Noetic - Big Bang is an act of God, the bible said
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.'

Just like i said the bible and science are simply looking at same issue from different perspective - if you have listened to the commentary of same footbal match from 2 different stations with 2 independent commentator, you will hear similar things in their commentary but with some difference because one commentator might be east of the stadium while the older is north of the stadium. They are watching and commenting on same match but are likely to see the play of the match differently.

If you read the first 4 books of the new testament - matthew, mark , luke and john - you will see a lot of similarities but with subtle difference because each writer as a different means of expressing himself.

I remember when i use to draw and paint in high school, we all seat circularly around an object chosen by our art teacher but we have different drawing because we are looking at same object but from different angle.

noetic2:

@ wirinet
seems like u have no answers to my questions. . . .

noetic2:

a. If physical observation is impossible. . . what form of observation suggests that the first evolution process EVER took place?

b. what were the substances involved in this first evolution that took place?

c. Since according to you, the first evolution process took place before the first single celled organism was formed. . . .how could non-living substances produce these pioneer organisms? how could non-living substances produce life (organisms)?

a. by "not noticeable", do u mean invisible and unseen and unknown processes?

b. where are the repeatable and verifiable scientific evidences that suggest that short lived plants and insects including plants and animals evolve?

a. How was the simple amino acids formed?

hi wirit

noetic asked you a question an [size=15pt]you have refused to respond to it [/size] in all your subsequent post. pls answer i have posteded them for conveninence.

•Prokaryotes (simple cells) emerged on earth about 4 billion years ago
•Eukaryotes (complex cells) emerged 2 billion years ago
•Multicellular life emerged 1 billion years ago
•Simple animals about 600 million years ago
•Arthropods (ancestors of insects and crustaceans) about 570 million years ago
•Complex animals first showed up about 550 million years ago
•Fish have been on earth since 500 million years
•Proto-amphibians have been here just a little less than 500 million years
•Insects showed up 400 million years ago
•Amphibians emerge about 360 million years ago followed by
•Reptiles, which have been around for 300 million years, and
•Mammals have been on Earth for 200 million years, whereas
•Birds were the last to arrive and have been here only 150 million years •And the direct ancestors of man (hominids) probably have been here for maybe 2 million years.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/article_3_rev2.php

Now if athiest agree/disagree that dinasurs are related/evolved to chicken, my question is this, why have man not evolved into another species but remain as he is since man was able to communicated/documented writings.


could it then be that evolution is a farce all allong, decieving many to thier damnation in hell?

seyenko:

Noetic - Big Bang is an act of God, the bible said
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.'

Just like i said the bible and science are simply looking at same issue from different perspective - if you have listened to the commentary of same footbal match from 2 different stations with 2 independent commentator, you will hear similar things in their commentary but with some difference because one commentator might be east of the stadium while the older is north of the stadium. They are watching and commenting on same match but are likely to see the play of the match differently.

If you read the first 4 books of the new testament - matthew, mark , luke and john - you will see a lot of similarities but with subtle difference because each writer as a different means of expressing himself.

I remember when i use to draw and paint in high school, we all seat circularly around an object chosen by our art teacher but we have different drawing because we are looking at same object but from different angle.

u have not told me what business God had to do with the big bang?

atheists and evolutionists believe that the big bang was an accident. . . . .the bible does not describe creation as an accident, but a well planned event. . . . .So why dont u tell me how the two fit in?

In addition, if evolution is true, why are scienctist crying that an animal is going extinct (just like the dinasaurs) and so they must protect it but this animal cant evolve into another specie to continue? just like they say homid evolved into man and hence homid has continued in another form as man?

jamiru:

hi wirit

noetic asked you a question an [size=15pt]you have refused to respond to it [/size] in all your subsequent post. pls answer i have posteded them for conveninence.

•Prokaryotes (simple cells) emerged on earth about 4 billion years ago
•Eukaryotes (complex cells) emerged 2 billion years ago
•Multicellular life emerged 1 billion years ago
•Simple animals about 600 million years ago
•Arthropods (ancestors of insects and crustaceans) about 570 million years ago
•Complex animals first showed up about 550 million years ago
•Fish have been on earth since 500 million years
•Proto-amphibians have been here just a little less than 500 million years
•Insects showed up 400 million years ago
•Amphibians emerge about 360 million years ago followed by
•Reptiles, which have been around for 300 million years, and
•Mammals have been on Earth for 200 million years, whereas
•Birds were the last to arrive and have been here only 150 million years •And the direct ancestors of man (hominids) probably have been here for maybe 2 million years.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/article_3_rev2.php

Now if athiest agree/disagree that dinasurs are related/evolved to chicken, my question is this, why have man not evolved into another species but remain as he is since man was able to communicated/documented writings.


could it then be that evolution is a farce all allong, decieving many to thier damnation in hell?

Jamiru, I decided not to respond anymore to Noetic's question because i will hate to undertake an exercise in futility, noetic has template responses and questions to all issues concerning evolution and science in General. We would just be moving in a vicious cycle, he will ask questions like how was the first inorganic compound formed, even if you explain and write the equation, he will still ask were you there to witness it?. It is impossible explaining scientific terms to a person who never understood any science more complex than integrated science.

Noetic questions are very basic, so as not to accuse me of running away i will answer them, but i know a barrage of other cynic questions will follow;

a. If physical observation is impossible. . . what form of observation suggests that the first evolution process EVER took place?

As i had had explained earlier, it is very absurd and cynical  to ask if  someone observed physically, the first first chemical reaction of life. The only way a such chemical reactions can be inferred is through experiments like the Miller Experiment which was able to create all 20 protein forming amino acids necessary for life, and through the discovery of amino acids and many organic compounds in meteorites brought in from space, meaning a similar process occurred in the planets from which the meteor broke off. Also Jupiter is suspected to be awash with amino acids and organic compounds ( not life). So the process of simple inorganic compounds forming complex organic compound is fairly common in the universe.
[quote]
b. what were the substances involved in this first evolution that took place?

The compounds involved in the formation of life is Amino acids, phosphate groups, Ribose and Deoxyribose Sugars, bases,  Glucose, etc. These compounds dissolved in the primordial oceans to form "The Primordial Soup". And continuous and polymerization went on to produce the first RNA .

RNA is autocatalytic, meaning that once RNA forms by accidental dehydration, can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short strands of RNA(virus) were probably the first self reproducing systems(life) to come into being on the young earth. In RNA strand was protected by a sheath of specific proteins.  From there the RNA and proteins went on to form more complex organisms and DNA.

This experiments cannot be replicated today due to the enormous size of the laboratory ( the entire earth), the very high density of the early earth's atmosphere, the relatively high temperature and the time span needed ( about half a billion years).

c. Since according to you, the first evolution process took place before the first single celled organism was formed. . . .how could non-living substances produce these pioneer organisms? how could non-living substances produce life (organisms)?

This question had been answered above

a. by "not noticeable", do u mean invisible and unseen and unknown processes?

By not noticeable, i mean the process is too slow to be noticed with the naked eye within the time frame we are viewing

b. where are the repeatable and verifiable scientific evidences that suggest that short lived plants and insects including plants and animals evolve?

Short lived plants and animals change physical characteristics like colour when placed in a different environment to adapt to that environment.

a. How was the simple amino acids formed?

Had already explained it above, but if you want details google "how to make amino acids"


Sorry to say, but your questions are more ridiculous than noteic's, i do not mean to be disrespectful, but how can someone answer the questions you ask below;

jamiru:

In addition, if evolution is true, why are scienctist crying that an animal is going extinct (just like the dinasaurs) and so they must protect it but this animal cant evolve into another specie to continue? just like they say homid evolved into man and hence homid has continued in another form as man?

Because what you understand by evolution is tantamount to witchery and wizardry. If you want to study that kind of evolution, go to Benin or Ijebu, I hear that some humans there can transform to a goat, owl or snake at will.

Look i am not trying to convert anybody, I will happily teach interested persons on evolution or any other branch of science, and will readily learn from others about what i do not understand. I view this forum an interaction of ideas and not a competition.[/quote]

jamiru:

hi wirit

noetic asked you a question an [size=15pt]you have refused to respond to it [/size] in all your subsequent post. pls answer i have posteded them for conveninence.

•Prokaryotes (simple cells) emerged on earth about 4 billion years ago
•Eukaryotes (complex cells) emerged 2 billion years ago
•Multicellular life emerged 1 billion years ago
•Simple animals about 600 million years ago
•Arthropods (ancestors of insects and crustaceans) about 570 million years ago
•Complex animals first showed up about 550 million years ago
•Fish have been on earth since 500 million years
•Proto-amphibians have been here just a little less than 500 million years
•Insects showed up 400 million years ago
•Amphibians emerge about 360 million years ago followed by
•Reptiles, which have been around for 300 million years, and
•Mammals have been on Earth for 200 million years, whereas
•Birds were the last to arrive and have been here only 150 million years •And the direct ancestors of man (hominids) probably have been here for maybe 2 million years.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/article_3_rev2.php

Now if athiest agree/disagree that dinasurs are related/evolved to chicken, my question is this, why have man not evolved into another species but remain as he is since man was able to communicated/documented writings.


could it then be that evolution is a farce all allong, decieving many to thier damnation in hell?

Jamiru, I decided not to respond anymore to Noetic's question because i will hate to undertake an exercise in futility, noetic has template responses and questions to all issues concerning evolution and science in General. We would just be moving in a vicious cycle, he will ask questions like how was the first inorganic compound formed, even if you explain and write the equation, he will still ask were you there to witness it?. It is impossible explaining scientific terms to a person who never understood any science more complex than integrated science.

Noetic questions are very basic, so as not to accuse me of running away i will answer them, but i know a barrage of other cynic questions will follow;

a. If physical observation is impossible. . . what form of observation suggests that the first evolution process EVER took place?

As i had had explained earlier, it is very absurd and cynical  to ask if  someone observed physically, the first first chemical reaction of life. The only way a such chemical reactions can be inferred is through experiments like the Miller Experiment which was able to create all 20 protein forming amino acids necessary for life, and through the discovery of amino acids and many organic compounds in meteorites brought in from space, meaning a similar process occurred in the planets from which the meteor broke off. Also Jupiter is suspected to be awash with amino acids and organic compounds ( not life). So the process of simple inorganic compounds forming complex organic compound is fairly common in the universe.

b. what were the substances involved in this first evolution that took place?

The compounds involved in the formation of life is Amino acids, phosphate groups, Ribose and Deoxyribose Sugars, bases,  Glucose, etc. These compounds dissolved in the primordial oceans to form "The Primordial Soup". And continuous and polymerization went on to produce the first RNA .

RNA is autocatalytic, meaning that once RNA forms by accidental dehydration, can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short strands of RNA(virus) were probably the first self reproducing systems(life) to come into being on the young earth. In RNA strand was protected by a sheath of specific proteins.  From there the RNA and proteins went on to form more complex organisms and DNA.

This experiments cannot be replicated today due to the enormous size of the laboratory ( the entire earth), the very high density of the early earth's atmosphere, the relatively high temperature and the time span needed ( about half a billion years).

c. Since according to you, the first evolution process took place before the first single celled organism was formed. . . .how could non-living substances produce these pioneer organisms? how could non-living substances produce life (organisms)?

This question had been answered above

a. by "not noticeable", do u mean invisible and unseen and unknown processes?

By not noticeable, i mean the process is too slow to be noticed with the naked eye within the time frame we are viewing

b. where are the repeatable and verifiable scientific evidences that suggest that short lived plants and insects including plants and animals evolve?

Short lived plants and animals change physical characteristics like colour when placed in a different environment to adapt to that environment.

a. How was the simple amino acids formed?

Had already explained it above, but if you want details google "how to make amino acids"


Sorry to say, but your questions are more ridiculous than noteic's, i do not mean to be disrespectful, but how can someone answer the questions you ask below;

jamiru:

In addition, if evolution is true, why are scienctist crying that an animal is going extinct (just like the dinasaurs) and so they must protect it but this animal cant evolve into another specie to continue? just like they say homid evolved into man and hence homid has continued in another form as man?

Because what you understand by evolution is tantamount to witchery and wizardry. If you want to study that kind of evolution, go to Benin or Ijebu, I hear that some humans there can transform to a goat, owl or snake at will.

Look i am not trying to convert anybody, I will happily teach interested persons on evolution or any other branch of science, and will readily learn from others about what i do not understand. I view this forum an interaction of ideas and not a competition.

wirinet:

Jamiru, I decided not to respond anymore to Noetic's question because i will hate to undertake an exercise in futility, noetic has template responses and questions to all issues concerning evolution and science in General. We would just be moving in a vicious cycle, he will ask questions like how was the first inorganic compound formed, even if you explain and write the equation, he will still ask were you there to witness it?. It is impossible explaining scientific terms to a person who never understood any science more complex than integrated science.

why do u actually love disgracing urself? you have not said anything to make anyone believe that u studied ANYTHING close to science. . .or have u?

Noetic questions are very basic, so as not to accuse me of running away i will answer them, but i know a barrage of other cynic questions will follow;

Well, considering the ridiculous quality of ur post. . .I think it is fair I ask subsequent questions. . . .
why do u think my questions are basic? they are basic because it is the best means of revealing ur ignorance.
If I have any reason to think or assume that u know evolution, then I would probably ask u more detailed questions. ur post reflects a "google-educated" evolutionists.

As i had had explained earlier, it is very absurd and cynical  to ask if  someone observed physically, the first first chemical reaction of life. The only way a such chemical reactions can be inferred is through experiments like the Miller Experiment which was able to create all 20 protein forming amino acids necessary for life, and through the discovery of amino acids and many organic compounds in meteorites brought in from space, meaning a similar process occurred in the planets from which the meteor broke off. Also Jupiter is[b] suspected [/b]to be awash with amino acids and organic compounds ( not life). So the process of simple inorganic compounds forming complex organic compound is fairly common in the universe. The compounds involved in the formation of life is Amino acids, phosphate groups, Ribose and Deoxyribose Sugars, bases,  Glucose, etc. These compounds dissolved in the primordial oceans to form "The Primordial Soup". And continuous and polymerization went on to produce the first RNA .

a. whats the meaning of the rubbish above? did I ask if some one observed it? I just wanted to know the basis and level of observation of the pioneer evolution process. If no one observed it, how then is it qualified to be called science? science is both observable and repeatable.

b. ur knowledge of evolution is very porous. All u have done is to make up false assumptions, to satisfy preconceived notions. How EXACTLY do u know that there are amino acids in jupiter? is this not a mere assumption? does it make sense that u have used this unverifiable assumption to buttress an un-observed and un-verified pioneer evolution process. or is there something else I am missing?

RNA is autocatalytic, meaning that once RNA forms by accidental dehydration, can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short strands of RNA(virus) were probably the first self reproducing systems(life) to come into being on the young earth. In RNA strand was protected by a sheath of specific proteins.  From there the RNA and proteins went on to form more complex organisms and DNA.

[b]This experiments cannot be replicated today due to the enormous size of the laboratory ( the entire earth), [/b]the very high density of the early earth's atmosphere, the relatively high temperature and the time span needed ( about half a billion years).

a. u keep missing the whole point. We know what RNA means and its self-replicating nature. . . . but since it was part of the first substances that made the pioneer evolution happen. . .why not tell us how the very first RNA was formed, before it became self-replicating.

b. Since according to u, this experiment is not repeatable, can I safely assume that this experiment never took place originally (big bang)?
can I safely assume that since the original experiment was not observed, is not repeatable, recordable and reproducible. . .I can safely state that this process (EVOLUTION) is not scientific or in any way related to science, but a mere fiction, just like harry porter.

This question had been answered above

NO. . .  .u did not answer the question. . . .
How EXACTLY did non-living organisms produce living organisms?
HINT: IT IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

By not noticeable, i mean the process is too slow to be noticed with the naked eye within the time frame we are viewingShort lived plants and animals change physical characteristics like colour when placed in a different environment to adapt to that environment.Had already explained it above, but if you want details google "how to make amino acids"

a. So how exactly do we then know that this process exists. . . since we cannot verify it with our naked eyes?

b. u simply dont know how amino acids were originally formed. The truth is that the first evolution process simply did NOT take place.
If u cannot scientifically analyse the origin of the simple and complex chemical substances that allowed for this evolutionary process. . then u are making no sense.

wirinet:

RNA is autocatalytic, meaning that once RNA forms by accidental dehydration, can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short strands of RNA(virus) were probably the first self reproducing systems(life) to come into being on the young earth. In RNA strand was protected by a sheath of specific proteins.  From there the RNA and proteins went on to form more complex organisms and DNA.

We know this is not true. Infact you need more faith to believe this than Jonah surviving in the belly of a whale for 3 days without oxygen.

wirinet:

This experiments cannot be replicated today due to the enormous size of the laboratory ( the entire earth), the very high density of the early earth's atmosphere, the relatively high temperature and the time span needed ( about half a billion years).

these are really ridiculous excuses . . . are these not the same scientists recreating the big bang with the haldron collider? If we can smash protons together why cant we replicate ordinary RNA, amino acids coming together in a primordial soup to form life?

una too lie.

wirinet:

Noetic questions are very basic, so as not to accuse me of running away i will answer them, but i know a barrage of other cynic questions will follow;
As i had had explained earlier, it is very absurd and cynical  to ask if  someone observed physically, the first first chemical reaction of life. The only way a such chemical reactions can be inferred is through experiments like the Miller Experiment which was able to create all 20 protein forming amino acids necessary for life, and through the discovery of amino acids and many organic compounds in meteorites brought in from space, meaning a similar process occurred in the planets from which the meteor broke off. Also Jupiter is suspected to be awash with amino acids and organic compounds ( not life). So the process of simple inorganic compounds forming complex organic compound is fairly common in the universe. The compounds involved in the formation of life is Amino acids, phosphate groups, Ribose and Deoxyribose Sugars, bases,  Glucose, etc. These compounds dissolved in the primordial oceans to form "The Primordial Soup". And continuous and polymerization went on to produce the first RNA .

thanks winiret

but looking at the line i highlighted, evolution is at best a guess work - inferrance & suspect not on hard facts that one can lay his/her life on. hope u have heard this phrase - asumption is the mother of all f**k up! if u accept and live on assumption, u know that that cant be of much help.

my question is not ridiculous becos i am not into all those advanced wordings but simple and it may sound foolish.
In addition, if evolution is true, why are scienctist crying that an animal is going extinct (just like the dinasaurs) and so they must protect it but this animal cant evolve into another specie to continue? just like they say homid evolved into man and hence homid has continued in another form as man?

it simply shows evolution does not exist becos if it did at least a single rat will mutate/evolve from one form to another  (since at least mammals have existed years before homid arrived), but u have decieved your mind that becos our ideas change therefore evolution is real.

jamiru:

thanks winiret

but looking at the line i highlighted, evolution is at best a guess work - inferrance & suspect not on hard facts that one can lay his/her life on. hope u have heard this phrase - asumption is the mother of all f**k up! if u accept and live on assumption, u know that that cant be of much help.

my question is not ridiculous becos i am not into all those advanced wordings but simple and it may sound foolish.
In addition, if evolution is true, why are scienctist crying that an animal is going extinct (just like the dinasaurs) and so they must protect it but this animal cant evolve into another specie to continue? just like they say homid evolved into man and hence homid has continued in another form as man?

it simply shows evolution does not exist becos if it did at least a single rat will mutate/evolve from one form to another  (since at least mammals have existed years before homid arrived), but u have decieved your mind that becos our ideas change therefore evolution is real.

Jamiru, it is obvious you do not understand how science works especially in areas where direct physical observations is not possible. Inferences are drawn based on obtainable data. Most of Einstein's laws are based on inferences obtained from Maxwell's equations and other equations, Einstein was never able to travel at the speed of light, not to talk of comparing the masses, lengths and velocity of objects traveling at the speed of light. Also most of the planets outside Jupiter was discovered first from inferences of their motion and their orbits. It was after the inferences that the planets were discovered where the calculations said it would be.

So inferences is not comparable to guesswork.

As of your question, animals evolve and not transform. Animals can only evolve through mutation of its offsprings, and mutation is a slow random process that happens through many many generations. So if a feature of the environment should change drastically quickly, say within 50 yrs. Lets say temperatures suddenly falls to a few degree above zero, most animals in hot zones would not have enough time to grow a fur coat, and they would be in danger of extinction. But animals in the cold zones would survive as they had already adapted. Another factor responsible for extinction is an imbalance in the eco-system, thereby disrupting the food chain and habitat of certain animals, making then in danger of extinction also.

Human activities is responsible for most of the problems we have in regard to animal extinction today.

In the Jupiter case, Physical condition at certain altitude is conducive to the formation of organic acids, but as not probe had been sent there to bring back samples, we can only speculate. But one day that would be done and we can confirm it. But my arguments were never based on that. I had already given concrete proof that organic molecules is not unique to earth. And that organic molecules can easily be formed from simple inorganic gasses.