God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[esalla]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.

This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.

This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.

Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.

Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.

It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?

You're not getting this at all. God created Adam first and then Eve. Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world. One can't do it with asexual reproduction. We're all adults here. Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism. The queen. With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection. Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world. That can happen. What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.

It's a radical theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.

You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.

Hollie you just do not get it, you offer nothing to show how life supernaturally created itself from nothing in a pond

 

[abu afak]

Hollie you just do not get it, you offer nothing to show how life supernaturally created itself from nothing in a pond

But you believe in a supernaturally created self bimbo boy!
Supernatural is your world.
Because you have no hard evidence of anything.
`

`

 

[james bond]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.

This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.

This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.

Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.

Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.

It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?

You're not getting this at all. God created Adam first and then Eve. Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world. One can't do it with asexual reproduction. We're all adults here. Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism. The queen. With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection. Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world. That can happen. What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.

It's a radical theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.

You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.

I am pointing out creation science. One needs a creator to start life and the universe. It's only since the 1850s, the science of atheism has take root and we are exposed to its beliefs of no God nor gods, i.e. no creator. We have as evidence the Bible from God and it is all explained in Genesis and we find science backs up God created fully adult living creatures. They didn't start from eggs nor babies. We find that sexual reproduction can't happen then. Remember the triangle of membrane, metabolism, and reproduction Marshall mentioned? It backs up Genesis better than evolution.

 

[james bond]

Hollie you just do not get it, you offer nothing to show how life supernaturally created itself from nothing in a pond

But you believe in a supernaturally created self bimbo boy!
Supernatural is your world.
Because you have no hard evidence of anything.
`

`

Well, you have to have sexual reproduction. It is an adult microorganism function, is it not? The first Eve or the queen would rule. I've watched the Alien franchise and could see it happen. Also, the metabolism would be hard to do. Membrane, not so much, but it holds everything together.

 

[Hollie]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.

This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.

This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.

Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.

Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.

It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?

You're not getting this at all. God created Adam first and then Eve. Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world. One can't do it with asexual reproduction. We're all adults here. Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism. The queen. With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection. Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world. That can happen. What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.

It's a radical theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.

You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.

I am pointing out creation science. One needs a creator to start life and the universe. It's only since the 1850s, the science of atheism has take root and we are exposed to its beliefs of no God nor gods, i.e. no creator. We have as evidence the Bible from God and it is all explained in Genesis and we find science backs up God created fully adult living creatures. They didn't start from eggs nor babies. We find that sexual reproduction can't happen then. Remember the triangle of membrane, metabolism, and reproduction Marshall mentioned? It backs up Genesis better than evolution.

Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.

It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.

The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.

 

[james bond]

Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.

It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.

The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.

As I have patiently pointed out, what is required for life to start is a supernatural creator in Jesus. He is much different from the kind of supernaturalism that you think it is.

We'll be getting to your kind of supernaturalism in October such as the The Haunting of Bly Manor on Netflix.



That's all make believe and con jobs such as The Conjuring. It's part of what makes up Satan's Antibible of Evolution. There is no amount of real science that can convince you nor abu afak that you subscribe to fake science. You have been conned by the Ed and Lorraine Warrens of this world, Darwin and his family, Thomas Nagel, .

 

[esalla]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.

This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.

This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.

Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.

Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.

It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?

You're not getting this at all. God created Adam first and then Eve. Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world. One can't do it with asexual reproduction. We're all adults here. Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism. The queen. With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection. Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world. That can happen. What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.

It's a radical theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.

You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.

I am pointing out creation science. One needs a creator to start life and the universe. It's only since the 1850s, the science of atheism has take root and we are exposed to its beliefs of no God nor gods, i.e. no creator. We have as evidence the Bible from God and it is all explained in Genesis and we find science backs up God created fully adult living creatures. They didn't start from eggs nor babies. We find that sexual reproduction can't happen then. Remember the triangle of membrane, metabolism, and reproduction Marshall mentioned? It backs up Genesis better than evolution.

There is no such thing as creation science............................

 

[esalla]

Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.

It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.

The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.

As I have patiently pointed out, what is required for life to start is a supernatural creator in Jesus. He is much different from the kind of supernaturalism that you think it is.

We'll be getting to your kind of supernaturalism in October such as the The Haunting of Bly Manor on Netflix.



That's all make believe and con jobs such as The Conjuring. It's part of what makes up Satan's Antibible of Evolution. There is no amount of real science that can convince you nor abu afak that you subscribe to fake science. You have been conned by the Ed and Lorraine Warrens of this world, Darwin and his family, Thomas Nagel, .

Actually life was here long before MARY GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS

If you see it differently you are schizophrenic

 

[Hollie]

Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.

It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.

The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.

As I have patiently pointed out, what is required for life to start is a supernatural creator in Jesus. He is much different from the kind of supernaturalism that you think it is.

We'll be getting to your kind of supernaturalism in October such as the The Haunting of Bly Manor on Netflix.



That's all make believe and con jobs such as The Conjuring. It's part of what makes up Satan's Antibible of Evolution. There is no amount of real science that can convince you nor abu afak that you subscribe to fake science. You have been conned by the Ed and Lorraine Warrens of this world, Darwin and his family, Thomas Nagel, .

You have tediously reiterated your religious dogma.

It’s curious that your now claim that the Jesus character, (God Jr.?), is the supernatural creator required for life as opposed to God Sr. You do have some interesting notions of Christianity. Kind of like the LEGO version.

You seem to spend too much time in thrall to Hollywood movies.

 

[james bond]

Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.

It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.

The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.

As I have patiently pointed out, what is required for life to start is a supernatural creator in Jesus. He is much different from the kind of supernaturalism that you think it is.

We'll be getting to your kind of supernaturalism in October such as the The Haunting of Bly Manor on Netflix.



That's all make believe and con jobs such as The Conjuring. It's part of what makes up Satan's Antibible of Evolution. There is no amount of real science that can convince you nor abu afak that you subscribe to fake science. You have been conned by the Ed and Lorraine Warrens of this world, Darwin and his family, Thomas Nagel, .

You have tediously reiterated your religious dogma.

It’s curious that your now claim that the Jesus character, (God Jr.?), is the supernatural creator required for life as opposed to God Sr. You do have some interesting notions of Christianity. Kind of like the LEGO version.

You seem to spend too much time in thrall to Hollywood movies.

You know nothing about Christianity and the Bible. God the Father was the architect while Jesus was the creator. Many people do not know this. It's a joke that you do not know much about Satan's Antibible of Evolution. I just pointed out the new hypothesis of the protocell, but you did not know nor could accept it as an easy money presentation for creation science; It supports creation more than evolution. Unless the protocell is accepted as the new chemical bang, evolution has not moved forward in years since Miller-Urey and that was weak sauce. It was the best that the science of atheism could do along with the BS big bang.

 

[Hollie]

Pointing out ID'iot creationism as an explanation for the natural world is pointing out nonsense. There is no requirement for life on the planet to have originated as a result of supernaturalism.

It was after the 1850's when the methods of science began to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious belief.

The bibles are not evidence of any gods. Science does not ''back up'' the bibles. The rather nonsensical claims of magic and supernaturalism in the bibles is to ignore the sciences.

As I have patiently pointed out, what is required for life to start is a supernatural creator in Jesus. He is much different from the kind of supernaturalism that you think it is.

We'll be getting to your kind of supernaturalism in October such as the The Haunting of Bly Manor on Netflix.



That's all make believe and con jobs such as The Conjuring. It's part of what makes up Satan's Antibible of Evolution. There is no amount of real science that can convince you nor abu afak that you subscribe to fake science. You have been conned by the Ed and Lorraine Warrens of this world, Darwin and his family, Thomas Nagel, .

You have tediously reiterated your religious dogma.

It’s curious that your now claim that the Jesus character, (God Jr.?), is the supernatural creator required for life as opposed to God Sr. You do have some interesting notions of Christianity. Kind of like the LEGO version.

You seem to spend too much time in thrall to Hollywood movies.

You know nothing about Christianity and the Bible. God the Father was the architect while Jesus was the creator. Many people do not know this. It's a joke that you do not know much about Satan's Antibible of Evolution. I just pointed out the new hypothesis of the protocell, but you did not know nor could accept it as an easy money presentation for creation science; It supports creation more than evolution. Unless the protocell is accepted as the new chemical bang, evolution has not moved forward in years since Miller-Urey and that was weak sauce. It was the best that the science of atheism could do along with the BS big bang.

My experience is those self-titled bible experts are far less knowledgeable about their bibles than many non-bible’ists. Your notions of the Christian gods are rather quaint but those arguments are best left to your and those with competing opinions.

It’s true, I know nothing of your conspiracy theories regarding satans and other such absurdities. While you may choose to live in trembling fear of such myths and monsters, why would you think others would do that?

I saw nothing of what you claim is supportive of the nonsensical ID’iot creationer science. You continue to confuse your hyper-religious proclivities with supportable science.

 

[james bond]

My experience is those self-titled bible experts are far less knowledgeable about their bibles than many non-bible’ists. Your notions of the Christian gods are rather quaint but those arguments are best left to your and those with competing opinions.

It’s true, I know nothing of your conspiracy theories regarding satans and other such absurdities. While you may choose to live in trembling fear of such myths and monsters, why would you think others would do that?

I saw nothing of what you claim is supportive of the nonsensical ID’iot creationer science. You continue to confuse your hyper-religious proclivities with supportable science.

Your experiences and comments show you know practically nothing as you have not listened nor formulated your own arguments. Even abu afak knows more about evolution than you. I would put you on the same level with esalla as he, too, is confused by both science and religion. He continues to want to discuss religion on S&T forum haha.

 

[Hollie]

My experience is those self-titled bible experts are far less knowledgeable about their bibles than many non-bible’ists. Your notions of the Christian gods are rather quaint but those arguments are best left to your and those with competing opinions.

It’s true, I know nothing of your conspiracy theories regarding satans and other such absurdities. While you may choose to live in trembling fear of such myths and monsters, why would you think others would do that?

I saw nothing of what you claim is supportive of the nonsensical ID’iot creationer science. You continue to confuse your hyper-religious proclivities with supportable science.

Your experiences and comments show you know practically nothing as you have not listened nor formulated your own arguments. Even abu afak knows more about evolution than you. I would put you on the same level with esalla as he, too, is confused by both science and religion. He continues to want to discuss religion on S&T forum haha.

That was a rather poor attempt to sidestep accountability for your baseless claims.

You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.

So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?

 

[esalla]

My experience is those self-titled bible experts are far less knowledgeable about their bibles than many non-bible’ists. Your notions of the Christian gods are rather quaint but those arguments are best left to your and those with competing opinions.

It’s true, I know nothing of your conspiracy theories regarding satans and other such absurdities. While you may choose to live in trembling fear of such myths and monsters, why would you think others would do that?

I saw nothing of what you claim is supportive of the nonsensical ID’iot creationer science. You continue to confuse your hyper-religious proclivities with supportable science.

Your experiences and comments show you know practically nothing as you have not listened nor formulated your own arguments. Even abu afak knows more about evolution than you. I would put you on the same level with esalla as he, too, is confused by both science and religion. He continues to want to discuss religion on S&T forum haha.

And bond believes that there is no god. Then he says there is the one true god

Diagnosis schizophrenia

 

[esalla]

My experience is those self-titled bible experts are far less knowledgeable about their bibles than many non-bible’ists. Your notions of the Christian gods are rather quaint but those arguments are best left to your and those with competing opinions.

It’s true, I know nothing of your conspiracy theories regarding satans and other such absurdities. While you may choose to live in trembling fear of such myths and monsters, why would you think others would do that?

I saw nothing of what you claim is supportive of the nonsensical ID’iot creationer science. You continue to confuse your hyper-religious proclivities with supportable science.

Your experiences and comments show you know practically nothing as you have not listened nor formulated your own arguments. Even abu afak knows more about evolution than you. I would put you on the same level with esalla as he, too, is confused by both science and religion. He continues to want to discuss religion on S&T forum haha.

That was a rather poor attempt to sidestep accountability for your baseless claims.

You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.

So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?

Hollie please explain how dna writing itself in a pond is not supernatural

 

[james bond]

You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.

So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?

This has been explained to you several times already. The life spirit itself is supernatural as it continues to live on after death, but is asleep. We find that the life spirit cannot be created by humans as once it is gone, it is gone. It also does not occur in natural surroundings. Only existing life can create other life through reproduction.

 

[Hollie]

You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.

So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?

This has been explained to you several times already. The life spirit itself is supernatural as it continues to live on after death, but is asleep. We find that the life spirit cannot be created by humans as once it is gone, it is gone. It also does not occur in natural surroundings. Only existing life can create other life through reproduction.

What is a ''life spirit''? You invent these strange, supernatural entities and then presume that others are to blithely accept you "...because I say so', claims.

 

[james bond]

You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.

So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?

This has been explained to you several times already. The life spirit itself is supernatural as it continues to live on after death, but is asleep. We find that the life spirit cannot be created by humans as once it is gone, it is gone. It also does not occur in natural surroundings. Only existing life can create other life through reproduction.

What is a ''life spirit''? You invent these strange, supernatural entities and then presume that others are to blithely accept you "...because I say so', claims.

It's not that hard to understand as you experience the life spirit and see others with the life spirit every day. It is what keeps you alive until your physical body dies. However, the life spirit goes on. It won't be on Earth anymore as once you die, then it is usually quickly whisked away to a place for the dead.

 

[Hollie]

You were tasked with explaining why it is that you brought supernatural acts allegedly perpetrated by your gods filled some gap in our knowledge that the hyper-religious claim science doesn’t address.

So, please advise. What in nature is not natural?

This has been explained to you several times already. The life spirit itself is supernatural as it continues to live on after death, but is asleep. We find that the life spirit cannot be created by humans as once it is gone, it is gone. It also does not occur in natural surroundings. Only existing life can create other life through reproduction.

What is a ''life spirit''? You invent these strange, supernatural entities and then presume that others are to blithely accept you "...because I say so', claims.

It's not that hard to understand as you experience the life spirit and see others with the life spirit every day. It is what keeps you alive until your physical body dies. However, the life spirit goes on. It won't be on Earth anymore as once you die, then it is usually quickly whisked away to a place for the dead.

So, yes. You have some notion of something you call a ''life spirit'' but you can't define it in any meaningful way. So this ''life spirit'' of yours is something you have invented and which apparently goes to heaven after you die. Yes, that assuages your fear of death and the unknown and it calms an emotional requirement that you live in fear and self-loathing because you are evil and base and carry original sin.

Good gawd, what a miserable existence.

Faith means different things to different people, and different people have different concepts of gods. The origins of life and of the universe are not determined by anyone's personal decision of what religion to follow. Science, including evolution, is based on objective evidence, evidence which is the same for everyone.

 

[abu afak]

You know nothing about Christianity and the Bible. God the Father was the architect while Jesus was the creator. Many people do not know this. It's a joke that you do not know much about Satan's Antibible of Evolution. I just pointed out the new hypothesis of the protocell, but you did not know nor could accept it as an easy money presentation for creation science; It supports creation more than evolution. Unless the protocell is accepted as the new chemical bang, evolution has not moved forward in years since Miller-Urey and that was weak sauce. It was the best that the science of atheism could do along with the BS big bang.

And unlike not knowing anything about Science, knowing nothing about the Bible will still let you run a Tech or Fortune 500 company instead of the '700 Club.' you dim wit.

`