If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[ding]

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

This is a perfect example of what I just described.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Poor ding...he gets quite lost, when nobody patronizes his off topic whining.

 

[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.

That means that God exist out of our universe. Not logical unless you believe in flying unicorns

Why isn’t it logical?

 

[ding]

Poor ding...he gets quite lost, when nobody patronizes his off topic whining.

You really should study transactional analysis. Seriously.

 

[Frannie]

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.

The interesting thing with this experiment is that it is observed multiple times and verified, then shelved because it invalidates darwinism.

Sorry but my walking you thru code would be like giving you a new diaper, you would just shit it up again

 

[Taz]

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.

Can you explain who created Universe?
Surely not?
Therefore I believe in God as its creator

So because you don’t know, it defaults to an invisible being?

Do you believe that billions of lines of code could create themselves? or would an intelligence be needed

It’s not impossible. But even if it was it still occurred according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time. So God is still the source or matrix.

You know you don't know that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The interesting thing with this experiment is that it is observed multiple times and verified, then shelved because it invalidates darwinism.

It does not invalidate Darwinism. That is a shameless, stupid lie. The presence of epigenetic mechanisms would not render natural selection invalid or nonexistent.

Haha, what a stupid attempt. And, trust me son, you arent walking anyone through anything except getting Fs on high school science quizzes.

 

[Frannie]

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.

That means that God exist out of our universe. Not logical unless you believe in flying unicorns

Why isn’t it logical?

A better question is why is it logical?

It's also not logical that the big bang created everything from nothing in a flash because conservation of mass excludes the pure creation of anything.

 

[Frannie]

The interesting thing with this experiment is that it is observed multiple times and verified, then shelved because it invalidates darwinism.

It does not invalidate Darwinism. That is a shameless, stupid lie. The presence of epigenetic mechanisms would not render natural selection invalid or nonexistent.

Haha, what a stupid attempt. And, trust me son, you arent walking anyone through anything except getting Fs on high school science quizzes.

Actually darwinism claims that the only source of change is random mutations over time. Epigenics erases that concept entirely

 

[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

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

It's fine to launch yourself into a tirade but that does nothing to refute the hard, observed data.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's also not logical that the big bang created everything from nothing in a flash because conservation of mass excludes the pure creation of anything.

You mean, conservation of energy. That was a very silly, elementary error you just made.

 

[shockedcanadian]

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.

I've considered all of this. There were moments I just felt God, even when young. Some experiences I've lived through convinced me I had an angel on my shoulder, and I've needed it.

In the end, I believe there is only one God. I just call him "God", I let others debate who the Messiah and Messenger was, or, even what they refer God as. It's my belief.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually darwinism claims that the only source of change is random mutations over time.

Well that hilariously false on every level. For one, it only refers to changes in the genetic code itself. Second Darwin also postulated gene flow and genetic drift.

But, most of all,the modern theory of evokution prgressed beyond mere darwinism long ago. So statimg that epigenetic mechanisms also create changes in tge behavior of future generations does not in any way invalidate evolution or natural selection.

 

[Frannie]

It's also not logical that the big bang created everything from nothing in a flash because conservation of mass excludes the pure creation of anything.

You mean, conservation of energy. That was a very silly, elementary error you just made.

Moron alert.

Mass is never created nor destroyed, it merely changes form or converts to energy or reverses such effect



Are you in 6th grade or what because I knew more than you in the 3rd grade

 

[Hollie]

The interesting thing with this experiment is that it is observed multiple times and verified, then shelved because it invalidates darwinism.

It does not invalidate Darwinism. That is a shameless, stupid lie. The presence of epigenetic mechanisms would not render natural selection invalid or nonexistent.

Haha, what a stupid attempt. And, trust me son, you arent walking anyone through anything except getting Fs on high school science quizzes.

Actually darwinism claims that the only source of change is random mutations over time. Epigenics erases that concept entirely

Your claim to what "Darwinism" claims is completely false.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


So tell us, why is it that sharks, for one example, have not gotten "more complex"?

Ever hear the term "fitness for survival"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've considered all of this.

Then your entire rant is a lie. You aren't adoptong faith in god for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[Frannie]

The interesting thing with this experiment is that it is observed multiple times and verified, then shelved because it invalidates darwinism.

It does not invalidate Darwinism. That is a shameless, stupid lie. The presence of epigenetic mechanisms would not render natural selection invalid or nonexistent.

Haha, what a stupid attempt. And, trust me son, you arent walking anyone through anything except getting Fs on high school science quizzes.

Actually darwinism claims that the only source of change is random mutations over time. Epigenics erases that concept entirely

Your claim to what "Darwinism" claims is completely false.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


So tell us, why is it that sharks, for one example, have not gotten "more complex"?

Ever hear the term "fitness for survival"?

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

 

[shockedcanadian]

I've considered all of this.

Then your entire rant is a lie. You aren't adoptong faith in god for the reasons you mentioned.

Are you suggesting one is born and just automatically believes in God?

How people come to God varies. My "rant" is not a lie. Perceive it as you must.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

They weren't. That is a very childish question that one would expect from a child being introdiced to the topic of evolution for the firsttime. But you are an adult trying to debate the topic, so you have no excuse for your ignorance and stupidity. So, when you ask this childish question, it makes you look very stupid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you suggesting one is born and just automatically believes in God?

No, I am just saying your reasons you presented are not honest.