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.
To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim." inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?
Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?
You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.
Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical “design” argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your “feelings”, as a concept, are basically no different from the “feelings” which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons. How do we know what you “feel” (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:
a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
b. Drowned a world
c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
d. Demanded the death of his own kid
e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.
I can’t help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for “design” of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other “acts of gawds”. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a children’s hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because they’re evil sinners.
No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!
His so called kid was himself in the flesh.
To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?
Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?
You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.
Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical design argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your feelings, as a concept, are basically no different from the feelings which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons. How do we know what you feel (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:
a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
b. Drowned a world
c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
d. Demanded the death of his own kid
e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.
I cant help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for design of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other acts of gawds. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a childrens hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because theyre evil sinners.
No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!
His so called kid was himself in the flesh.
A superstitious tale.
His so called kid was himself in the flesh.
A superstitious tale.
How do you know ?
How did they happen to not have?To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?
Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?
You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.
Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.
How did they happen to not have?To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.
Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.
But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?
How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.
But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?
How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.
But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?
Asked and answered
How did they happen to not have?How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
Dodge !
How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.
But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?
I will answer it again,sin. Not incompetence purposeful punishment.
Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.
Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
Except that he hasn't, because he can't demonstrate that something didn't happen. Wow, he multiplied a few probabilities together, and voila! He knows that abiogenesis is impossible! What a dumbass.
Hawly took exception to the word "machine". Her hatred of science and blind allegiance to materialism prevents her from embracing the truth, regardless of the effect it might have on her psychosis.
The Christian creationist industry has effectively preyed upon gullibility and ignorance by adding anthropomorphism to their catalog of bad science and faulty characterizations of biological mechanisms. Both of the Christian creationist fundies in this thread are exploited by this. We see so often the horribly ignorant attempt at analogy whereby they question how it is that cars, buildings, etc., dont self assemble and replicate as analogous to biological mechanisms. Its these childish and naïve notions that are furthered by the Christian ministries and accepted as valid by the science illiterate. Christian ministries promote their revulsion of science by recruiting ignorant minions to further their cause.
Accepting the reason and rationality of science, observation, testing, etc., as the criteria for perception is not stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added sentience and a vast array of texture to emotions and perception that simpler animals do not. Human passion and emotions are a part of the wonder of humanity. That we pay for our emotions with fears and acts of questionable ethics as a price for those passions and emotions. It is helpful to know the foundation of human behavior, but blindly accepting ancient superstitious tales that instill irrational fear and ignorance is particularly furthering of humanity. Accepting and embracing rationality doesnt strip humanity of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. And it is only in these types of discussions that abstractions of angry gawds are meted out by christian creationists who seek to impose their fears, superstitions and prejudices on others.
Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.
Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical design argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your feelings, as a concept, are basically no different from the feelings which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons. How do we know what you feel (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:
a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
b. Drowned a world
c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
d. Demanded the death of his own kid
e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.
I cant help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for design of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other acts of gawds. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a childrens hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because theyre evil sinners.
No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!
Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.
I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.
" inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
" inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
