Question about Noah.

[the_human_being]

I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

Then the next question would be what started the evolution?
Something does not evolve from nothing.
Much of Science says that there must be some kind of intelligent design. The big bang theory would explain an intelligent designer.

Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination. It has to be scientifically proven that someone made the sand castle or if it was done by nature.

Much of science clearly does not say there must be some kind of intelligent design.

Must be nice indeed to consider one's own intelligence to be above that of Albert Einstein's: http://www.rae.org/pdf/EinsteinIntelDesign.pdf

Must be embarrassing to use "Revolution Against Evolution", someone's personal blog, for your science data.

I never claimed I was a "brain". You are the product of your own admiration and inflated ego.

 

[Hollie]

Speaking of simple, why have we never been able to produce the strands of nucleotides that form a DNA molecule in primordial soup? We have never been able to recreate spontaneous generation. For one thing, in order for it to happen the earth had to be an oxygen free environment. It's abundant in oxygen. No matter how science tries to replicate primordial soup spontaneous life, all they get is tar.
Who designed the genetic code that "writes" the information the nucleotides program into DNA and RNA? The information that they can't deny is there. There is a cause attached to it. It performs with a cause, it has an agenda. Darwin didn't know that. He believed that life was un-caused. An accident, random chance. We know better now, but what is crushing to science is they know, because of thermal-dynamics, if there is a cause there is a causer. Like you, they would rather that not be the case. Science says that is the case.

Early earth had no oxygen, which was a by-product of the first photosynthesising creatures.

Not even close. Photo dissociation begs to differ. So does the ozone layer, an oxygen gas, which filters out the ultraviolet radiation that would have prevented life, so says NASA. No oxygen, no ozone level, no life due to radiation. Ultraviolet
radiation destroys RNA and DNA. Oxygen removes methane and ammonia from the atmosphere. Without it amino acids would be DOA.

There is no evidence what so ever that primordial soup existed. Darwin thought the ocean heated up from lightning and radiation to create life. dilution proves that wrong. But you still haven't addressed chirality.
If there was any evidence at all of primordial soup, and let's pretend that there was, it would have created right handed and left handed building blocks necessary for life.
DNA and RNA have to be right handed. Amino acids are left handed.

So, again, how do dextrorotary, and levorotary proteins know which they are and where to line upon the DNA chain to create life?

Primordial soup is a description of the chemical and environmental conditions that existed in early earth history.

You need to understand that science has learned a great many technologies that Darwin did not have access to.

As you are the one making claims that magic and supernaturalism were the causes for existence, what can you tell us about those methods?

 

[Hollie]

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

Then the next question would be what started the evolution?
Something does not evolve from nothing.
Much of Science says that there must be some kind of intelligent design. The big bang theory would explain an intelligent designer.

Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination. It has to be scientifically proven that someone made the sand castle or if it was done by nature.

Much of science clearly does not say there must be some kind of intelligent design.

Must be nice indeed to consider one's own intelligence to be above that of Albert Einstein's: http://www.rae.org/pdf/EinsteinIntelDesign.pdf

Must be embarrassing to use "Revolution Against Evolution", someone's personal blog, for your science data.

I never claimed I was a "brain". You are the product of your own admiration and inflated ego.

Aww. Your feelings are hurt.

 

[the_human_being]

I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

But we have told you, evolution is not true. The only evolution theory that may hold any water at all is macroevolution. None of the others make any sense or have ever been proven. Example: Where is your constant for proving your claim of the earth's being 4 1/2 or so billions of years old. What do you have in your hands that is 4 1/2 billion years old that you can compare the earth's age against? You have no standard by which to compare.

 

[PostmodernProph]

its not hard to figure out, but okay.......you believe that human beings evolved from some lesser creature.....at some point in time there had to be that creature which first met all the qualifications of a new species.....the first homo sapien........that should be obvious.......equally obvious would be that its parent would not have the qualifications of that new species.....because if it did, IT would have been the first homo sapien instead of its child.......

It's as though you're convinced ignorance is a virtue.

and yet, despite your repeated complaints, you have not yet made any attempt to point out what is wrong with my logic.......and I'm willing to bet you never will......

Supernaturalism is not a logical argument.

What's comical is that you can't offer a single, supportable bit of evidence for your personal opinions forged from the ignorance of religious fundamentalism.

Now would be a good time to explain your logic of talking snakes.

/grins.....I would gloat about winning the bet, but it was too easy a wager......you would never, ever attempt to actually engage in a debate on anything.....

On the contrary, you've been forced on all occasions where the subject matter falls to facts and evidence to sidestep and evade.

Here, for example.

Tell us about talking snakes and boat rides that never happened. Bring your best debate. Just make sure you bring facts and evidence to support your bible tales and fables.

You can start with facts and evidence for talking snakes.

you'll have to take that issue up with people who believe in talking snakes and boat rides that never happened, silly child....

 

[PostmodernProph]

???....I'm a coward because you're confused?......

You're a coward for not answering simple questions and just dodging them non-stop.
Do you believe in the biblical Adam and Eve? It appears not as you talk only about Mito A & E. You've also shown you don't believe in the worldwide flood as described in the bible. And you believe in evolution. Please return your Christian card as you aren't even one anyways.

listen, dumbfuck......I didn't respond about the biblical Adam and Eve because they have nothing to do with the discussion......ignoring your attempts at diversion, even if they happened because you weren't bright enough to realize they had nothing to do with the discussion doesn't make me a coward.......now, I'm not sure where you get your definition of Christian, but it obviously wasn't from a Bible.......you don't hand out the "Christian cards" and you don't get to ask for them back......

now, to stifle your whining for irrelevant answers....I believe there was a first man and a first woman......I believe they were created by God.......I believe they were disobedient.....I believe that a flood killed all except one family......I believe that green butterflies evolved from yellow butterflies and that evolution explains why we have 37k different kinds of beetle......I do not believe that the universe exists or that life crawled out of a mud puddle because of random shit happening randomly.......I do not believe that human beings and dung beetles have a common ancestor.......

I believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and he gave himself in sacrifice to atone for my disobedience that that therefore I will spend eternity in a very happy place......

so, do I get to keep my "Christian card" or do I not meet the approval of the atheist in charge of the pearly gates?........

Sure it has to do with this thread in general, which is exploring the stories in the bible to figure out if they're true or not. So you don't believe in the earliest fossils that show life existed billions of years ago (which is based on observable facts), but you believe that an invisible superbeing in another dimension that poofed everything into existence, and this without any observable proof whatsoever, who will punish you if you don't follow some random book written by men? Yeah, you get to keep your Christian card.

you know.....if you forget what the thread is about you could always read the title for a reminder......I believe fossils exist......I believe they show creatures such as that existed......that doesn't mean I have to believe that fossil A is an ancestor of fossil B (which obviously is NOT an observable fact)........

So you can observe the evolution that happened after noah let the animals go (to make all the different butterflies...), but evolution didn't exist prior to that? So god made every fossilized creature as is, and evolution didn't start until after noah?

what are you going on about now.....I said nothing about butterflies not evolving prior to the flood.....why do you keep making crap up?.....

 

[the_human_being]

Speaking of simple, why have we never been able to produce the strands of nucleotides that form a DNA molecule in primordial soup? We have never been able to recreate spontaneous generation. For one thing, in order for it to happen the earth had to be an oxygen free environment. It's abundant in oxygen. No matter how science tries to replicate primordial soup spontaneous life, all they get is tar.
Who designed the genetic code that "writes" the information the nucleotides program into DNA and RNA? The information that they can't deny is there. There is a cause attached to it. It performs with a cause, it has an agenda. Darwin didn't know that. He believed that life was un-caused. An accident, random chance. We know better now, but what is crushing to science is they know, because of thermal-dynamics, if there is a cause there is a causer. Like you, they would rather that not be the case. Science says that is the case.

Early earth had no oxygen, which was a by-product of the first photosynthesising creatures.

Not even close. Photo dissociation begs to differ. So does the ozone layer, an oxygen gas, which filters out the ultraviolet radiation that would have prevented life, so says NASA. No oxygen, no ozone level, no life due to radiation. Ultraviolet
radiation destroys RNA and DNA. Oxygen removes methane and ammonia from the atmosphere. Without it amino acids would be DOA.

There is no evidence what so ever that primordial soup existed. Darwin thought the ocean heated up from lightning and radiation to create life. dilution proves that wrong. But you still haven't addressed chirality.
If there was any evidence at all of primordial soup, and let's pretend that there was, it would have created right handed and left handed building blocks necessary for life.
DNA and RNA have to be right handed. Amino acids are left handed.

So, again, how do dextrorotary, and levorotary proteins know which they are and where to line upon the DNA chain to create life?

Primordial soup is a description of the chemical and environmental conditions that existed in early earth history.

You need to understand that science has learned a great many technologies that Darwin did not have access to.

As you are the one making claims that magic and supernaturalism were the causes for existence, what can you tell us about those methods?

You made the statement that primordial soup existed in early earth history. Do you have in your labratory a sample, ie., a pint or quart, of this primordial soup you are speaking of that we may examine?

 

[PostmodernProph]

I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

Then the next question would be what started the evolution?
Something does not evolve from nothing.
Much of Science says that there must be some kind of intelligent design. The big bang theory would explain an intelligent designer.

Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination. It has to be scientifically proven that someone made the sand castle or if it was done by nature.

Much of science clearly does not say there must be some kind of intelligent design.

some folks here think all you need is a puddle of mud and a little lightning....

 

[the_human_being]

Then the next question would be what started the evolution?
Something does not evolve from nothing.
Much of Science says that there must be some kind of intelligent design. The big bang theory would explain an intelligent designer.

Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination. It has to be scientifically proven that someone made the sand castle or if it was done by nature.

Much of science clearly does not say there must be some kind of intelligent design.

Must be nice indeed to consider one's own intelligence to be above that of Albert Einstein's: http://www.rae.org/pdf/EinsteinIntelDesign.pdf

Must be embarrassing to use "Revolution Against Evolution", someone's personal blog, for your science data.

I never claimed I was a "brain". You are the product of your own admiration and inflated ego.

Aww. Your feelings are hurt.

Hardly. You will never break through my superiority complex.

 

[PostmodernProph]

If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?

Here's the answer to the question:

Genesis 6:19, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

Two of EVERY FLESH, male and female.

And that makes sense to you?

Why wouldn't it make sense. Why bring aboard two of homosexual tendencies or two of the same sex?

It says 2 of every sort. 2 gays, 2 lesbians, 2 blacks, 2 whites, 2 pigmies, 2 eskimos, 2 asians, 2 Japanese, 2 arabs, 2 bushmen, 2 indians, so far that's 22 people, and there are probably others I haven't mentioned. Why did I never hear of these people?

they didn't bring two idiots.....that's why there weren't any atheists on board........

 

[the_human_being]

I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

Then the next question would be what started the evolution?
Something does not evolve from nothing.
Much of Science says that there must be some kind of intelligent design. The big bang theory would explain an intelligent designer.

Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination. It has to be scientifically proven that someone made the sand castle or if it was done by nature.

Much of science clearly does not say there must be some kind of intelligent design.

some folks here think all you need is a puddle of mud and a little lightning....

Watching those Frankenstein movies will eventually get you to believing anything.

 

[the_human_being]

If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?

Here's the answer to the question:

Genesis 6:19, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

Two of EVERY FLESH, male and female.

And that makes sense to you?

Why wouldn't it make sense. Why bring aboard two of homosexual tendencies or two of the same sex?

It says 2 of every sort. 2 gays, 2 lesbians, 2 blacks, 2 whites, 2 pigmies, 2 eskimos, 2 asians, 2 Japanese, 2 arabs, 2 bushmen, 2 indians, so far that's 22 people, and there are probably others I haven't mentioned. Why did I never hear of these people?

they didn't bring two idiots.....that's why there weren't any atheists on board........

Yeah. That's why in 2014 the federal judges continue to rule against them being require to produce a photo ID to vote. They are still to uneducated to do it.

 

[Hollie]

I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

But we have told you, evolution is not true. The only evolution theory that may hold any water at all is macroevolution. None of the others make any sense or have ever been proven. Example: Where is your constant for proving your claim of the earth's being 4 1/2 or so billions of years old. What do you have in your hands that is 4 1/2 billion years old that you can compare the earth's age against? You have no standard by which to compare.

This may come as a shock to you, but your claiming evolution is not true is meaningless.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?

Here's the answer to the question:

Genesis 6:19, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

Two of EVERY FLESH, male and female.

And that makes sense to you?

Why wouldn't it make sense. Why bring aboard two of homosexual tendencies or two of the same sex?

It says 2 of every sort. 2 gays, 2 lesbians, 2 blacks, 2 whites, 2 pigmies, 2 eskimos, 2 asians, 2 Japanese, 2 arabs, 2 bushmen, 2 indians, so far that's 22 people, and there are probably others I haven't mentioned. Why did I never hear of these people?

they didn't bring two idiots.....that's why there weren't any atheists on board........

Did a snake tell you that, or was it your imaginary friend?

 

[the_human_being]

I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

But we have told you, evolution is not true. The only evolution theory that may hold any water at all is macroevolution. None of the others make any sense or have ever been proven. Example: Where is your constant for proving your claim of the earth's being 4 1/2 or so billions of years old. What do you have in your hands that is 4 1/2 billion years old that you can compare the earth's age against? You have no standard by which to compare.

This may come as a shock to you, but your claiming evolution is not true is meaningless.

Totally ignoring my point makes your argument meaningless and without defendable merit.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

Then the next question would be what started the evolution?
Something does not evolve from nothing.
Much of Science says that there must be some kind of intelligent design. The big bang theory would explain an intelligent designer.

Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination. It has to be scientifically proven that someone made the sand castle or if it was done by nature.

Much of science clearly does not say there must be some kind of intelligent design.

Must be nice indeed to consider one's own intelligence to be above that of Albert Einstein's: http://www.rae.org/pdf/EinsteinIntelDesign.pdf

I guess Einstein never smelled a fart. LOL!

 

[Hollie]

I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

Then the next question would be what started the evolution?
Something does not evolve from nothing.
Much of Science says that there must be some kind of intelligent design. The big bang theory would explain an intelligent designer.

Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination. It has to be scientifically proven that someone made the sand castle or if it was done by nature.

Much of science clearly does not say there must be some kind of intelligent design.

some folks here think all you need is a puddle of mud and a little lightning....

That's typically for you YEC'ists.

 

[Hollie]

I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

But we have told you, evolution is not true. The only evolution theory that may hold any water at all is macroevolution. None of the others make any sense or have ever been proven. Example: Where is your constant for proving your claim of the earth's being 4 1/2 or so billions of years old. What do you have in your hands that is 4 1/2 billion years old that you can compare the earth's age against? You have no standard by which to compare.

This may come as a shock to you, but your claiming evolution is not true is meaningless.

Totally ignoring my point makes your argument meaningless and without defendable merit.

You made no point.

 

[The Irish Ram]

its not hard to figure out, but okay.......you believe that human beings evolved from some lesser creature.....at some point in time there had to be that creature which first met all the qualifications of a new species.....the first homo sapien........that should be obvious.......equally obvious would be that its parent would not have the qualifications of that new species.....because if it did, IT would have been the first homo sapien instead of its child.......

It's as though you're convinced ignorance is a virtue.

and yet, despite your repeated complaints, you have not yet made any attempt to point out what is wrong with my logic.......and I'm willing to bet you never will......

Supernaturalism is not a logical argument.

What's comical is that you can't offer a single, supportable bit of evidence for your personal opinions forged from the ignorance of religious fundamentalism.

Now would be a good time to explain your logic of talking snakes.

/grins.....I would gloat about winning the bet, but it was too easy a wager......you would never, ever attempt to actually engage in a debate on anything.....

On the contrary, you've been forced on all occasions where the subject matter falls to facts and evidence to sidestep and evade.

Here, for example.

Tell us about talking snakes and boat rides that never happened. Bring your best debate. Just make sure you bring facts and evidence to support your bible tales and fables.

You can start with facts and evidence for talking snakes.

Satan is the one referred to as a snake. In the same way I could say, Hollie twists every question you ask her, by making up things, like there is no Noah or flood mentioned in the Qur'an. She's a real snake.
If you were well read you'd know that by the following conversation that took place between Satan and God. It is the first prophecy in the Bible, and half has been fulfilled by Christ returning from the dead, alive. The rest will come to fruition when Christ returns.

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

The snake is Satan. Not the reptile variety. Reptiles aren't capable of enmity. Satan is. The rest refers to the battle to come between Christ and Satan, and the outcome. The heel is a non lethal strike. A crushed head is a fatal blow.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Speaking of simple, why have we never been able to produce the strands of nucleotides that form a DNA molecule in primordial soup? We have never been able to recreate spontaneous generation. For one thing, in order for it to happen the earth had to be an oxygen free environment. It's abundant in oxygen. No matter how science tries to replicate primordial soup spontaneous life, all they get is tar.
Who designed the genetic code that "writes" the information the nucleotides program into DNA and RNA? The information that they can't deny is there. There is a cause attached to it. It performs with a cause, it has an agenda. Darwin didn't know that. He believed that life was un-caused. An accident, random chance. We know better now, but what is crushing to science is they know, because of thermal-dynamics, if there is a cause there is a causer. Like you, they would rather that not be the case. Science says that is the case.

Early earth had no oxygen, which was a by-product of the first photosynthesising creatures.

Not even close. Photo dissociation begs to differ. So does the ozone layer, an oxygen gas, which filters out the ultraviolet radiation that would have prevented life, so says NASA. No oxygen, no ozone level, no life due to radiation. Ultraviolet
radiation destroys RNA and DNA. Oxygen removes methane and ammonia from the atmosphere. Without it amino acids would be DOA.

There is no evidence what so ever that primordial soup existed. Darwin thought the ocean heated up from lightning and radiation to create life. dilution proves that wrong. But you still haven't addressed chirality.
If there was any evidence at all of primordial soup, and let's pretend that there was, it would have created right handed and left handed building blocks necessary for life.
DNA and RNA have to be right handed. Amino acids are left handed.

So, again, how do dextrorotary, and levorotary proteins know which they are and where to line upon the DNA chain to create life?

Primordial soup is a description of the chemical and environmental conditions that existed in early earth history.

You need to understand that science has learned a great many technologies that Darwin did not have access to.

As you are the one making claims that magic and supernaturalism were the causes for existence, what can you tell us about those methods?

Primordial soup in labs recreating the chemical and environmental conditions that existed in early earth fails to produce life, and the fact that oxygen did exist confirms it. Exhaustive testing of rock and soil find no chemical mixture that could be responsible for the creation of a living cell. Primordial soup creates tar.
They can't find your soup. They have however discovered design, and cause in the process.