[Hindsite]

Why? Just because it doesn't line up with a stupid story written 2000 years ago by people who didn't know a lick about anything?

Evolutionists have no explanation for the beginning of life.

God didn't write it. Men, who are often wrong, did.

Men inspired by God wrote the Holy Bible.

It only makes sense if you limit God in such a way that you can understand it. Maybe you should be thinking bigger, instead of limiting your God, simply because you lack the imagination to imagine a God beyond your comprehension.

You limit God much more than I do. You want to make it take billions of years for God to complete creation. I only limit God to the 6 days that He limited Himself to make His sabbath point.

[Godstud]

Evolutionists have no explanation for the beginning of life.

They don't NEED to! They aren't trying to explain how things started, just how things work.

Men inspired by God wrote the Holy Bible.

Inspired does not mean accurate.

You limit God much more than I do.

LIE. I simply doubt it exists.

You want to make it take billions of years for God to complete creation. I only limit God to the 6 days that He limited Himself to make His sabbath point.

You want to make it seem as though he only created earth, when there's a whole universe to explain. Only a near-sighted person with no perspective would think on such trivial terms.

If God made the Universe, why do you think he'd not have made it billions of years ago, and set things into motion in such a way that it made sense, given the rules he made for it? The universe is incredibly complex and trying to get people from 2,000 years ago to understand the complexity and scale, would have been fool-hardy, and mind-boggling to such primitive peoples. He'd have had to "dumb it down" for people much like you, who could not comprehend such an immense and ineffable plan.

[blackjack21]

I found these pretty interesting:

[Besoeker2]

Probably.

I suppose God counted the days by the revolutions of the earth. Man did not need to count the days until after the 6th day when man was created.

But Genesis 1 lists them. What was the point?

[Rich]

The reason there are seven days in a week is because there were only 7 known planets or wanderers at the time: Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The source of this idea is therefore anything but divine. The Bible opens with 2 creation sources, a late P source story followed by an early J source story. The 7 day week, along with many astrological ideas was imported into Judaism from Babylon and is unknown to the author / authors of the J source. The 2 creation stories contradict each other.

The Jewish religious manufacturers, like the later Christian and Muslims engaged in huge Cultural appropriation, stealing ideas from other cultures and then lyingly presenting them as their own.

[Besoeker2]

Probably.

I suppose God counted the days by the revolutions of the earth.

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

Day and night but no sun??

[Hindsite]

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

Day and night but no sun??

If God created light on the first day....then how did the create the sun on the 4th day?

Genesis Creation Days: Did God Really Create in Six Ordinary Days?

Did God create the "Heavens, Earth, Sea, and everything in them" in just six days as God Himself said in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11)?

What was the LIGHT of the 1st 3 DAYS of Creation? Light before Sun

[ThirdTerm]

As a proof-of-principle of the RNA World hypothesis, researchers have attempted to create ribozymes that are capable of self-replication using methods of directed evolution. So far, these efforts have culminated in the creation of RNA polymerase ribozymes that can synthesize RNA chains as long as 95 nucleotides in a template-dependent manner. However, the creation of a replicase ribozyme that is capable of duplicating itself has not been achieved.

A self-replicating system that is also subject to Darwinian evolution may have required cell-like compartments that were capable of growth and division. Such protocells ma have arisen from lipid vesicles composed of fatty acids or other amphiphiles, which can grow by accretion of fatty acids and can fragment into daughter protocells. Thus, the earliest form of life may have been vesicle-life compartments that encapsulated replicase ribozymes and that were capable of evolving through mutation and natural selection for more rapidly propagating protocells.

Molecular Biology of the Gene (7th ed)/Watson et.al.

There is not enough evidence to prove the RNA World hypothesis proposed by Francis Crick, who argued that self-replicating RNA molecules were essential in the origin of life on Earth. The RNA-world hypothesis proposes that today's DNA-based life forms evolved from earlier ones that were based on much simpler RNA molecules, while no such RNA-based organism, or ribocyte, has yet been found or created in a laboratory. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that a self-replicating molecule was the primary source of catalytic mechanisms fundamental to living systems.

The problems associated with the RNA world hypothesis are well known. In the following I discuss some of these difficulties, some of the alternative hypotheses that have been proposed, and some of the problems with these alternative models. From a biosynthetic – as well as, arguably, evolutionary – perspective, DNA is a modified RNA, and so the chicken-and-egg dilemma of “which came first?” boils down to a choice between RNA and protein. This is not just a question of cause and effect, but also one of statistical likelihood, as the chance of two such different types of macromolecule arising simultaneously would appear unlikely. The RNA world hypothesis is an example of a ‘top down’ (or should it be ‘present back’?) approach to early evolution: how can we simplify modern biological systems to give a plausible evolutionary pathway that preserves continuity of function? The discovery that RNA possesses catalytic ability provides a potential solution: a single macromolecule could have originally carried out both replication and catalysis. RNA – which constitutes the genome of RNA viruses, and catalyzes peptide synthesis on the ribosome – could have been both the chicken and the egg! However, the following objections have been raised to the RNA world hypothesis: (i) RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically; (ii) RNA is inherently unstable; (iii) catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only; and (iv) the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited. I will offer some possible responses to these objections in the light of work by our and other labs. Finally, I will critically discuss an alternative theory to the RNA world hypothesis known as ‘proteins first’, which holds that proteins either preceded RNA in evolution, or – at the very least – that proteins and RNA coevolved. I will argue that, while theoretically possible, such a hypothesis is probably unprovable, and that the RNA world hypothesis, although far from perfect or complete, is the best we currently have to help understand the backstory to contemporary biology.
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com ... -6150-7-23

[Besoeker2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCepYic5-eM

If God created light on the first day....then how did the create the sun on the 4th day?

Genesis Creation Days: Did God Really Create in Six Ordinary Days?

Did God create the "Heavens, Earth, Sea, and everything in them" in just six days as God Himself said in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11)?

What was the LIGHT of the 1st 3 DAYS of Creation? Light before Sun

Let there be light and there was light? Really? Why then would yer man need to create the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night if there was already light? Makes no sense.

[Besoeker2]

Nowhere in my original post does the word "faith" appear.
You and your godless friends continue thumping the Bible and attributing your thumps to me.
Very unscientific and dishonest of you. tsk, tsk

I wasn't responding to your post.

[Besoeker2]

Evolutionists have no explanation for the beginning of life.

You mean abiogenesis?

Men inspired by God wrote the Holy Bible.

You state that as if it is a known fact. The existence of your god isn't a known fact. It is a belief.

You limit God much more than I do.

How can one put limits on something that doesn't exist?

[Hindsite]

Let there be light and there was light? Really? Why then would yer man need to create the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night if there was already light? Makes no sense.

You obviously did not view and pay attention to the 4 videos I provided. They completely answer your questions. There is no need to comment further since it is obvious to me that you don't want to consider the truth.

[Godstud]

@Hindsite Videos from Youtube really are very poor sources, for pretty much everything, unless we're discussing pop music. They also take an inordinately long time to watch(30 minutes to watch all your videos), as well as try to find the point you are trying to make.

[Hindsite]

@Hindsite Videos from Youtube really are very poor sources, for pretty much everything, unless we're discussing pop music. They also take an inordinately long time to watch(30 minutes to watch all your videos), as well as try to find the point you are trying to make.

Youtube videos can be good sources for many things that people are ignorant about. The ones I picked out are easy enough for anyone with a little intelligence to understand and learn from.

[Godstud]

Youtube videos can be good sources for many things that people are ignorant about.

They are generally very BAD sources. There is no link as to where they got the information from. It's usually someone else's opinion.

The ones I picked out are easy enough for anyone with a little intelligence to understand and learn from.

I am not going to watch, and most there people aren't either, propaganda that met your confirmation bias, and your nowhere near genius ad hominem only demonstrates poor character on the part of your arguments.

[Hindsite]

They are generally very BAD sources. There is no link as to where they got the information from. It's usually someone else's opinion.

I am not going to watch, and most there people aren't either, propaganda that met your confirmation bias, and your nowhere near genius ad hominem only demonstrates poor character on the part of your arguments.

Well, at least one person may not want to remain ignorant and will watch. The chance that one person will be helped by my posting of those videos is good enough for me. I am not interested in helping a person like you anyway.

[Godstud]

Well, at least one person may not want to remain ignorant and will watch.

It's about sifting thru the bullshit to find the argument that you are making, and it fails. You aren't point to a significant statement in the video, but forcing others to watch the whole thing. I could post 90 minute videos showing how stupid the videos you are watching, actually are, but would you watch them, or "remain ignorant"?

I am not interested in helping a person like you anyway.

I don't need nor want your kind of help. I don't want to dumb myself down for the likes of you.

Smithsonian institute...

[Besoeker2]

You obviously did not view and pay attention to the 4 videos I provided. They completely answer your questions. There is no need to comment further since it is obvious to me that you don't want to consider the truth.

You you might think they are truth.
Your second clip claims that creation was completed in six days and that the world is several thousand years old is the literal truth as written in your bible.

Do you know what this is?



It is a piece of fossilised wood I picked up when I was in the Sahara desert. What can we conclude from that? How long does fossilisation take?

[Besoeker2]

You obviously did not view and pay attention to the 4 videos I provided. They completely answer your questions. There is no need to comment further since it is obvious to me that you don't want to consider the truth.

Wrong. I did watch them. They are not the truth. At best, they are biased opinions. But if you want to continue to bury your head in the sand............

[ingliz]

@Hindsite

I watched a documentary on 'Heaven and Hell' from a neurological perspective. It seems where you go in the hours* between life and brain death is random and depends on how the brain shuts down. So no amount of kiss arse praying and good works will help you. Paradise... It's a lotto.




* According to a new study, it may actually take hours for our brains to fully shut down after our hearts stop.