Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
god does not produce something from nothing not now, not everMan was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says. Here is our breakdown:
Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...
and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
Random does not produce intricate encryption. Not now, not ever.
what??god does not produce something from nothing not now, not everMan was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says. Here is our breakdown:
Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...
and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
Random does not produce intricate encryption. Not now, not ever.
And yet, if our government told you that they had proof we were seeded by aliens, and that is where the information in our DNA and indeed DNA itself came from, you'd lap it up.
Your "aien" has a name. It is El Shaddai.
>>>"Singularity, the start of the universe in Big Bang Theory, is a state of infinite density and infinite temperature of quantum particles (invisible particles)."..you say there is a god...we say prove it....you can't say ''disprove there is a god''Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe. Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there. But what we found was the essentials for life.
1. Water
2. A molten hot core
3. Organic material
Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa
I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets. And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is. They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like. Both frozen and burning versions of hell.
Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
We are on the cusp of discovery. No more exciting time than now.
"Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
Another atheist who is dumber than you gave me that line about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's circular reasoning. My counter to it is better. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
At least you give evidence to counter it, so I would be open to finding life on the aforementioned planets and possible evidence for past life on Mars. It would ramp up sending more probes there. Here's a list of the probes that were sent and planned.
List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia
in common sense/lawful/ courts when you accuse someone = make a statement, it's up to the prosecutor to prove what that statement is
I can say all kinds of stuff:
santa is square
the Eiffel Tower is taller by ten feet
etc
so prove there is a god
You're not following the aliens discussion, at least I don't think you are.
However, I can answer your question about proofs of God. I can't answer your question about disproving God because atheists are usually wrong such as you are usually wrong.
Proofs are in mathematics, but not science.
In math, one cannot divide by zero. By definition, a/0 is undefined. If we continue, this is because 12 x 0 does not equal 144. In order to get 144, one must be a creator. The creator can create 144 items to get 144. Thus, God.
How to apply this concept in science. It also means that anything that is infinite does not exist in the material world. Singularity, the start of the universe in Big Bang Theory, is a state of infinite density and infinite temperature of quantum particles (invisible particles). Singularity also means there was a beginning. However, these atheist scientists are claiming some metaphysical singularity existed. Nothing like that in the material/physical world. Thus, God.
Well?
I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....He was a pantheist.
GOD created EVERYTHING both visible and invisible. I don't know where you get your info from.god does not produce something from nothing not now, not everMan was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says. Here is our breakdown:
Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...
and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
Random does not produce intricate encryption. Not now, not ever.
Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god and hold a broad range of doctrines differing with regards to the forms of and relationships between divinity and reality.....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....He was a pantheist.
.7 particularly his book Ethics, published in 1677. The term "pantheism" was coined by Mathematician Joseph Raphson in 1697 and has since been used to describe the beliefs of a variety of people and organizations.
yes--you're anti-evolution and pro-creation arguments are undeniable[Q
The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument. You can't have it both ways.
One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
Like you are doing
The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
You're just making stuff up. I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution. The links I gave you came from the university I attended. I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011. A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
Then quote from those links.
I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
Why do you continue to be argumentative? The evidence I presented of anti-evolution goes beyond doubt. I didn't present any creation scientists arguments and those provide more evidence against ToE. It goes to show that you continue to believe OLD evolution on faith because that's what you've been taught or it fits your atheist worldview. I started to doubt it in 2011 as I said and many scientists agree except they don't want to come out and say it for fear of getting their funding cut off.
That said, is all of ToE BS? No. The evolution of natural selection is fine except now we know it can be rapid instead of slow. I'd get rid of the CHANGE over millions of years. Too many creatures do not evolve over time. I don't believe in common ancestors, but it still could be viable. Mutation? Mutation is now rapid mutation of EI. I think the tree of life has been replaced by the bushes of life which the creation scientists found. This can still explain the changes via some tree of life, i.e. the tree has become a bush. Some of it may be millions of years. ToE now accepts catastrophism as causing some of the changes, also from creation scientists. When catatstrophism is involved, change happened very fast instead of slow. The history of evolutionary thinking is still valid. What anti-evolution findings hurt for the most part was Darwinism.
Check out Lemarckism and straight-line evolution. Sure, Lemarck was wrong about the giraffe, but epigenetic inheritance changed all of that starting in 2003 with the human genome chart being completed. EI started rolling around 2005. Check out how they propose to eradicate malaria and Zika virus. Evolution leads to being safe instead of sorry over GE. The biggest money maker for GE is GMO foods. You can't get GMO seeds or food from old evolution.
Super-Mendelian mosquitoes may fight malaria
Evolution still lives.
Black widow virus results from evolution, not genetic engineering
[Q
The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument. You can't have it both ways.
One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
Like you are doing
The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
You're just making stuff up. I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution. The links I gave you came from the university I attended. I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011. A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
Then quote from those links.
I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
Why do you continue to be argumentative? The evidence I presented of anti-evolution goes beyond doubt.
Why do I dare to point out how everything you post is false? Why do I continue to point out that you are merely parroting Christianist anti-evolutionary propaganda?
And why do I point out that you haven't presented any 'evidence' to support your Christianist propaganda?
Because I think science is important- and I don't believe in fairies in the sky.
....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....He was a pantheist.
....which is really atheism, just put a fancy way. And he wasn't sure about it, which makes him an agnostic atheist. So, like I said....He was a pantheist.
Atheists are usually wrong and we're finding out they lie AF.
How many millions of years did it take for the final evolution of man from Neanderthal to Modern?
No. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that a cell needs to be programed to function correctly. 1 or a million cells, it makes no difference. WHO programmed cells to function? What programmed it's amino acids to line up on the right side or the left side? Random? If amino acids acted randomly, there would be no life on earth. They are extremely specific. That is the opposite of random.
If you think DNA is an act of simple to complex you are at odds with science. The DNA of something as simple as a single cell has a complex code that tells the cell to do this or that. Without encryption, legs would grow out of an insect's head instead of an antenna. How did random design the right instinct into the correct gene?
The statistical odds of that happening correctly, randomly, is considered a scientific impossibility.
Convince me I am wrong about a design and a designer. Answer my questions.?
Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says. Here is our breakdown:.
He’s actually right this time.Man was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says. Here is our breakdown:.
Yep- and woman was created from Man's rib........just like the Bible says......
LOL
A GOD directed/manipulated dispersal after the FLOOD. If one believes in GOD, one can certainly try to figure out how GOD did it; however, one doesn't have to make up a "natural" rationalization. I mean I love koala bears --- GOD made Koala bears ---- He must love them!Okay my challenge to all of you Christianists who believe that the Bible is literal truth- that life was poofed into existence the first 6 days the Universe existed and that all life was wiped out in the Flood except marine life and what was on Noah's Ark.
How did the life on earth end up where it ended up?
Elephant Birds on Madagascar?
Kangaroos in Australia?
Galapagos tortoises in the Galapagos
Nene geese on Hawaii?
And nowhere else?
The Theory of Evolution- along with continental drift explains why how they could exist where they exist.
How does the Bible explain it?
