If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[ding]

Not if you are talking about chemical reactions you aren’t.

That is chemical evolution.

Haha, ding with his depserate semantics. All evolution is chemocal evolution,big guy. But not all chemical evolution is abiogenesis.

Yes, I am specifically talking about abiogenesis. And if you don't want to talk about that, then act like an adult and talk about something else.

I am acting like an adult. It is you who is not acting like an adult.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s not semantics. It is the proper demarcation of the stages of evolution.

No, it's semantics. Sorry ding, I wont get into a semnatics argument with a fraud like you. Who wants to spend 10 pages poi ting out your cheap parlor tricks? Not me.

 

[ding]

God created existence. Man arose from that existence from natural processes according to the laws of nature that God created before space and time were created from nothing.

I,for one, have no problem with many people believing this way. I don't see how this would impede science at all. It only characterizes it as a study of God's creation. Fine by me.

What made you believe I ever said anything other than this?

Nothing. In fact I affirmed this as your belief to the other poster. On this very page. You guys are excitable today.

If I were excitable I would be taking pot shots at you like you are taking at me. You are the excitable one. You and Francis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God created existence. Man arose from that existence from natural processes according to the laws of nature that God created before space and time were created from nothing.

I,for one, have no problem with many people believing this way. I don't see how this would impede science at all. It only characterizes it as a study of God's creation. Fine by me.

What made you believe I ever said anything other than this?

Nothing. In fact I affirmed this as your belief to the other poster. On this very page. You guys are excitable today.

If I were excitable I would be taking pot shots at you like you are taking at me. You are the excitable one. You and Francis.

Sorry ding, your passive aggressive attempts are worse.

Anyway, back to the topic. Nobody wants to be bored to death by your self soothing blogging.

 

[ding]

It’s not semantics. It is the proper demarcation of the stages of evolution.

No, it's semantics. Sorry ding, I wont get into a semnatics argument with a fraud like you. Who wants to spend 10 pages poi ting out your cheap parlor tricks? Not me.

Abiogenesis is the creation of life from chemical compounds. That leap would have occurred very quickly. Everything before that was not abiogenesis. It was chemical evolution. It was the chemical complexification of matter. It’s not semantics.

 

[Frannie]

Frannie

Help me understand your position. You believe evolution, via selection, led from single celled life to all life we observe today,past or present.

But you reject the idea that selection could have produced that single celled common ancestor from the chenicals in the environment?

There is no evidence that evolution beginning with a single celled organism and resulting in you and I happened. There is also no known way in science that a code as complex as a single celled organism with over 250,000 Gene's could create itself out of nothing just because nothing had nothing better to do.

Epigenics also proves that a change can be directed specifically in under 1 generation fully disproving darwinism and the random mutation theory.

Far too complicated to lay out here for lay FBI agents

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. We currently have an incomplete, "effective" theory of abiogenesis, which states that selection operated on materials present on our planet to cause the first life to appear. This theory withstands all testing thus far, as one would expect.

Go ahead and point at abiogenesis and say, "God did that". Fine by me. I think you will have just wasted 2 seconds of your life, but I don't see how this impedes anything.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no evidence that evolution beginning with a single celled organism and resulting in you and I happened.

Okay, now I understand your position. You are a dishonest, deluded freak. All the evidence ever collected shows that evolution is true. Sorry freak, I dont have time for crazy people like you.

 

[Frannie]

There is no evidence that evolution beginning with a single celled organism and resulting in you and I happened.

Okay, now I understand your position. You are a dishonest, deluded freak. All the evidence ever collected shows that evolution is true. Sorry freak, I dont have time for crazy people like you.

Evolution within species is true. Not one bit of evidence collected shows or even indicates that evolution turns one species into another. Or do you believe that if you go swimming enough that you will grow gills like Kevin Costner in waterworld

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not one bit of evidence collected shows or even indicates that evolution turns one species into another.

Haha...sure, freak.

 

[Frannie]

Not one bit of evidence collected shows or even indicates that evolution turns one species into another.

Haha...sure, freak.

Your lack of input as to how epigenics passes on smells to offspring in 1 generation better enabling the offspring to avoid painful or lethal hazards is noted.

But ding says so. Thus u believe....

Ding doesn't even believe the same things 2 days in a row

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your lack of input as to how epigenics passes on smells to offspring better enabling the offspring to avoid painful or lethal hazards is noted.

What,freak? Changing the subject, now? Put on your big boy pants and state your claim regarding that material. Then we can ridicule it.

 

[shockedcanadian]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Here is how I have always viewed it, and I was surprised a famous French philosopher 100's of years ago stated essentially the same, I had never seen his quote before I formed my opinion.

I don't know if there is a God, but, I would rather believe and embrace the positive influence of God in my life and risk that there ISN'T a God, rather than not believe in God and suffer upon my death because I was wrong.

It's difficult to believe in God when you've been through what I've been through, I was FAB, and certain agencies continued to destroy me, I still fight, trying to find peace. I couldn't get through this without God. My former Atheist, then Agnostic self would have a much more difficult path if I questioned this.

 

[Hollie]

There is no evidence that evolution beginning with a single celled organism and resulting in you and I happened.

Okay, now I understand your position. You are a dishonest, deluded freak. All the evidence ever collected shows that evolution is true. Sorry freak, I dont have time for crazy people like you.

Evolution within species is true. Not one bit of evidence collected shows or even indicates that evolution turns one species into another. Or do you believe that if you go swimming enough that you will grow gills like Kevin Costner in waterworld

Actually, speciation has been observed.

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Frannie]

Your lack of input as to how epigenics passes on smells to offspring better enabling the offspring to avoid painful or lethal hazards is noted.

What,freak? Changing the subject, now? Put on your big boy pants and state your claim regarding that material. Then we can ridicule it.

Mice have passed on the fear of electric charges associated with cherry blossom smell to their offspring.

Mock on. This is way over your grade level

 

[ding]

God created existence. Man arose from that existence from natural processes according to the laws of nature that God created before space and time were created from nothing.

I,for one, have no problem with many people believing this way. I don't see how this would impede science at all. It only characterizes it as a study of God's creation. Fine by me.

What made you believe I ever said anything other than this?

Nothing. In fact I affirmed this as your belief to the other poster. On this very page. You guys are excitable today.

Yes, you did affirm it. My question was did you always understand that was my position.

 

[Frannie]

There is no evidence that evolution beginning with a single celled organism and resulting in you and I happened.

Okay, now I understand your position. You are a dishonest, deluded freak. All the evidence ever collected shows that evolution is true. Sorry freak, I dont have time for crazy people like you.

Evolution within species is true. Not one bit of evidence collected shows or even indicates that evolution turns one species into another. Or do you believe that if you go swimming enough that you will grow gills like Kevin Costner in waterworld

Actually, speciation has been observed.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Pure nonsense because science has been trying to prove this since Darwin. Proof that this is nonsense is easy as this clown would have won a Nobel prize if it were real. You will never pass that bs off on me or either of my sons.

Now hand over the key

 

[ding]

God created existence. Man arose from that existence from natural processes according to the laws of nature that God created before space and time were created from nothing.

I,for one, have no problem with many people believing this way. I don't see how this would impede science at all. It only characterizes it as a study of God's creation. Fine by me.

What made you believe I ever said anything other than this?

Nothing. In fact I affirmed this as your belief to the other poster. On this very page. You guys are excitable today.

If I were excitable I would be taking pot shots at you like you are taking at me. You are the excitable one. You and Francis.

Sorry ding, your passive aggressive attempts are worse.

Anyway, back to the topic. Nobody wants to be bored to death by your self soothing blogging.

What was passive aggressive about my argument? I believe you can tell who is excitable by who is making personal attacks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

don't know if there is a God, but, I would rather believe and embrace the positive influence of God in my life and risk that there ISN'T a God, rather than not believe in God and suffer upon my death because I was wrong.

Then you havent thought it through. What if you picked the wrong God? What if God hates people like you who are just hedging bets, and condemns you to eternity for it? Perhaps God prefers honest unbelievers over dishonest actors, and not believing in gods is the better choice.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mice have passed on the fear of electric charges associated with cherry blossom smell to their offspring

So? And? Make your point, son. Nobody is going to walk you through it.