3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy (by potholer54)

Subscribe to potholer54 he makes great videos. http://www.youtube.com/potholer54

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christianity
• evolution
• god
• origin
• Darwinism
• Big
• Bang
• religion
• religious
• science
• open
• minded
• Christian
• potholer54

[theot58]

It is MUCH more rational to see something as complicated and intricate as DNA and concluded that it was designed, than to conclude that it made it self. Or was made by chance or by mindless processes.

I suggest that the God hypothesis is more rational than the NO God hypothesis. There is an observable creation hence it totally reasonable that there was a creator.

The additional evidence that He has chosen to communicate to his creation is only more evidence.

[nebulajr]

Well if it's more rational to conclude that DNA is "created", then please show me some testable, repeatable, and observable evidence. I would be all for a "creation" hypothesis if it could be tested, otherwise your idea can't hold water. I could say that zipportanti created DNA and how could you prove me wrong?

[theot58]

Science can observe and explore the DNA but it is currently incapable to detemine how it was created. A true scientist would have to just admit that "we don't know".

The Bible is outside science, It asserts that it is God's communication with His creation and it declares "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I believe it because the Bible has established its credibility with me and many others.

[nebulajr]

Science never has and never will claim to have all the answers, and I dont know of any scientists that claim to have all of the answers. This type of claim can only be found within dogmatic religion.

[nebulajr]

What it comes down to is, you can believe anything you want but belief doesnt validate knowledge or truth. Also, to examine your quote, in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Did you know that the original Hebrew text actually translates to in the beginning THE GODS created the heavens and the Earth? The original word was Elohyim which is plural for God.

[nebulajr]

So with that said, how can you trust a book that has been changed right out of the gate? This is one of many mistranslations within the Bible and to think that it is the inerrant and infallible word of God is just silly.

[theot58]

@nebulajr Look at what you are inferring. You are inferring that:

- the DNA molecule was NOT designed.

- that it is the end product of a mindless chance process.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

What evidence do you have to support this wil hypothesis?

[th3dig1tal0n3]

potholer54 is God!

[NeedsEvidence]

@theot58 ...lame...

[theot58]

@NeedsEvidence I may be an ignorant idiot but gullinble as - if you have bought Darwinism.

Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.

Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research said

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

[NeedsEvidence]

@theot58 O boy are you an ignorant idiot...

[SenMysrana]

@theot58 A mindless process does not have to be a completely random one.  Natural selection is a fine example of this.

[theot58]

@thieflord555 You are right about dog's etc. A bady dog comes from a mother dog - absolutely.

However the issue is: HOW DID THIS SYSTEM COME INTO EXISTENCE?

- How did the first mother and father dog come into existence?

Darwinian Evolutionists would have you BELIEVE that from basis chemicals these complex systems built themselves - does this make intelligent sense to you?

- Is this provable?

- Should we teach it as a scientific fact to students?

- Is this science or it is faith?

[thieflord555]

@theot58

How is it irrelavent? When you see a painting, you can be SURE that a painter painted it. But when you see a dog, do you think, "Oh, a dog god must have created that dog"? No, you can be SURE that another dog gave birth to it. That is the principle and important difference. The difference is that living things can appear WITHOUT an intelligent mind actively designing it.

Again, if you watched the video, you would know that RNA can self-assemble, as shown in labs.

[thieflord555]

@theot58

1) I am willing to bet you have not taken college level biology, because if you had you would not describe the video as "bullshit" with "sciency terms". Just cause you don't understand it doesn't mean its wrong.

2) The Uri-Miller experiment did not try to create life, it tried to create organic compounds from inorganic compounds, which it succeeded in doing

3)If you actually watched the video, you would know that this hypothesis is nowhere near universally agreed upon like evolution.

[theot58]

@thieflord555

What I am saying is:

1) This video has an ounce of truth and a ton of bullshit.

- It is mostly fiction with some sciency terms thrown in to make is sound credible

2) He makes it sound so simple.

- The Uri-Miller experiment which tried to create life in the lab failed miserably

3) There are many credible scientists who dismissed the drible of this video as sheer nonsense.

Do a search of "Kansas evolution hearings"