evolutionist that have no backing, but reject explanations of a creationist that looks at the same evidence ?

Use some common sense man,if you were in noahs shoes would you take juveniles or fully grown adults ?

You do know that most dinosaurs were about the size of a dog don't you ?

It doesnt matter the size, because theres still tens of thousands of species of mammals alone. Add reptiles and insects, thats hundreds of millions of species of animals on your boat.

Lol you say evolution has no evidence, but you dont even know enough about the subject to sound like you know what your talking about.

What do you say about those three hominid skulls that none of you want to comment on. What about Austrolipithicus, Homo Habilis, and Homo erectus. Those are just a few fossils between ape and man. How do you explain those?

Do you not understand Micro-adaptations ? Do you not uderstand how we get so many different sub-species or many different species from one family like horse's,human's,and dog's ?

You only need to take two of each family and the micro-adaptations would do the rest.

Did you not see this yeaterday.

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.


Assuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.

The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?

According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.


God only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured. (Scene from The World that Perished, a Christian motion picture about the Flood)

However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.

How many animals needed to be brought aboard?

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

The bigger problem would have been the construction of the Ark. But the Bible indicates that Noah did this under Divine guidance and there is no reason to believe he did not hire additional workmen.


Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?

 

[cbirch2]

Why are you willing to accept explanations from evolutionist that have no backing, but reject explanations of a creationist that looks at the same evidence ?

Use some common sense man,if you were in noahs shoes would you take juveniles or fully grown adults ?

You do know that most dinosaurs were about the size of a dog don't you ?

It doesnt matter the size, because theres still tens of thousands of species of mammals alone. Add reptiles and insects, thats hundreds of millions of species of animals on your boat.

Lol you say evolution has no evidence, but you dont even know enough about the subject to sound like you know what your talking about.

What do you say about those three hominid skulls that none of you want to comment on. What about Austrolipithicus, Homo Habilis, and Homo erectus. Those are just a few fossils between ape and man. How do you explain those?

Do you not understand Micro-adaptations ? Do you not uderstand how we get so many different sub-species or many different species from one family like horse's,human's,and dog's ?

You only need to take two of each family and the micro-adaptations would do the rest.

Did you not see this yeaterday.

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.


Assuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.

The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?

According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.


God only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured. (Scene from The World that Perished, a Christian motion picture about the Flood)

However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.

How many animals needed to be brought aboard?

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

The bigger problem would have been the construction of the Ark. But the Bible indicates that Noah did this under Divine guidance and there is no reason to believe he did not hire additional workmen.


Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?

Lol you can say its possible all you want, that isnt evidence. Animals are different from mammals. Your only counting mammals. There are millions of different species of insect alone. Not to mention one girafe would take up an entire "railroad car" or wtf ever you were referencing.

Did god suspend the animals desire to eat and shit as well?

 

[Woyzeck]

"“Y-Chromosomal Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve” are the scientifically-proven theories that every man alive today is descended from a single man and every man and woman alive today is descended from a single woman."

What are Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve?

Exept that doesn't prove there was an Adam and Eve at all or that two humans are enough to populate the entire human species. Don't let the Adam and Eve names fool you, that's just a catchy title. In reality, Adam and Eve are the most recent common ancestors all humans have thier father's and mother's side respectively. Those aren't even actually the most recent common ancestor we actually have, but they are when it comes to the genes they gave us. In fact, in terms of Eve, she is the only unbroken genetic line of matrilineal descent.

The fact of the matter is, replying to my post that was about two humans populating the earth by themselves, as the Biblical duo did and then later Noah's family with about 6 more people, with that is incorrect. For starters, your own link says there were other men and women around at the time:

It is important to note that this does not prove that Y-Chromosomal Adam was the only man alive before he started having children. This only proves that his descendents are the only ones to have survived. Likewise, Mitochondrial Eve was not necessarily the only woman alive before having children. Rather, all we know for sure is that she is at least one of the ancestors of all living humans. While other contemporaries of her may or may not figure into the ancestry of living humans, we can at least say that none of their mitochondrial-DNA has survived.

Which would put the kibosh on anything saying the Bible Adam and Eve was true. After they all, they were the first and only. Anyway it's painfully clear these two weren't the only humans around. In fact, going further, guess what? They never mated. And you know what else? They didn't live at the same time! They lived thousands of years apart. How could they populate the human race from the two of them if they didn't even live at the same time?

I don't think you understand entirely what you posted. It does nothing to indicate an Adam and Eve, and in fact provides evidence against it. My point still stands. You can't populate an entire species from one male and female.

Let me give you a couple of scenarios in which i think you could be wrong.

Man was created perfect without blemish. Man according to the scriptures lived much longer then we do today. I believe God punished for us sin through our genetics. I think over time as there became more and more bad genes being passed back and for and the gene pool became filled with the defective genes we started dying much sooner. Through science and medicine we been able to improve the life expectancy for humans. But there are now many thousands of negative mutations thank God for Natural selection or we would all be deformed or dead.

Except there's no evidence to suggest such longevity, that humans lived as long as the Bible claims. You would think there would be, since we can determine the lifespan of a Neanderthal. Amusingly, for your explanation here to work would require accepting evolution.

At any rate, just because the Bible says it, doesn't mean it was actually true.

So that being said,at that time inbreeding would have been safer until family's grew far enough apart that they could produce offspring that could be normal. Now for another scenario that i think piles on this thought is that God when he banished cain instead of destroying him he used him to help populate the earth. He sent him to the land of Nod and that is where he came upon his wife.
Maybe Adam and eve were the first and God's chosen line to produce his people and he simply did not mention that he created this other line of people that was in the land of Nod.

Uh, what? You didn't explain how two people would avoid inbreeding at all.

Looks like you've highlighted one of the Bible's contradictions. If God created man, why are there others running around in Nod as you say? It's far more likelier that the Bible is simply incorrect.

The Mitochondrial Clock:
The story of Mitochondrial Eve.

Does our mitochondrial DNA show that all humans came from the same mother? If so, did this mitochondrial Eve live 200,000 years ago or did she live at the calculated value of 6500 years ago? Portions of Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected yet there has been a lot of opposition to this possibility because it goes against the calculated speed of the molecular clock that is based on having chimpanzees and humans diverge 5 million years ago.

The FBI also got into the act by setting new guidelines for mtDNA, to account for a faster mutation rate. Panic filled the air as many saw that this new mtDNA data did not agree with established evolutionary rates of change. One letter to the editor (listed below) titled: "mtDNA mutation rates-no need to panic", shows the climate of the times. The "First International Workshop on Human Mitochondrial DNA was held in 1997 to look into the problems of mtDNA mutation rates.

Ann Gibbons reported on the workshop giving a very interesting introduction to problems as they were seen at that time: "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock": Science Volume 279, Number 5347, January 2, 1998, pp. 28-29. The abstract for Ann Gibbons's article: "Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events."

The following links will help introduce to you various aspects of the controversy.


Introduction to the Mitochondrial Eve story. Is it true that scientist have found the mother of us all? There are two opposing view points on the history of mankind. The Mitochondrial Eve story seems to support the "Out-of-Africa" viewpoint, while those who hold the "multi-regional continuity" theory, continue to point out the problems in the Eve research.


Is the Mitochondrial Clock speed faster than we thought? Some have calculated that the "mitochondrial Eve" probably lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. However it has been found that mtDNA can experience a much faster mutation rate. Using this faster mutation rate as a new clock speed, Eve can be calculated as living a mere 6500 or 6000 years ago.


A continuation of the Mitochondrial Eve story. Is the clock speed still faster than we thought? Is the idea of maternal mitochondrial inheritance correct? Or is the evidence for Recombination and Paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA a convincing argument? How dependable is the sperm mitochondria-specific translocator in destroying the sperm mitochondria DNA and establishing the maternal inheritance of mtDNA?


There are more articles you can look at dealing with this issue at Professor Browns site.

The Mitochondrial Clock: Is the clock speed faster than we thought? MHRC

Is there a point to this? Because I'm not seeing it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow. Everything you touch is an element. Theres 92 natural elements, and were made up of iron, phosphorus, calcium, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc etc. What are we made of that isnt an element??? What in the world have you ever touched that isnt an element. By definition you can only interact with elements.

If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements ? Why do animals have different elements helping with the the digestive system and other functions ?

Why would you mock my legitmate questions ?

'If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements?' You clearly dont know what elements are....all life is mostly carbon, and hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water. All DNA is made of a sugar phosphate backbone and nitrogenous base pairs. All life is made of the same elements. Theres minor variation, like plants have a cellulose cell wall and animals do not. But life is pretty much made of all the same elements. Im pretty sure you dont know what elements are.

What different elements are helping with the digesting system. The digestive system doesnt just work on basic elements. If anything different animals use different enzymes to digest specific chemicals, but those enzymes are just built from atoms, and those atoms of the same elements that exist in our body and all around you every day. You only interact with probably about 30 different elements on a daily basis.

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both our theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements ? Why do animals have different elements helping with the the digestive system and other functions ?

Why would you mock my legitmate questions ?

'If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements?' You clearly dont know what elements are....all life is mostly carbon, and hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water. All DNA is made of a sugar phosphate backbone and nitrogenous base pairs. All life is made of the same elements. Theres minor variation, like plants have a cellulose cell wall and animals do not. But life is pretty much made of all the same elements. Im pretty sure you dont know what elements are.

What different elements are helping with the digesting system. The digestive system doesnt just work on basic elements. If anything different animals use different enzymes to digest specific chemicals, but those enzymes are just built from atoms, and those atoms of the same elements that exist in our body and all around you every day. You only interact with probably about 30 different elements on a daily basis.

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both out theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

Well in this thread we've all been informed that all living creatures were herbivores before the Great Flood.

Now herbivores need to eat, and since there was no land to get plants from, I'm sure there was plenty of room for an enormous state of the art modern to 2011 greenhouse that god put on the ship that had an unlimited supply.

That way lions could eat the grass they needed, sabertooth cats could eat the leaves they needed, and T-Rex's could eat all the cactuses they needed until the waters went back down.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Exept that doesn't prove there was an Adam and Eve at all or that two humans are enough to populate the entire human species. Don't let the Adam and Eve names fool you, that's just a catchy title. In reality, Adam and Eve are the most recent common ancestors all humans have thier father's and mother's side respectively. Those aren't even actually the most recent common ancestor we actually have, but they are when it comes to the genes they gave us. In fact, in terms of Eve, she is the only unbroken genetic line of matrilineal descent.

The fact of the matter is, replying to my post that was about two humans populating the earth by themselves, as the Biblical duo did and then later Noah's family with about 6 more people, with that is incorrect. For starters, your own link says there were other men and women around at the time:



Which would put the kibosh on anything saying the Bible Adam and Eve was true. After they all, they were the first and only. Anyway it's painfully clear these two weren't the only humans around. In fact, going further, guess what? They never mated. And you know what else? They didn't live at the same time! They lived thousands of years apart. How could they populate the human race from the two of them if they didn't even live at the same time?

I don't think you understand entirely what you posted. It does nothing to indicate an Adam and Eve, and in fact provides evidence against it. My point still stands. You can't populate an entire species from one male and female.

Let me give you a couple of scenarios in which i think you could be wrong.

Man was created perfect without blemish. Man according to the scriptures lived much longer then we do today. I believe God punished for us sin through our genetics. I think over time as there became more and more bad genes being passed back and for and the gene pool became filled with the defective genes we started dying much sooner. Through science and medicine we been able to improve the life expectancy for humans. But there are now many thousands of negative mutations thank God for Natural selection or we would all be deformed or dead.

Except there's no evidence to suggest such longevity, that humans lived as long as the Bible claims. You would think there would be, since we can determine the lifespan of a Neanderthal. Amusingly, for your explanation here to work would require accepting evolution.

At any rate, just because the Bible says it, doesn't mean it was actually true.

So that being said,at that time inbreeding would have been safer until family's grew far enough apart that they could produce offspring that could be normal. Now for another scenario that i think piles on this thought is that God when he banished cain instead of destroying him he used him to help populate the earth. He sent him to the land of Nod and that is where he came upon his wife.
Maybe Adam and eve were the first and God's chosen line to produce his people and he simply did not mention that he created this other line of people that was in the land of Nod.

Uh, what? You didn't explain how two people would avoid inbreeding at all.

Looks like you've highlighted one of the Bible's contradictions. If God created man, why are there others running around in Nod as you say? It's far more likelier that the Bible is simply incorrect.

The Mitochondrial Clock:
The story of Mitochondrial Eve.

Does our mitochondrial DNA show that all humans came from the same mother? If so, did this mitochondrial Eve live 200,000 years ago or did she live at the calculated value of 6500 years ago? Portions of Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected yet there has been a lot of opposition to this possibility because it goes against the calculated speed of the molecular clock that is based on having chimpanzees and humans diverge 5 million years ago.

The FBI also got into the act by setting new guidelines for mtDNA, to account for a faster mutation rate. Panic filled the air as many saw that this new mtDNA data did not agree with established evolutionary rates of change. One letter to the editor (listed below) titled: "mtDNA mutation rates-no need to panic", shows the climate of the times. The "First International Workshop on Human Mitochondrial DNA was held in 1997 to look into the problems of mtDNA mutation rates.

Ann Gibbons reported on the workshop giving a very interesting introduction to problems as they were seen at that time: "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock": Science Volume 279, Number 5347, January 2, 1998, pp. 28-29. The abstract for Ann Gibbons's article: "Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events."

The following links will help introduce to you various aspects of the controversy.


Introduction to the Mitochondrial Eve story. Is it true that scientist have found the mother of us all? There are two opposing view points on the history of mankind. The Mitochondrial Eve story seems to support the "Out-of-Africa" viewpoint, while those who hold the "multi-regional continuity" theory, continue to point out the problems in the Eve research.


Is the Mitochondrial Clock speed faster than we thought? Some have calculated that the "mitochondrial Eve" probably lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. However it has been found that mtDNA can experience a much faster mutation rate. Using this faster mutation rate as a new clock speed, Eve can be calculated as living a mere 6500 or 6000 years ago.


A continuation of the Mitochondrial Eve story. Is the clock speed still faster than we thought? Is the idea of maternal mitochondrial inheritance correct? Or is the evidence for Recombination and Paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA a convincing argument? How dependable is the sperm mitochondria-specific translocator in destroying the sperm mitochondria DNA and establishing the maternal inheritance of mtDNA?


There are more articles you can look at dealing with this issue at Professor Browns site.

The Mitochondrial Clock: Is the clock speed faster than we thought? MHRC

Is there a point to this? Because I'm not seeing it.

There are other articles dealing with this issue as i have stated at Professor Browns site.

It could be under construction the site he is always updating it with new information.

 

[cbirch2]

The notion that somehow human DNA was perfect with in the garden of eden is the greatest argument ive ever heard. It just shows that these people have no idea how biology, reproduction, mutation, and evolution work at all.

Mutations due to inbreeding have nothing to do with how perfect an organisms DNA is. It has to do with how sexual reproduction works. When the two gametes meet their DNA does something called recombination. Thats why every person is genetically unique, and that is why mutations due to inbreeding occur. The recombination process is taking place between two chromosomes that are essentially identical, with exception of a few minor physical traits.

 

[cbirch2]

If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements ? Why do animals have different elements helping with the the digestive system and other functions ?

Why would you mock my legitmate questions ?

'If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements?' You clearly dont know what elements are....all life is mostly carbon, and hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water. All DNA is made of a sugar phosphate backbone and nitrogenous base pairs. All life is made of the same elements. Theres minor variation, like plants have a cellulose cell wall and animals do not. But life is pretty much made of all the same elements. Im pretty sure you dont know what elements are.

What different elements are helping with the digesting system. The digestive system doesnt just work on basic elements. If anything different animals use different enzymes to digest specific chemicals, but those enzymes are just built from atoms, and those atoms of the same elements that exist in our body and all around you every day. You only interact with probably about 30 different elements on a daily basis.

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both our theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

Organic phospholids form a spherical membranous bilayer under natural conditions. Thats the definition of a cell membrane. From there you just need nitrogenous bases and the enzyme DNA polymerase to have a self contained chemical process. All of which can form naturally.

How do you explain viruses? Inanimate matter that appears living.

 

[cbirch2]

If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements ? Why do animals have different elements helping with the the digestive system and other functions ?

Why would you mock my legitmate questions ?

'If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements?' You clearly dont know what elements are....all life is mostly carbon, and hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water. All DNA is made of a sugar phosphate backbone and nitrogenous base pairs. All life is made of the same elements. Theres minor variation, like plants have a cellulose cell wall and animals do not. But life is pretty much made of all the same elements. Im pretty sure you dont know what elements are.

What different elements are helping with the digesting system. The digestive system doesnt just work on basic elements. If anything different animals use different enzymes to digest specific chemicals, but those enzymes are just built from atoms, and those atoms of the same elements that exist in our body and all around you every day. You only interact with probably about 30 different elements on a daily basis.

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both our theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

And that doesnt have anything to do with god. Of course plant cells are composed of different elements than animals are. Thats common sense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It doesnt matter the size, because theres still tens of thousands of species of mammals alone. Add reptiles and insects, thats hundreds of millions of species of animals on your boat.

Lol you say evolution has no evidence, but you dont even know enough about the subject to sound like you know what your talking about.

What do you say about those three hominid skulls that none of you want to comment on. What about Austrolipithicus, Homo Habilis, and Homo erectus. Those are just a few fossils between ape and man. How do you explain those?

Do you not understand Micro-adaptations ? Do you not uderstand how we get so many different sub-species or many different species from one family like horse's,human's,and dog's ?

You only need to take two of each family and the micro-adaptations would do the rest.

Did you not see this yeaterday.

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.


Assuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.

The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?

According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.


God only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured. (Scene from The World that Perished, a Christian motion picture about the Flood)

However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.

How many animals needed to be brought aboard?

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

The bigger problem would have been the construction of the Ark. But the Bible indicates that Noah did this under Divine guidance and there is no reason to believe he did not hire additional workmen.


Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?

Lol you can say its possible all you want, that isnt evidence. Animals are different from mammals. Your only counting mammals. There are millions of different species of insect alone. Not to mention one girafe would take up an entire "railroad car" or wtf ever you were referencing.

Did god suspend the animals desire to eat and shit as well?

Nor is your's evidence.

It is simply speculation and an explanation no different then yours.

Don't you get it ? if we are not present to see it we can't say with certainty now can we ?

 

[cbirch2]

If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements ? Why do animals have different elements helping with the the digestive system and other functions ?

Why would you mock my legitmate questions ?

'If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements?' You clearly dont know what elements are....all life is mostly carbon, and hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water. All DNA is made of a sugar phosphate backbone and nitrogenous base pairs. All life is made of the same elements. Theres minor variation, like plants have a cellulose cell wall and animals do not. But life is pretty much made of all the same elements. Im pretty sure you dont know what elements are.

What different elements are helping with the digesting system. The digestive system doesnt just work on basic elements. If anything different animals use different enzymes to digest specific chemicals, but those enzymes are just built from atoms, and those atoms of the same elements that exist in our body and all around you every day. You only interact with probably about 30 different elements on a daily basis.

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both our theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

YOU JUST PROVED ME RIGHT. I clicked on your link and read through a little, and it said about 30 elements have a role in life processes, just like i said. How do you expect every animal to use different elements within its digestion when theres only about 30 different elements used in the body and only 92 that occur naturally. Nothing in that link says anything about each animal using different elements to digest

 

[Youwerecreated]

The notion that somehow human DNA was perfect with in the garden of eden is the greatest argument ive ever heard. It just shows that these people have no idea how biology, reproduction, mutation, and evolution work at all.

Mutations due to inbreeding have nothing to do with how perfect an organisms DNA is. It has to do with how sexual reproduction works. When the two gametes meet their DNA does something called recombination. Thats why every person is genetically unique, and that is why mutations due to inbreeding occur. The recombination process is taking place between two chromosomes that are essentially identical, with exception of a few minor physical traits.

Do you know for sure humans were not at a perfect state at one time.

If we don't understand genetics and DNA why didn't you respond to my post showing why Neo Darwinism is a joke ?

You're trying to argue with theories not fact. Do you not understand the difference between theory and fact ?

 

[cbirch2]

Do you not understand Micro-adaptations ? Do you not uderstand how we get so many different sub-species or many different species from one family like horse's,human's,and dog's ?

You only need to take two of each family and the micro-adaptations would do the rest.

Did you not see this yeaterday.

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.


Assuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.

The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?

According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.


God only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured. (Scene from The World that Perished, a Christian motion picture about the Flood)

However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.

How many animals needed to be brought aboard?

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

The bigger problem would have been the construction of the Ark. But the Bible indicates that Noah did this under Divine guidance and there is no reason to believe he did not hire additional workmen.


Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?

Lol you can say its possible all you want, that isnt evidence. Animals are different from mammals. Your only counting mammals. There are millions of different species of insect alone. Not to mention one girafe would take up an entire "railroad car" or wtf ever you were referencing.

Did god suspend the animals desire to eat and shit as well?

Nor is your's evidence.

It is simply speculation and an explanation no different then yours.

Don't you get it ? if we are not present to see it we can't say with certainty now can we ?

I have way more evidence

YOURS IS PURELY CONJECTURE. IM TRYING TO POINT YOU TO INTERMEDIATE HOMINID SKULLS AND YOU KEEP IGNORING IT!

we have genetic evidence. We have massive anatomical evidence. The time based on radiometric dating and their location within the strata all agree with genetic evidence on the time line.

Not to mention the clear progression from ape to human i keep pointing out that you cant seem to understand.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Exept that doesn't prove there was an Adam and Eve at all or that two humans are enough to populate the entire human species. Don't let the Adam and Eve names fool you, that's just a catchy title. In reality, Adam and Eve are the most recent common ancestors all humans have thier father's and mother's side respectively. Those aren't even actually the most recent common ancestor we actually have, but they are when it comes to the genes they gave us. In fact, in terms of Eve, she is the only unbroken genetic line of matrilineal descent.

The fact of the matter is, replying to my post that was about two humans populating the earth by themselves, as the Biblical duo did and then later Noah's family with about 6 more people, with that is incorrect. For starters, your own link says there were other men and women around at the time:



Which would put the kibosh on anything saying the Bible Adam and Eve was true. After they all, they were the first and only. Anyway it's painfully clear these two weren't the only humans around. In fact, going further, guess what? They never mated. And you know what else? They didn't live at the same time! They lived thousands of years apart. How could they populate the human race from the two of them if they didn't even live at the same time?

I don't think you understand entirely what you posted. It does nothing to indicate an Adam and Eve, and in fact provides evidence against it. My point still stands. You can't populate an entire species from one male and female.

Let me give you a couple of scenarios in which i think you could be wrong.

Man was created perfect without blemish. Man according to the scriptures lived much longer then we do today. I believe God punished for us sin through our genetics. I think over time as there became more and more bad genes being passed back and for and the gene pool became filled with the defective genes we started dying much sooner. Through science and medicine we been able to improve the life expectancy for humans. But there are now many thousands of negative mutations thank God for Natural selection or we would all be deformed or dead.

Except there's no evidence to suggest such longevity, that humans lived as long as the Bible claims. You would think there would be, since we can determine the lifespan of a Neanderthal. Amusingly, for your explanation here to work would require accepting evolution.

At any rate, just because the Bible says it, doesn't mean it was actually true.

So that being said,at that time inbreeding would have been safer until family's grew far enough apart that they could produce offspring that could be normal. Now for another scenario that i think piles on this thought is that God when he banished cain instead of destroying him he used him to help populate the earth. He sent him to the land of Nod and that is where he came upon his wife.
Maybe Adam and eve were the first and God's chosen line to produce his people and he simply did not mention that he created this other line of people that was in the land of Nod.

Uh, what? You didn't explain how two people would avoid inbreeding at all.

Looks like you've highlighted one of the Bible's contradictions. If God created man, why are there others running around in Nod as you say? It's far more likelier that the Bible is simply incorrect.

The Mitochondrial Clock:
The story of Mitochondrial Eve.

Does our mitochondrial DNA show that all humans came from the same mother? If so, did this mitochondrial Eve live 200,000 years ago or did she live at the calculated value of 6500 years ago? Portions of Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected yet there has been a lot of opposition to this possibility because it goes against the calculated speed of the molecular clock that is based on having chimpanzees and humans diverge 5 million years ago.

The FBI also got into the act by setting new guidelines for mtDNA, to account for a faster mutation rate. Panic filled the air as many saw that this new mtDNA data did not agree with established evolutionary rates of change. One letter to the editor (listed below) titled: "mtDNA mutation rates-no need to panic", shows the climate of the times. The "First International Workshop on Human Mitochondrial DNA was held in 1997 to look into the problems of mtDNA mutation rates.

Ann Gibbons reported on the workshop giving a very interesting introduction to problems as they were seen at that time: "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock": Science Volume 279, Number 5347, January 2, 1998, pp. 28-29. The abstract for Ann Gibbons's article: "Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events."

The following links will help introduce to you various aspects of the controversy.


Introduction to the Mitochondrial Eve story. Is it true that scientist have found the mother of us all? There are two opposing view points on the history of mankind. The Mitochondrial Eve story seems to support the "Out-of-Africa" viewpoint, while those who hold the "multi-regional continuity" theory, continue to point out the problems in the Eve research.


Is the Mitochondrial Clock speed faster than we thought? Some have calculated that the "mitochondrial Eve" probably lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. However it has been found that mtDNA can experience a much faster mutation rate. Using this faster mutation rate as a new clock speed, Eve can be calculated as living a mere 6500 or 6000 years ago.


A continuation of the Mitochondrial Eve story. Is the clock speed still faster than we thought? Is the idea of maternal mitochondrial inheritance correct? Or is the evidence for Recombination and Paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA a convincing argument? How dependable is the sperm mitochondria-specific translocator in destroying the sperm mitochondria DNA and establishing the maternal inheritance of mtDNA?


There are more articles you can look at dealing with this issue at Professor Browns site.

The Mitochondrial Clock: Is the clock speed faster than we thought? MHRC

Is there a point to this? Because I'm not seeing it.

I have stated before God has not given us complete answers to everything he has done.we are forced to speculate just like we do in science.

 

[cbirch2]

The notion that somehow human DNA was perfect with in the garden of eden is the greatest argument ive ever heard. It just shows that these people have no idea how biology, reproduction, mutation, and evolution work at all.

Mutations due to inbreeding have nothing to do with how perfect an organisms DNA is. It has to do with how sexual reproduction works. When the two gametes meet their DNA does something called recombination. Thats why every person is genetically unique, and that is why mutations due to inbreeding occur. The recombination process is taking place between two chromosomes that are essentially identical, with exception of a few minor physical traits.

Do you know for sure humans were not at a perfect state at one time.

If we don't understand genetics and DNA why didn't you respond to my post showing why Neo Darwinism is a joke ?

You're trying to argue with theories not fact. Do you not understand the difference between theory and fact ?

The entire point of my post was that DNA perfection makes no difference. For one, yes we can know if it was perfect because we have fossils and DNA from primitive humans. But secondly, mutation has nothing to do with genetic perfection, it has to do with the process of sexual reproduction itself. Unless your going to propose that the chromosomes from gametes produced a human without genetic recombination your argument is totally invalid.

Im not going to debate the difference between a fact and a theory with you, it too complicated. Just know theories are always theories, it doesnt mean its just conjecture. A hypothesis is a conjecture, a theory is a hypothesis support by fact. Einsteins theory of gravity will always be a theory, no matter how many satellites prove its measurements true.

 

[Youwerecreated]

'If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements?' You clearly dont know what elements are....all life is mostly carbon, and hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water. All DNA is made of a sugar phosphate backbone and nitrogenous base pairs. All life is made of the same elements. Theres minor variation, like plants have a cellulose cell wall and animals do not. But life is pretty much made of all the same elements. Im pretty sure you dont know what elements are.

What different elements are helping with the digesting system. The digestive system doesnt just work on basic elements. If anything different animals use different enzymes to digest specific chemicals, but those enzymes are just built from atoms, and those atoms of the same elements that exist in our body and all around you every day. You only interact with probably about 30 different elements on a daily basis.

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both out theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

Well in this thread we've all been informed that all living creatures were herbivores before the Great Flood.

Now herbivores need to eat, and since there was no land to get plants from, I'm sure there was plenty of room for an enormous state of the art modern to 2011 greenhouse that god put on the ship that had an unlimited supply.

That way lions could eat the grass they needed, sabertooth cats could eat the leaves they needed, and T-Rex's could eat all the cactuses they needed until the waters went back down.

Yes i am saying all creatures were once vegetarian and you have no way to prove otherwise.

 

[cbirch2]

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both out theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

Well in this thread we've all been informed that all living creatures were herbivores before the Great Flood.

Now herbivores need to eat, and since there was no land to get plants from, I'm sure there was plenty of room for an enormous state of the art modern to 2011 greenhouse that god put on the ship that had an unlimited supply.

That way lions could eat the grass they needed, sabertooth cats could eat the leaves they needed, and T-Rex's could eat all the cactuses they needed until the waters went back down.

Yes i am saying all creatures were once vegetarian and you have no way to prove otherwise.

Besides skeletons of animals inside the stomachs of others....

Along with the massive teeth of dinosaurs. Why did some dinosaurs have flat teeth for herbs and others have sharp teeth? What vegetation required razor sharp teeth?

 

[Youwerecreated]

'If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements?' You clearly dont know what elements are....all life is mostly carbon, and hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water. All DNA is made of a sugar phosphate backbone and nitrogenous base pairs. All life is made of the same elements. Theres minor variation, like plants have a cellulose cell wall and animals do not. But life is pretty much made of all the same elements. Im pretty sure you dont know what elements are.

What different elements are helping with the digesting system. The digestive system doesnt just work on basic elements. If anything different animals use different enzymes to digest specific chemicals, but those enzymes are just built from atoms, and those atoms of the same elements that exist in our body and all around you every day. You only interact with probably about 30 different elements on a daily basis.

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both our theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

Organic phospholids form a spherical membranous bilayer under natural conditions. Thats the definition of a cell membrane. From there you just need nitrogenous bases and the enzyme DNA polymerase to have a self contained chemical process. All of which can form naturally.

How do you explain viruses? Inanimate matter that appears living.

They consist of nucleic acid, and which obligately replicate inside host cells using host metabolic machinery and ribosomes to form a pool of components which assemble into particles called VIRIONS, which serve to protect the genome and to transfer it to other cells.


That is only opinion because they are missing some structures and exhibits that they appear as non-life clearly they're are alive and replicating themselves to spread to other cells.

The very definition of a virus contradicts what you are saying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well in this thread we've all been informed that all living creatures were herbivores before the Great Flood.

Now herbivores need to eat, and since there was no land to get plants from, I'm sure there was plenty of room for an enormous state of the art modern to 2011 greenhouse that god put on the ship that had an unlimited supply.

That way lions could eat the grass they needed, sabertooth cats could eat the leaves they needed, and T-Rex's could eat all the cactuses they needed until the waters went back down.

Yes i am saying all creatures were once vegetarian and you have no way to prove otherwise.

Besides skeletons of animals inside the stomachs of others....

Along with the massive teeth of dinosaurs. Why did some dinosaurs have flat teeth for herbs and others have sharp teeth? What vegetation required razor sharp teeth?

Again you're speculating.

I showed earlier animals that were vegetarian that had these sharp teeth. that proves nothing.

 

[cbirch2]

Do i need to show you this to ?

Several other sources (US Geological Survey, United Nations FAO) list additional elements as having a role in plant and/or animal life processes. But no description of that "role" was discovered. Those elements are: Strontium, Lithium, Barium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Platinum (for plants).


Here you can go educate yourself a little better on elements and their roles.

The Role of Elements in Life Processes | Mineral Information Institute


Please don't try to make me look ignorant because you actually are ignorat of the role of elements in both our theories. Many of these elements perform different roles between human animal and plants.


When are you gonna explain how non-living matter became living matter. ?

Organic phospholids form a spherical membranous bilayer under natural conditions. Thats the definition of a cell membrane. From there you just need nitrogenous bases and the enzyme DNA polymerase to have a self contained chemical process. All of which can form naturally.

How do you explain viruses? Inanimate matter that appears living.

They consist of nucleic acid, and which obligately replicate inside host cells using host metabolic machinery and ribosomes to form a pool of components which assemble into particles called VIRIONS, which serve to protect the genome and to transfer it to other cells.


That is only opinion because they are missing some structures and exhibits that they appear as non-life clearly they're are alive and replicating themselves to spread to other cells.

The very definition of a virus contradicts what you are saying.

A virus is not alive. Its nothing more than DNA inside a shell. Yet somehow that DNA means something. When it infects the host cell the DNA codes for replication of the virus. Meaning non-live DNA inside a non-live membrane is none the less possible of coherent action.

And how come very time i prove you wrong you ignore the question.

What about skeletons inside other skeletons?
We never finished our discussion of radiometric dating, lets continue that as well.