If God doesn't exist...

[james bond]

Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

It's better to appreciate God's great works and make our humble home a happy place and heaven on Earth.

- even though God gave him 120 years to do it ...


no, it was to be accomplished before Noah's death, christian and Noah did not fail the Almighty as did moses the heritic.

when either the last of either expires, the Triumph of Good vs Evil those remaining will be the Final Judgement - the parable of Noah.

the Judgement was made by the Almighty beforehand before it expired and humanity was given a second chance.


to bad for you Bond it is not between creationist and atheism but between the true faith against the deceptive bible, rendered by the Final Judgement.

.

The ark was built way before Noah's death. Anyway, the Ark Encounter should answer our questions. I would expect that for the price of admission.

All right. So, Moses was a heretic. What kind of man was he besides that? Yet, God chose him to do His work, a very important job. Why did this happen?

And why do you state the Final Judgment is the parable of Noah? How is the Bible deceptive of the battle between good and evil?

 

[james bond]

Evolutionist Michael Denton wrote concerning Darwin:

His general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe (1985, p. 77).

Yes, it is. Mutations are not positive. It's usually negative or neutral. What is the evidence that made Darwin think successive fortuitous mutations?

It would be circular reasoning. Fortuitous mutations are caused by evolution. The successive fortuitous mutations show the power of evolution.

 

[james bond]

Again, you do not reply to what was said. All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion. It's mind-numbing boring now. I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you. It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe. That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too. You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God. Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

Let's say we toss two coins. If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win. If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win. That's a simple experiment. Now increase the number of coins to four. Now fifty coins. It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won. Now let's take parts of an airplane. Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts. We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win. It never forms a plane after a thousand tries. We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible. The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place. You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together. This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together. Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together. Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.

ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something. Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory. It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.

Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

You're probably correct in my having trouble reading your posts. Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule? Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you. If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere. Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."? You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created. Not even a protein molecule. It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane. It's not about a "bolt" or lightening. The bucket is just and empty vessel. It does not matter if you have billions of buckets. Nothing begats nothing. So you're wrong there. What we have are amino acids or the building blocks. From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life. Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.

I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source. Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution. Atheists are usually wrong. I do care about science and have an aptitude for it. Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds. It should answer all you doubts and questions. I did not put up an argument against it. Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that. We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time. It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection. Facts aren't just under evolution. We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood. There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts. The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words. I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows. For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it. Your evidence validates my points. And life did not evolve from proteins. Mature, perfect adult life was created. Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell. We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions. The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell. Another miracle of life provided by God. Did you understand this? The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying? Did you understand what you are saying? Did you understand your copy and paste job?

Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science. Creation IS science and science ends up backing it up. The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.

check page 141 I did explain in my own words. Not only that my explanation of point 1 went beyond what was asked and provided, a test for the valadity of radiometric dating, a test for genetic similarities, a test of stratafication, a valadation that all work togheter and another transistional fossil. So when you say I don't understand my post. You are actually saying 'I don't read your posts.' I could say I'm suprised but I'm truly not. I've seen plenty of examples of your selective reading of what I say. You also make my point every time you refer to the bible as proof. First of how you read the bible is a real minority view. So trying to use the number of people who believe in the bible as a confermation for your views is false. Second of, trying to use the bible to confirm the bible is circular reasoning. Thirdly if you try to use the bible as proof. You have to able to proof that the bible text are unambigous and true. You can't even proof the English bible texts say the same as the original and if it was unambigious different interpretation by other Christians would be impossible. As to my bias; it's a bias shared by the entire scietific community. The reason for it because it doesn't hold itself up to peer review. If it did so many different hypotheses within Creationism wouldn't be possible. It's a bias held by most Christians and it's a bias shared by the judicial system in the U.S. So you might not like it,but your hypothesis has been rejected, thouroghly.

When you say you have an aptitude for science "what do you mean? You seem to not understand how the scientific method works. When I got my first chemistry lesson,my teacher explained it perfectly. It's very simple, "assume nothing". Something can never be 100 percent undeniably true, that's why "theory" is the highest degree of certainty in science. Facts are used to confirm a theory not the other way around. You START with in scientific terms, a theory namely, " the bible is litterral" and then you try to rearange the facts to confirm that theory, basicly reversing the process. You pick and choose what you think you can use and spin a hypotheses. That's why for you it's perfectly acceptable to use an article citing that there where 250 year old Chinese doctors with no more proof then the mere existence of that article. To you that's sufficient to be called proof and a fact. In science using a source like that would get you bood right of the stage.

Lets play a little game. First life: The search for the first replicator This article wich I encourage you to read carefully and closely is how the scientific method works. It describes the search for the first self replicating molecules. I want you to note it's a story not just about success but also about failure it litterally names every single problem they had and even admits the problem might be unprovable, unlike Creationism. It describes how scientists start with an assumption and then figure how to test it, unlike Creatonism. When they give a fact, it very often gives a source, unlike creationism. It also describes when something doesn't work, that fact isn't ignored, alternatives immediatly start to be explored, unlike Creationism. And when something hasn't been tested yet, the simple fact that it might be possible is at no point confused with the statement it happened, unlike Creationism. Their is one thing this article doesn't illustrate namely when something is disproven the idea is abandoned so you won't have to answer that one.The game is the following, if you can debunk all of the statements I posted above Creationism can be considered a science. But you will have to give examples. And I also would like some honesty from you. If they are able to make this self replicating molecule, would that in any way change your mind?

From my thought experiment, what did you learn? Why do you believe in a self replicating molecule? My thought experiment showed that simple results like heads or tails can be reproduced even with many coins (parts). However, once the end result is complex, then it takes intelligence to derive the end results. A life molecule is complex. It requires the storage of much information.

What does your link provide? RNA. Is RNA simple or complex? What does it store in these experiments?

Then there is another problem. Where is the RNA in the stuff of life I showed you with the Miller-Urey experiment and Carl Sagan? The answer is there ain't none.

So, what is your point? Where you are going with this?

 

[forkup]

Evolutionist Michael Denton wrote concerning Darwin:

His general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe (1985, p. 77).

Yes, it is. Mutations are not positive. It's usually negative or neutral. What is the evidence that made Darwin think successive fortuitous mutations?

It would be circular reasoning. Fortuitous mutations are caused by evolution. The successive fortuitous mutations show the power of evolution.

Yet you admit to mutations at bacteriel level, calling it micro evolution. There are only 2 ways that would work. First way. There are 2 sorts of DNA. DNA that changes over time and DNA that doesn't. Genetics and evidence in nature ( finches) proves that DNA changes all the time. If it didn't cancer for instance would not exist, an obvious mutation So first way debunked. Second way there is a mechanism that stops DNA from mutating when a certain point is reached. This would imply that at a certain point, a species never gets cancer or is capable to adapt to changing enviremont, since the mechanism to change is stopped. Never been observed in nature.
The evidence Darwin had for succesive furtuitous mutations lays in those finches. All those finches he observed where adapted specificaly to a certain type of diet and enviremont You even say it yourself changes are USUALLY negative or neutral (wich isn't true) they are usually neutral.But SOMETIMES it's positive giving that particular specimen a slightly better chance of survival. That percentage point becomes then slightly more likely to occur in offspring. Those small percentage points over time add up to subspecies and over an even longer time to new species altogheter.

 

[hobelim]

And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

Bingo!


Some people are more interested in being right even if they are wrong and don't care about the truth because they have confused faith with obstinate stupidity.

An ad hominem attack does not provide a valid argument. So already you lost. One post and you have been extirpated. Ha ha and good day.

I am not trying to provide any valid argument. I have merely stated a fact that applies to many people of so called faith that you have demonstrated perfectly.

.

 

[james bond]

Evolutionist Michael Denton wrote concerning Darwin:

His general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe (1985, p. 77).

You sound like a smart individual, LittleNipper. So, let's continue discussing these mutations. These evo scientists could not produce life from the "stuff of life" in Miller-Urey, so they took the most simplest of cells, bacteria, and modified it in order for bacterium to their bidding. Any worthwhile idea to come from these evo scientists has to explained so a laymay can understand it. Furthermore, it can be replicated by a high school biology student. So all the DNA and all the RNA stuff that was created on the third day comes to the forefront in a simple cell. We know that evo scientists cannot create bacterium, but there are plenty of it around to mess with. So, once you have a living cell, and taking the right precautions, it can be modified to do the following:



So, is this mutation a positive one? Now, that we have this modified artful bacteria, would you recommend ingesting it or rubbing it into a cut? Of course not because we do not know what else this bacteria can do. Fine as art, but one does need to handle with protective gloves.

Now, here is what the evo adults have done. The idea was to turn bacteria into oil eaters, and make its creator a rich man.



However, what happened when they released this safe mutation to do its stuff?



You can bet it is worse than eating through boats. It will eat skin and kill people who get infected. Now, does the media report these things? Of course not. We can't blame evolution can we? The best outcome of this would be to sue the makers, but will it happen?

 

[james bond]

And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.

Bingo!


Some people are more interested in being right even if they are wrong and don't care about the truth because they have confused faith with obstinate stupidity.

An ad hominem attack does not provide a valid argument. So already you lost. One post and you have been extirpated. Ha ha and good day.

I am not trying to provide any valid argument. I have merely stated a fact that applies to many people of so called faith that you have demonstrated perfectly.

.

Ho hum. We already know you aren't capable of providing a valid argument.

If it is a fact, then both sides can use it. It can be applied to people who have faith in evolution. You have demonstrated it perfectly.

 

[james bond]

Yet you admit to mutations at bacteriel level, calling it micro evolution. There are only 2 ways that would work. First way. There are 2 sorts of DNA. DNA that changes over time and DNA that doesn't. Genetics and evidence in nature ( finches) proves that DNA changes all the time. If it didn't cancer for instance would not exist, an obvious mutation So first way debunked. Second way there is a mechanism that stops DNA from mutating when a certain point is reached. This would imply that at a certain point, a species never gets cancer or is capable to adapt to changing enviremont, since the mechanism to change is stopped. Never been observed in nature.
The evidence Darwin had for succesive furtuitous mutations lays in those finches. All those finches he observed where adapted specificaly to a certain type of diet and enviremont You even say it yourself changes are USUALLY negative or neutral (wich isn't true) they are usually neutral.But SOMETIMES it's positive giving that particular specimen a slightly better chance of survival. That percentage point becomes then slightly more likely to occur in offspring. Those small percentage points over time add up to subspecies and over an even longer time to new species altogheter.

I still do not think you understand because you did not answer my questions in your other post. What is the simplest cell? What comprises algae (created on the third day)?

How does one create it from the stuff of life in Miller-Urey? And don't tell me we start with water, put it near sunlight and voila. Ha ha.

So, now you evaded my last post to you and gone back to finches and natural selection. The creationists can state the same thing and not call it evolution. The DNA is complex and contains and incredible amount of information. So while it can change and not change, it is a wonder of creation and how great God is. It's evidence for an intelligent creator.

That said, are you saying natural selection is a mutation?

Again, mutations are negative or neutral. You gave one with cancer. They aren't positive or you would have provided a dozen examples. Were you brainwashed into thinking they were positive and neutral by the evo scientists? Will you infect yourself with mutated DNA as an experiment?

Finally, you mention better chance of survival mutation. Just what is this? It really isn't the mutation, but the natural selection.

Give me an experiment showing the mutations and how the positive mutated cells are the one that live?

 

[james bond]

I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the positive mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier. Eat more GMO foods. Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep. That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it?

I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana. He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC. Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work. Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better. I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.

 

[BreezeWood]

Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

It's better to appreciate God's great works and make our humble home a happy place and heaven on Earth.

- even though God gave him 120 years to do it ...


no, it was to be accomplished before Noah's death, christian and Noah did not fail the Almighty as did moses the heritic.

when either the last of either expires, the Triumph of Good vs Evil those remaining will be the Final Judgement - the parable of Noah.

the Judgement was made by the Almighty beforehand before it expired and humanity was given a second chance.


to bad for you Bond it is not between creationist and atheism but between the true faith against the deceptive bible, rendered by the Final Judgement.

.

The ark was built way before Noah's death. Anyway, the Ark Encounter should answer our questions. I would expect that for the price of admission.

All right. So, Moses was a heretic. What kind of man was he besides that? Yet, God chose him to do His work, a very important job. Why did this happen?

And why do you state the Final Judgment is the parable of Noah? How is the Bible deceptive of the battle between good and evil?

.

God chose him to do His (their) work, a very important job. Why did this happen?

that's your decision to patronize the heretic - why is that, you read it ... those are your commandments as well.

And why do you state the Final Judgment is the parable of Noah?

The Triumphant between the Battle of Good vs Evil conclusion will be the final Judgement.

How is the Bible deceptive of the battle between good and evil?

you're an example, the atheist will fair better than you.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Then there is another problem. Where is the RNA in the stuff of life I showed you with the Miller-Urey experiment and Carl Sagan? The answer is there ain't none.

since there is replication in nature there is no distinction between the RNA source and the fact they exist.

.

 

[forkup]

I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the positive mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier. Eat more GMO foods. Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep. That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it?

I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana. He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC. Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work. Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better. I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.

I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument. Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.

 

[james bond]

Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

It's better to appreciate God's great works and make our humble home a happy place and heaven on Earth.

- even though God gave him 120 years to do it ...


no, it was to be accomplished before Noah's death, christian and Noah did not fail the Almighty as did moses the heritic.

when either the last of either expires, the Triumph of Good vs Evil those remaining will be the Final Judgement - the parable of Noah.

the Judgement was made by the Almighty beforehand before it expired and humanity was given a second chance.


to bad for you Bond it is not between creationist and atheism but between the true faith against the deceptive bible, rendered by the Final Judgement.

.

The ark was built way before Noah's death. Anyway, the Ark Encounter should answer our questions. I would expect that for the price of admission.

All right. So, Moses was a heretic. What kind of man was he besides that? Yet, God chose him to do His work, a very important job. Why did this happen?

And why do you state the Final Judgment is the parable of Noah? How is the Bible deceptive of the battle between good and evil?

.

God chose him to do His (their) work, a very important job. Why did this happen?

that's your decision to patronize the heretic - why is that, you read it ... those are your commandments as well.

And why do you state the Final Judgment is the parable of Noah?

The Triumphant between the Battle of Good vs Evil conclusion will be the final Judgement.

How is the Bible deceptive of the battle between good and evil?

you're an example, the atheist will fair better than you.

.

Again, your explanations for your comments are lacking. Are you basing your comments on Moses on Judaism or other religion? If so, the please explain.

Any questions about Noah, I am referring it to the Ark Encounter. It is so close now, so it's worth the wait. If I can get the vacation time, then I hope to go.

The reason I asked about the "Battle of Good vs Evil" is because I posted the following in another thread on USMB earlier this year. The story behind it is interesting and led to some good discussion among the Christians here. The prophecy will tell us when the end is near. Some people think some of the prophecies have already happened, but I think each Christian has to check these things for themselves. There are some things that have happened such as a unified Germany, the formation of the European Union and other events similar or which can be construed to what the Bible said, but I doubt we'll have Biblical proof that it was actually a prophecy fulfilled. It would remain a matter of opinion since this isn't something like science backing up the Bible or a trial where we judge someone guilty or innocent.



Finally, are you atheist? Why will the atheist fare better than me?

If you're atheist, then you'll just ignore and think it's more myths of Christians. Thus, why is it a matter of yours?

 

[james bond]

.

Then there is another problem. Where is the RNA in the stuff of life I showed you with the Miller-Urey experiment and Carl Sagan? The answer is there ain't none.

since there is replication in nature there is no distinction between the RNA source and the fact they exist.

.

Ha ha. You just admitted creation wins. Atheist scientists have no evidence for the beginning of the universe nor the beginning of life. Yet, they will not accept a creation theory. While the Big Bang Theory is just a theory, it fits the Genesis creation model better than an universe from quantum. Our physical laws demonstrate that this is not possible while a supernatural being can create the electromagnetic spectrum, Planck's constant or a system that is then relegated to the laws of thermodynamics on the first day.

 

[yiostheoy]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Your question refer to the philosophical issue of "First Cause".

Looks like you stumbled upon it somehow without a formal study of Philosophy.

There are other "proofs of God" in Philosophy as well:

- First Cause

- Prime Mover

- Artistic Artificer

- Purposeful Designer

- Ontological Proof (i.e., if I can imagine it then it must be true too)

Wiki has a good write up about this if you want a shortcut:

Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However if you want the longer version of proof you will need to read Philosophy.

Most college Philosophy curricula begin with a survey course.

The best written one is the book by Bertrand Russell, "History Of Western Philosophy".

After you read that then you may want to update yourself with Roger Scruton's "Modern Philosophy".

The long and the short of it all is that there are 7 billion people on this planet of ours and most fall into one of the following individual categories:

- Deists

- Theists

- Atheists

- Agnostics

- Not interested's.

You cannot prove to one or other of them they are right or wrong. Religion is simply a choice. In most cases that choice has been a matter of brainwashing by parents, teachers, and friends however.

Science has nothing to do with religion, however several Atheists, Agnostics, and Not Interested's have made Science their religion.

Philosophy is also independent of Religion and of Science.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Your question refer to the philosophical issue of "First Cause".

Looks like you stumbled upon it somehow without a formal study of Philosophy.

There are other "proofs of God" in Philosophy as well:

- First Cause

- Prime Mover

- Artistic Artificer

- Purposeful Designer

- Ontological Proof (i.e., if I can imagine it then it must be true too)

Wiki has a good write up about this if you want a shortcut:

Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However if you want the longer version of proof you will need to read Philosophy.

Most college Philosophy curricula begin with a survey course.

The best written one is the book by Bertrand Russell, "History Of Western Philosophy".

After you read that then you may want to update yourself with Roger Scruton's "Modern Philosophy".

The long and the short of it all is that there are 7 billion people on this planet of ours and most fall into one of the following individual categories:

- Deists

- Theists

- Atheists

- Agnostics

- Not interested's.

You cannot prove to one or other of them they are right or wrong. Religion is simply a choice. In most cases that choice has been a matter of brainwashing by parents, teachers, and friends however.

Science has nothing to do with religion, however several Atheists, Agnostics, and Not Interested's have made Science their religion.

Philosophy is also independent of Religion and of Science.

What makes you believe I haven't studied philosophy?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[james bond]

I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the positive mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier. Eat more GMO foods. Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep. That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it? Another would be Craig Venter. He deserves to be infected with his oil-eating molecules.

I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana. He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC. Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work. Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better. I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.

I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument. Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.

I think you're trying to use hypermobility in a positive way and while it certainly can be useful in sports, it usually is a negative mutation as people born with it are destined to be affected with some form of disease. Hypermobile joints are common in those with Down's Syndrome. Does Michael Phelps have some problems with health or illness? I'm not going to get into skin color as I think that's a genetic trait and not a mutation. Very easy to get into racism and Darwin was racist in his beliefs and statements.

If you can't defend abiogenesis, then DNA and RNA did not start from chemicals. It is evidence for creation. Then, there is the huge problem of how energy and our universe was started by quantum particles in a system where energy is always conserved.

I am purposely not using more advanced science because you have not shown the background in your posts to be able to understand it. Otherwise, you would have told me about more complex discoveries and have used the scientific jargon.

You'll have to explain your use of the two ways some more. The two ways you are referring to are 1) Accidents during processes such as genetic replication, recombination or transposition and 2) Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

I answered the use of the two ways in microevolution. I thought we agreed on that and natural selection? What other context are you using it in?

I do not think we can stop mutations. That's just part of life. We can lessen it, but that means getting rid of atheist scientists and evolution. They have it in their heads that mutations can be positive and its part of evolution. Obviously, you missed this in all the things I mentioned with GMO foods and cells. Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very supportive of GMO foods and cells. I hope he gets infected in the near future so he can understand GMO for himself first-hand. Does he practice what he preaches and eat many GMO foods because they're bigger and less expensive than organic?

I didn't answer your other two posts because we're really not getting very far. Give me one experiment like the one I made up to explain creation and complexity, and one to explain evolution and simplicity. Despite all the evidence, you're not changing any of your thinking. Just bringing up something else and claiming that I'm the one who fights what I can fight and ignoring what I can't.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

So if science can't explain it in terms you can understand, it qualifies as a miracle?

Does science explain what came before the Big Bang?

What about all those things that happened right after the Big Bang that didn't follow the natural laws of the universe because they were 'special events'?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

That's a good point. I don't see how empirical science can ever explain why the physical universe exists; only trace things further and further back. Just like you could never explain how or why a computer was built simply by examining the internal parts.

Empirical science only allows us the means to study God and all it's wonders.

*****SMILE*****

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Then there is another problem. Where is the RNA in the stuff of life I showed you with the Miller-Urey experiment and Carl Sagan? The answer is there ain't none.

since there is replication in nature there is no distinction between the RNA source and the fact they exist.

.

Ha ha. You just admitted creation wins. Atheist scientists have no evidence for the beginning of the universe nor the beginning of life. Yet, they will not accept a creation theory. While the Big Bang Theory is just a theory, it fits the Genesis creation model better than an universe from quantum. Our physical laws demonstrate that this is not possible while a supernatural being can create the electromagnetic spectrum, Planck's constant or a system that is then relegated to the laws of thermodynamics on the first day.

.

Our physical laws demonstrate that this is not possible while a supernatural being can create the electromagnetic spectrum, Planck's constant or a system that is then relegated to the laws of thermodynamics on the first day.

on the first day ... Ha ha. You just admitted creation ... (fails).


there is no first day, the process is cyclical all matter is expelled at a finite angle where their trajectory will eventually return them together to their point of origin recreating through compression the combustible point of singularity.

Atheist scientists have no evidence for the beginning of the universe nor the beginning of life.

that is my point, the Almighty entrusted moses with Their own Etchings the heretic put upon himself to destroy - you also have no proof.

what was the origin for life on Earth is not a contradiction from its inception for its purpose in attaining admission to the Everlasting as the same for all beings - where is your proof it is you who is made in the likeness of the Almighty than any other creature, christian is that written by moses as well. when it is humanity that is hurled from reason to which salvation was granted once but is now a candidate for extinction -

whether made by God or of its own making the Spirit of either would have the same task to accomplish in obtaining Admission to the Everlasting.

Finally, are you atheist? Why will the atheist fare better than me?

If you're atheist, then you'll just ignore and think it's more myths of Christians. Thus, why is it a matter of yours?

why is it a matter of yours ...

the parable of Noah refers to humanity and not the individual, those remaining in the end will all be the same, they will all either be granted Admission or they will all be condemned with the same for their lineage.

or maybe a few Spirits may make it on their own, a whimper of hope because as it is going presently the prospects are not looking very bright.

.