It is absurd to use the word "REASON" to describe Atheism.

[Youwerecreated]

some serious logic there...

Man always attributes to "god" what they don't understand until science enlightens them. first it was the "sun god" and "rain god" and "Crops god"... the last thing the nutbags have to hang on to is creationsm b/c abiogensis hasn't been proven yet

Ok time to educate you.

Amino acids do not form in nature no way no how.

is this a joke? do you mean does not form in the human body or are you trying to say it doesn't form anywhere? Where do you think the amino acids in your steak comes from?

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Also, I am still waiting for a young earther/creationist to explain how we see objects millions of light years away when earth is only 6-10k year old

Now let's stay on the topic do you believe that evolution and and abiogenesis are not linked ?

Do you believe in Neo Darwinism ?

once again you change the subject....

evolution and abiogensis are not linked, why do they need to be?

what is your obsession with neo darwinism? is that the new buzz word on nutjob blogs?

Neo Darwinism is the most widely accepted theory of evolutuion you should know this.

How can the natural process that started life not be linked to evolution because that would be the process for life to start.

No I'm not trolling just educating people on the facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow I can't believe someone hasn't jumped in here with the miller urey experiment saying they proved that amino acids can form in nature naturally.

 

[rdean]

It is absurd to use the word "REASON" to describe Atheism.

It's absurd not to.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is absurd to use the word "REASON" to describe Atheism.

It's absurd not to.

I just gave you definite evidence we were designed and created and this is your response ?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did you know you think like a monkey?

There are theories and then there are theories.

Science versus Religious texts? hmmmm, which way to go?

Point out your science that contradicts what the scriptures say ?

Genesis pure fairy tale.
Planets are formed over a long period of time. Maybe god has a different standard of time?

EGT? early god time?

created vs born

 

[Youwerecreated]

Point out your science that contradicts what the scriptures say ?

Genesis pure fairy tale.
Planets are formed over a long period of time. Maybe god has a different standard of time?

EGT? early god time?

created vs born

Creation had to come before being born,biogenesis proves this.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Genesis pure fairy tale.
Planets are formed over a long period of time. Maybe god has a different standard of time?

EGT? early god time?

created vs born

Creation had to come before being born,biogenesis proves this.

that's as crazy as global warming science

 

[Youwerecreated]

created vs born

Creation had to come before being born,biogenesis proves this.

that's as crazy as global warming science

Explain , because we know life comes from biogenesis.

Living matter is what creates living organisms.

 

[Toro]

It makes me very frustrated when activists hijack the word “reason” to describe the belief that there is definitely no higher power and that everything they we see around us is the the product of random chance.

The theories of evolution and big bang are just “theories”. Evolution is based on random mutations. The big bang theory does not explain how the ingredients for the big bang were created. Did something come from nothing? Did life arise from inanimate objects by chance and it can’t be duplicated on purpose in a laboratory? These theories seem silly to me.

There are many, many theories about how God created the universe and life aside from the satirical theory that you mention. But my main belief is that God knows things that we are not capable of understanding.

Did you know that if a monkey sat at a typewriter for the entire life of the universe (about 14 billion years) and typed random letters continuously, he would never write a novel by random chance. IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that the trillions of cells in our body that make up complicated organs that all work together came to be from random mutations over a period of several hundred million years. Although we witness many species going extinct, no one has ever witnessed the creation of a new species. The only thing scientists have observed are mutations within a species.

IMHO the most reasonable theory is that a power beyond our understanding created all that we see.

^^^^^^^^^^
This OP is irrational. The existence of God is based on belief, not reason. Even if you think the Theory of Evolution is based on belief, the existence of God is still not based on reason. That does not mean God doesn't exist, but the existence of God is not based on reason.

Believing in God is not necessarily irrational, however. See Pascal's Wager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

 

[Youwerecreated]

It makes me very frustrated when activists hijack the word “reason” to describe the belief that there is definitely no higher power and that everything they we see around us is the the product of random chance.

The theories of evolution and big bang are just “theories”. Evolution is based on random mutations. The big bang theory does not explain how the ingredients for the big bang were created. Did something come from nothing? Did life arise from inanimate objects by chance and it can’t be duplicated on purpose in a laboratory? These theories seem silly to me.

There are many, many theories about how God created the universe and life aside from the satirical theory that you mention. But my main belief is that God knows things that we are not capable of understanding.

Did you know that if a monkey sat at a typewriter for the entire life of the universe (about 14 billion years) and typed random letters continuously, he would never write a novel by random chance. IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that the trillions of cells in our body that make up complicated organs that all work together came to be from random mutations over a period of several hundred million years. Although we witness many species going extinct, no one has ever witnessed the creation of a new species. The only thing scientists have observed are mutations within a species.

IMHO the most reasonable theory is that a power beyond our understanding created all that we see.

^^^^^^^^^^
This OP is irrational. The existence of God is based on belief, not reason. Even if you think the Theory of Evolution is based on belief, the existence of God is still not based on reason. That does not mean God doesn't exist, but the existence of God is not based on reason.

Believing in God is not necessarily irrational, however. See Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted evidence that supports creation only, it is not irrational, and it is sound reason to believe that evidence only supports a designer.

 

[jillian]

It makes me very frustrated when activists hijack the word “reason” to describe the belief that there is definitely no higher power and that everything they we see around us is the the product of random chance.

The theories of evolution and big bang are just “theories”. Evolution is based on random mutations. The big bang theory does not explain how the ingredients for the big bang were created. Did something come from nothing? Did life arise from inanimate objects by chance and it can’t be duplicated on purpose in a laboratory? These theories seem silly to me.

There are many, many theories about how God created the universe and life aside from the satirical theory that you mention. But my main belief is that God knows things that we are not capable of understanding.

Did you know that if a monkey sat at a typewriter for the entire life of the universe (about 14 billion years) and typed random letters continuously, he would never write a novel by random chance. IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that the trillions of cells in our body that make up complicated organs that all work together came to be from random mutations over a period of several hundred million years. Although we witness many species going extinct, no one has ever witnessed the creation of a new species. The only thing scientists have observed are mutations within a species.

IMHO the most reasonable theory is that a power beyond our understanding created all that we see.

^^^^^^^^^^
This OP is irrational. The existence of God is based on belief, not reason. Even if you think the Theory of Evolution is based on belief, the existence of God is still not based on reason. That does not mean God doesn't exist, but the existence of God is not based on reason.

Believing in God is not necessarily irrational, however. See Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted evidence that supports creation only, it is not irrational, and it is sound reason to believe that evidence only supports a designer.

You have no "evidence" you have only your belief.

 

[Youwerecreated]

^^^^^^^^^^
This OP is irrational. The existence of God is based on belief, not reason. Even if you think the Theory of Evolution is based on belief, the existence of God is still not based on reason. That does not mean God doesn't exist, but the existence of God is not based on reason.

Believing in God is not necessarily irrational, however. See Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted evidence that supports creation only, it is not irrational, and it is sound reason to believe that evidence only supports a designer.

You have no "evidence" you have only your belief.

Sorry to disappoint you,but this is solid evidence of the creator.

 

[Youwerecreated]

^^^^^^^^^^
This OP is irrational. The existence of God is based on belief, not reason. Even if you think the Theory of Evolution is based on belief, the existence of God is still not based on reason. That does not mean God doesn't exist, but the existence of God is not based on reason.

Believing in God is not necessarily irrational, however. See Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted evidence that supports creation only, it is not irrational, and it is sound reason to believe that evidence only supports a designer.

You have no "evidence" you have only your belief.

Here so you don't have to look for it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

 

[Toro]

I posted evidence that supports creation only, it is not irrational, and it is sound reason to believe that evidence only supports a designer.

Where?

Here so you don't have to look for it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

That's not evidence of the existence of God. All you have done is critique a theory. The absence of an explanation is not proof.

I am not saying God doesn't exist. What I am saying is there is no hard evidence God exists. But the absence of hard evidence does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that our understanding of God and science has not yet evolved enough yet. But that also applies to your critique of Evolution. Evolution may also be the explanation for the origins on earth, but our understanding may not yet be evolved enough to explain it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I posted evidence that supports creation only, it is not irrational, and it is sound reason to believe that evidence only supports a designer.

Where?

Here so you don't have to look for it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

That's not evidence of the existence of God. All you have done is critique a theory. The absence of an explanation is not proof.

I am not saying God doesn't exist. What I am saying is there is no hard evidence God exists. But the absence of hard evidence does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that our understanding of God and science has not yet evolved enough yet. But that also applies to your critique of Evolution. Evolution may also be the explanation for the origins on earth, but our understanding may not yet be evolved enough to explain it.

What that evidence proves is the first cell that was needed for life could not form without the cell being formed first because that is the only place amino acids and proteins can form is inside a cell.

So you have two choices cells always existed and we know that is not the case or someone designed it. That is evidence of God.

 

[JMJames]

I posted evidence that supports creation only, it is not irrational, and it is sound reason to believe that evidence only supports a designer.

Where?

Here so you don't have to look for it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

That's not evidence of the existence of God. All you have done is critique a theory. The absence of an explanation is not proof.

I am not saying God doesn't exist. What I am saying is there is no hard evidence God exists. But the absence of hard evidence does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that our understanding of God and science has not yet evolved enough yet. But that also applies to your critique of Evolution. Evolution may also be the explanation for the origins on earth, but our understanding may not yet be evolved enough to explain it.

What that evidence proves is the first cell that was needed for life could not form without the cell being formed first because that is the only place amino acids and proteins can form is inside a cell.

So you have two choices cells always existed and we know that is not the case or someone designed it. That is evidence of God.

That is not evidence of God. That is evidence that you are not willing to research the way cells developed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I posted evidence that supports creation only, it is not irrational, and it is sound reason to believe that evidence only supports a designer.

Where?

Here so you don't have to look for it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

That's not evidence of the existence of God. All you have done is critique a theory. The absence of an explanation is not proof.

I am not saying God doesn't exist. What I am saying is there is no hard evidence God exists. But the absence of hard evidence does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that our understanding of God and science has not yet evolved enough yet. But that also applies to your critique of Evolution. Evolution may also be the explanation for the origins on earth, but our understanding may not yet be evolved enough to explain it.

If you wish to cite the miller and urey experiment which is the argument most evolutionist try to use as proof of amino acids forming naturally in nature.But let me show you why the experiment failed.

1953 by Stanley Miller under the supervision of Harold Urey, the first experiment to test the Oparin Haldane theory about the evolution of prebiotic chemicals and the origin of life on Earth.

Problems with the experiment.

1. They hypothesized that prebiotic chemicals could evolve naturally in the enviornment and form the first cell which further evolved to life as we know it today. They did not prove this at all. All that was formed was amino acids and a few other molecules. A cell did not form.

2. The results were conducted by intelligent humans and they were trying to show that a natural unintelligent process could form these prebiotic chemcals that would make up a cell.

3. They assumed what the enviornment was like 3.8 billion years ago without having a clue what it was like. They used circular reasoning and produced an enviornment like ours today. One of the things they didn't account for was raw oxygen that would decompose any molecules being formed in nature.

4. The biggest blow to the test was that as stated earlier only left handed amino acids work with life and forming proteins. The test produced both the left and right amino acids.

I put this as simple as I could.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where?



That's not evidence of the existence of God. All you have done is critique a theory. The absence of an explanation is not proof.

I am not saying God doesn't exist. What I am saying is there is no hard evidence God exists. But the absence of hard evidence does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that our understanding of God and science has not yet evolved enough yet. But that also applies to your critique of Evolution. Evolution may also be the explanation for the origins on earth, but our understanding may not yet be evolved enough to explain it.

What that evidence proves is the first cell that was needed for life could not form without the cell being formed first because that is the only place amino acids and proteins can form is inside a cell.

So you have two choices cells always existed and we know that is not the case or someone designed it. That is evidence of God.

That is not evidence of God. That is evidence that you are not willing to research the way cells developed.

Well I worked in the field for eleven and a half years, studying mutations and cells. I have a degree in molecular biology. I believe I have some sort of idea of what I'm talking about.

 

[JMJames]

What that evidence proves is the first cell that was needed for life could not form without the cell being formed first because that is the only place amino acids and proteins can form is inside a cell.

So you have two choices cells always existed and we know that is not the case or someone designed it. That is evidence of God.

That is not evidence of God. That is evidence that you are not willing to research the way cells developed.

Well I worked in the field for eleven and a half years, studying mutations and cells. I have a degree in molecular biology. I believe I have some sort of idea of what I'm talking about.

So you neglect all your work and just tell yourself that God did it? How sad.