The simplest single cell was something akin to a ring of hydrophilic and hydrophobic chemicals, this is many orders of magnitude less complex than a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
|
The simplest single cell was something akin to a ring of hydrophilic and hydrophobic chemicals, this is many orders of magnitude less complex than a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
If I saw the car replicate on it's own with diversity in those replications and saw simpler forms of the car in the fossil layer. Yes I would think it got there on it own.
So, if I left a Lambourghini, a Austin mini and a Ford Model T in the field, I would have a believer in car evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Maybe later I will post the diagram showing the internal chemical processes in a simple single cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
A cell today is magnitudes more complex than the first cell would have been.
Anyway it is not as complicated as it seems. Like computers, they seem irreducible complex but it all boils down to on or off signals. And before you use that as a 'but computers were intellegntly designed' argument, I am using them as an example of how complex systems can be based on very simple principals.
Have you ever played the game of life?
John Conway's Game of Life
It shows how design and complexity can originate sponteously from a simple system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No because your missing the self replication part. Evolution doesn't make sense unless all of the stipulations are met. Which they are all met by life on earth.
I don't think we have the same idea of a simple cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Your evidence for this statement is? Or are your assuming evolution? If so then that is a circular argument - it must have been simpler because your assume your conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by templelane
I am an engineer - I am very familiar with the workings of computers and the complexity is far greater than you seem to think. Making a statement like that is like saying that anyone could build a spacestation - after all it is just make up of bits of metal :DQuote:
Anyway it is not as complicated as it seems. Like computers, they seem irreducible complex but it all boils down to on or off signals. And before you use that as a 'but computers were intellegntly designed' argument, I am using them as an example of how complex systems can be based on very simple principals.
Let's deal with the real world.Quote:
Have you ever played the game of life?
John Conway's Game of Life
It shows how design and complexity can originate sponteously from a simple system.
So that is one of the questions - tell me how the first simple living cell evolved from inaminate matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
See I used to believe in evolution so I know what the claims and stipulations are. The evidence does not support the claims of evolution. That is why I raised this and chose to examine these points from a scientific perspective to determine if they are feasible within the bounds of the theory of evolution. So far it appears that most evolutionists have faith that these things can just happen if you leave long enough time regardless of whether they are feasible or not.
Yes also tell us exactly how a living cell is different from a dead one or from an inanimate object with the same chemical makeup and where the life goes to at the moment of its death, and why we can't put it's life back in. Or how if a cell divides they both have the same life in each one, a doubling of life, each one can then die independently without affecting the other.
Tj3 if you knew anything about evolution you would know that it doesn't deal with the first living thing. Evolution only deals with the diversification of living things. So perhaps if you understood evolution you would continue to realize the fact of evolution. I don't know anything to tell you about that other than you are mistaken and if you can be mistaken about something that basic maybe you are mistaken about many many other things. What is even worse is that you continue to be mistaken even though you have been told this before is there something wrong with you that you don't get this?
What you are questioning is abiogenesis and I will fully state that we do not know how non-living matter becomes living matter. Now we have many hypothesises about how this happened but we don't know exactly. If you can prove god did it more power to you but you can't so until we know for certain we will continue to research this subject despite your objections.
I can tell you the difference between a live cell and a dead cell. The chemical reactions within that cell stop. The reason we can't turn life back on is because information is stored in the chemical reaction and unless we know that information we can't restore it and we haven't figured that out yet. The reason life can split and die independently of each other is the same reason you can split a fire and put one out and not the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by michealb
So why do you believe the "IFS" of evolutionists? Is it because it is the religion or faith that you prefer? :D
Is the Design Explanation Legitimate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
" Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 base pairs[11]"
I doubt any car has 580,000 parts that have to fit perfectly and in correct sequence :eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by templelane
How can the "simple" system of DNA be exactly right for transcription and translation?
Not only do you need dna but the enzymes the cell the aminoacids the cell machinery needed to make and modify protein etc... such a far cry from "simple"
Just like a computer code is not enough - who puts all the parts together?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tj3
:d Maybe if you wait long enough an inanimate car will become living :D
Then evolution has no answers because until there is a single living thing, there is no chance for evolution. If life is not feasible with a natural explanation, then you have just lost the whole debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
The question to you was how did simple single cells come to be created naturally. I did not specify that it had to be by evolution. But even thwn no one has an answer.
Evolution has no answers for why it rains either what's your point. Just because evolution doesn't say anything about how the first cell came about doesn't mean there isn't a natural solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
As I have been saying and you seem to be incapable of understanding. There are many possible ways the first cell came to be. We however haven't been able to be certain which method is the correct one. Scientist unlike religious people like to be certain about things before they go around saying things are facts there for it takes longer than just saying god did it. You however wanted a possible answer so here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4
One because they are more likely to be true. It's easier to believe that a bird that swallows stones would get some mud with it, than to believe god poofed the bird into existence as it is and the devil then put things out there to make it seem like god didn't poof it into existence. It's like saying the world is flat but the devil changes the pictures to make the world appear round.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
The other reason is because the answer has never been that a supernatural force did it. Never not once in fact has there ever been any proof of a supernatural force at all. So forgive me if I tend to believe answers that deal in reality rather than some force that has never been proven.
Why are you creating strawmen arguments. I asked for a feasible explanation as to how this might occur naturally.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
If you think that there is one, then out with it!
And you cannot tell us one feasible way?Quote:
As I have been saying and you seem to be incapable of understanding. There are many possible ways the first cell came to be. We however haven't been able to be certain which method is the correct one.
I have a science degree, and I am going entirely based upon the evidence. Perhaps you are not aware, but the start of the scientific method is to observe, and then come forward with an feasible way in which that might occur.Quote:
Scientist unlike religious people like to be certain about things before they go around saying things are facts there for it takes longer than just saying god did it.
The other part of the scientific method is testing the theory. This theory has been tested by the top scientists in the field and so far has failed to produce life. I did notice the video used that magic ingredient of evolution - "and then after millions of years" as though something which could even start in a few years would somehow magically occur after millions of years.Quote:
Nice try though. I might add that YouTube would not be my idea of a highly credible scientific source.
Well I'm saying OSE itself doesn't exist!!
It's the if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one there to hear it story. Some subjective person has to observe what you are calling objective.
If evolution is true, then there is no extinction, since one life form evolves into another. And if you are talking about survival of the fittest to reproduce, that sounds more like survival is based on luck rather than fitness, which seems to contradict itself.
That isn't true, there are plenty of evolutionary dead ends that did not lead to life today.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
Now here you are stepping onto the toes of some real evolutionary controversy- how much of an influence was natural selection and how much of an influence was luck and genetic drift.Quote:
And if you are talking about survival of the fittest to reproduce, that sounds more like survival is based on luck rather than fitness, which seems to contradict itself.
You are stating that as fact - the truth is there are ASSUMED evolutionary dead ends. It is a circular argument to call them evolutionary dead ends when evolution has not been proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by templelane
That is not the question here - the question is whether you can propose a feasible means by which any of the examples came about by natural means.Quote:
Now here you are stepping onto the toes of some real evolutionary controversy- how much of an influence was natural selection and how much of an influence was luck and genetic drift.
It's not a straw man argument evolution really doesn't have anything to do with how the first cell came to be. It covers the first replicating life form on. That's all that it talks about to say it involves anything else is wrong. I'm only going to tell you this so many times before I'm just going to start calling you troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Unless you are a leader in the field of biology and can prove you are who you say you are, this is meaning less. In fact this is less than meaning less this is detrimental to your argument because it means you can't back it up with your words but instead try to sound credibility through false information. So again claiming you have a degree in an Internet argument is pointless so don't do it.Quote:
I have a science degree.
Mine either though it still gave you one good idea of how life could have formed. Now it is your turn to say what part is impossible but again as I have said before we don't have a valid theory for how life came to be, we have several ideas but we aren't willing to say one is a fact yet. I know this thrills you because it allows you to build your straw man argument against evolutions because this mean we don't know everything. However it is perfectly acceptable to have god create the first cell and evolution would still be a fact.Quote:
Nice try though. I might add that YouTube would not be my idea of a highly credible scientific source.
It is because I asked how it could occur naturally. I left it open for an explanation other than evolution, but you kept going back to evolution. But I perhaps evolution is the only hope for a natural occurrence, and it cannot explain how a living cell came to be therefore once again, there is no feasible natural explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Sigh! Why do people feel the need to use personal abuse when the evidence does not go the way that they like.Quote:
I'm only going to tell you this so many times before I'm just going to start calling you troll.
If you are suggesting that no one can discuss anything on internet unless they are a leader in the field, then it would be a mighty quiet place. But the truth is that we have access to more resources from the leaders in the field than ever before.Quote:
Unless you are a leader in the field of biology and can prove you are who you say you are, this is meaning less. In fact this is less than meaning less this is detrimental to your argument because it means you can't back it up with your words but instead try to sound credibility through false information. So again claiming you have a degree in an Internet argument is pointless so don't do it.
But once again, you go after me because the evidence does not exist to support your position.
So far the only feasible explanation that we have for the creation of the first living cell then is God.Quote:
However it is perfectly acceptable to have god create the first cell and evolution would still be a fact.
Now what you are suggesting here is what is called theistic evolution. That is a position that I went to when I realized that the evidence for evolution did not support the theory. I found it to be the least defensible position, and I quickly found that I had to abandon it also.
However, that is getting off topic. If we start assuming that the first living cell was created and designed by an intelligent designer/creator, then that still leaves you with the challenge of coming up with a feasible approach by which these other examples could have occurred naturally.
That only seems to happen to you. Maybe it's because you ignore evidence and use your own brand of reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Absolutely not this is another example of you totally missing the point of what people are saying perhaps you are incapable of comprehending. What I said is that saying you have a credential is useless on the internet unless you are a known leader in your field because you can't prove it otherwise, I could say I have doctorate from Berkley in biology and that's why I can say you don't know what your talking about but unless I'm willing give you proof of that it's completely pointless.Quote:
If you are suggesting that no one can discuss anything on internet unless they are a leader in the field, then it would be a mighty quiet place. But the truth is that we have access to more resources from the leaders in the field than ever before.
If you ignore evidence or don't comprehend it. What else is there for me to do? If your just going to ingnore any evidence I give and say god did it you are a troll.Quote:
But once again, you go after me because the evidence does not exist to support your position.
Prove it. Prove god has done anything. Anything all. Prove that a cell can't be created any other way than a all powerful all knowing god.Quote:
So far the only feasible explanation that we have for the creation of the first living cell then is God.
I'm willing to say we don't know everything. I will even say we may never know for certain how the first cell came to be after all it was over 3 billion years ago trying to solve a mystery that old may be impossible I still don't see unknown knowledge as evidence for god just as unknown knowledge.
I am still interested in also how your going to disprove the video I posted so far you said it's not valid but the only evidence you have is saying god did it.
I note that once again you must resort to personal abuse. If you were willing to accept the scientific evidence where it leads, then you would not need to resort to such attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
More abuse.Quote:
Absolutely not this is another example of you totally missing the point of what people are saying perhaps you are incapable of comprehending.
Strawman argument. So far no one is using their credentials to validate their answers - unless I missed something.Quote:
What I said is that saying you have a credential is useless on the internet unless you are a known leader in your field because you can't prove it otherwise, I could say I have doctorate from Berkley in biology and that's why I can say you don't know what your talking about but unless I'm willing give you proof of that it's completely pointless.
I have ignore nothing so far, but I see yet more abuse from you.Quote:
If you ignore evidence or don't comprehend it. What else is there for me to do? If your just going to ingnore any evidence I give and say god did it you are a troll.
I am just following up on the statement in your mlast message. If you believe that you have a feasible method by which a living cell came into existence, then let's deal with it - post it, or provide answers to the issues that I raised with your "youtube video".Quote:
Prove it. Prove god has done anything. Anything all. Prove that a cell can't be created any other way than a all powerful all knowing god.
To show something is feasible does not require that we know everything. I already responded to that strawman argument previously.Quote:
I'm willing to say we don't know everything. I will even say we may never know for certain how the first cell came to be after all it was over 3 billion years ago trying to solve a mystery that old may be impossible I still don't see unknown knowledge as evidence for god just as unknown knowledge.
Perhaps you should actually read my messages. I actually said nothing of the sort and did not mention God at all in my response, but I did raise issues with the proposal based upon science.Quote:
I am still interested in also how your going to disprove the video I posted so far you said it's not valid but the only evidence you have is saying god did it.
BTW, as I said in the OP, if you respond with personal abuse, that is in and of itself an admission that you have no answers. If you continue to be abusive, then that would suggest to me that you have nothing more of substance to offer on the topic. Your position would be better served by acting in a mature respectful manner. Just some friendly advice.
Hello all ! Back from overseas again, and time to react to previous entries here.
Indeed. But what has that to do with the question? I did not mention "Pericles" at all. Just as I did not mention in that same question that the "Tom" mentioned is one and the same as Tom Smith, wellknown at AW as Toms777 and here as Tj3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Not correct. Toms memory seems to be very poor. It was Toms who "decided" that what he posted was covered by general consensus, nothwithstanding that there were two lines of thought : Toms religious peers who agreed, and all others who disagreed with Toms conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3;
As stated in the question : THAT IS NO OSE SUPPORT FOR "GOD'S" EXISTENCE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3;
But I (as Pericles) did propose several alternative options, which all were rejected by Toms. The same Toms, who can not produce any real OSE himself for "God's" existence. (Because that is impossible).
I never stated that I could not see the postings. I stated that I could not see the evidence for what Toms claimed to have posted (i.e. that that was evidence for "God's existence).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3;
A complete lie. Many of these items were discussed "ad nauseum".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3;
It is Toms who refuses to accept all alternatives, including that absence of proof for one view is no OSE for the opposite view.
Indeed I call it a list. A list, just as there can be thousands of such lists. Lists that do not prove anything. Because the existence of "God" can not be OSE proved in any way. All you can do is BELIEVE that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3;
:rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.
.
Dear Mary Sue : I fail to agree. For me the entire argument is about that you can not "prove" the existence of any entity by showing a list of queries and - if one disagrees with the reactions - declare such list "proof" for the existence of such entity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
Even a kindergarten student can understand that that is no proof...
As acceptable proof there is only one item : OSE for "God' existence" itself.
But as that can never be provided, all one can do is BELIEVE in such an entity.
:)
.
.
Tj3 to Michealb :
Yes, that is a typical Toms777 reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Michealb : there is actually little sense in arguing with Toms777 (Tj3). He is wellknown for twisting words and meanings, and loves to post that he feels "abused" if you disagree with him, and/or show his "logic" to be totally invalid.
Toms list is - as I stated in the topic question - an interesting list, that can be replied to by evolutionists. Now or in the future. In full or when more evidence becomes available. But that is not the issue here.
The claimed lack of evidence for evolutionary queries is not - and can never be - OSE for the existence of a Creator. Only direct OSE for "God's" existence will be that. But as we all know such evidence is not and never will be available.
Toms list is nice list of queries for the evolution board. But it is no OSE for "God's existence"!!
Going into details on Toms list is a waste of time, if the target is the discussion of "God's" existence. There is no such evidence. And Toms list - and thousands of similar lists - can not change that...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.
.
Yes, it is my reaction to abuse. I believe in respectful dialogue. When one party chooses to resort to abuse, that is an admission that they have no answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
A claim is empty when so far there have been no feasible answers given. Indeed you even admitted that evolution has no answer to how the first living cell originated.Quote:
Toms list is - as I stated in the topic question - an interesting list, that can be replied to by evolutionists. Now or in the future.
I don't know why atheists like calling it a list - these are but a few of a large number of discrete examples. Maybe a fixation on lists :p
Science often looks at what is feasible, and when all non-feasible options are removed, accepts that as evidence of the remaining feasible option. Perhaps you are not aware that there is no direct evidence for many of the planets which have been found or sub-atomic particles found. Observations were made of other things happening and they looked at what feasible events would cause this evidence.Quote:
The claimed lack of evidence for evolutionary queries is not - and can never be - OSE for the existence of a Creator.
So you can reject this approach if you wish, but the approach that I am taking is both logic and scientific.
You need new glasses. Look under the Pond Scum example in your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
As you wish, Cred, but I asked the question for some time prior to posting the first example, and no one (that is right no one) disagreed with that approach, including you. The first person to disagree at any point was you, AFTER I had posted serveral of these examples and you had no answers.Quote:
Not correct. Toms memory seems to be very poor. It was Toms who "decided" that what he posted was covered by general consensus, nothwithstanding that there were two lines of thought : Toms religious peers who agreed, and all others who disagreed with Toms conclusion.
But let's not just toss this back and forth like this. Let's resolve it here and now. If there is a third option, post it here.
Now who has memory problems :DQuote:
I never stated that I could not see the postings.
A complete lie. Many of these items were discussed "ad nauseum".
As I said, it must be a "list fixation" with some folk! :pQuote:
Indeed I call it a list. A list, just as there can be thousands of such lists.
He wasn't asking for direct evidence he is asking for objective supported evidence. Indirect evidence can be overwhelming as long as you have several different sources for that indirect evidence. Your twisting words again.
I am still waiting for you to disprove the video or prove god take your pick so far you have done neither.
Michael,Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I guess that when the evidence does say what you'd like, you want different evidence. I understand that.
It appears that you do not wish to read what I said - now twice I have pointed out that I already responded to your video, but apparently yopu have not read my original post or the second one either.
You brought up God as the feasible answer to the first living cell - I didn't. You said (Post #63):
"However it is perfectly acceptable to have god create the first cell and evolution would still be a fact."
I then went on to agree that we could leave it there and that would leave you to provide feasible ways in which the other events could occur.
Now if this is the way that this topic is going to degenerate, then it appears that there is likely no more to discuss. I want to discuss the facts - if the barrel is dry on your end, then let's just conclude this now. I'd like to discuss the topic, but I honestly do not have time to play games. Do youn wish to have a serious respectful discussion or not?
:DEven this evolutionary story telling site does not agree with your 3 billion year time frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Evolution From the Beginning to the First Cell.
"About 1.3 billion years ago the first eukaryote (a single cell organism with a complex inner structure) "
Notice how there is no OSE for this - just theory. ;)
Genetic Explanation For Moles' Poor Eyesight
Not a "religious site" nor a creationist site, but I point out their facts.
So the mole had sight, then due to abnormal genes LOST it?Quote:
"The genetic information the authors amassed shows that the internal defects in the animals' eyes are not the result of an adult degenerative condition but because development of the eye lens fibres, which starts normally, is not completed. The expression of some genes that are central to eye development is also abnormal."
How did the mole have sight in the first place? Is it use it or lose it? Why did natural selection and evolution develop a super sight that can "see" in no visible light?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you want OSE that God exists, okay, I will pray that Cred, Michael B will post more anti- religious statements, and question God's existence. Lets see if it comes true :D
I wonder what, if anything, that atheists would accept as OSE for God. If I wandered through a field and found a house with a computer, a television, air-conditioning, and lights - would that be OSE that a person had been there even though I did not see the person, or have any evidence of human DNA? Or is that evidence of a naturally occurring event.
As I said before, scientists determine the existence, the size, mass and orbit of planets around other suns that they cannot see by looking at the wobble in the sun. Is that OSE for that planet? Yes, indeed it is, because there is no feasible alternative.
When scientists discover new sub-atomic particles, do they see them before they will accept their existence? No, many if not most have been discovered on the basis of the effect that they have because that is the only feaisble alternative to explain the effect.
What about gravity? We can see the effect, but we have no direct evidence of gravity itself. The same is true of time (which, BTW, is affected by gravity). And yet I would hope that everyone on here accepts the exists of both time and gravity.
I could go on and on. I wonder why when it comes to God, and the overwhelming evidence, why atheists who claim that they want scientific evidence, reject the scientific method and scientific standards? Is it because in their minds, the evidence points to something that they simply cannot and will not accept? If so, that is no longer science, but it is religion and they hold their beliefs on the basis of faith, not OSE.
What OSE is there for a natural start to life? Let's see what this scientific organization says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly how life started is uncertain. Maybe dormant deep-frozen micro-organisms hitched a ride on a comet or asteroid. Maybe basic life first started deep beneath the surface, where conditions were more stable, and moved up through cracks and fissures as conditions above ground improved. Maybe the chemical soup in the oceans favoured simple self-replicating carbon-based molecules. These molecules might have increased in complexity and number over millions of years, until we have the diversity of life we see around us today. It is almost certain that all life developed from the same single source, as all life discovered relies on has the same complex molecule - DNA.
(Source: Natural Environmental Science Research Council (UK))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, I am sure that Michael will enjoy this YouTube video as much as his last one!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCWM3TqwcBw
Indeed : the claim that "God" exists was never accompanied by any feasible answers regarding factual support, nor by any OSE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
That is a deliberate lie. I really question here your repeated attempt to lie while you know it is a lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Is that the new general approach now for your Christian Discernment Resources and/or Last Days Bible Conference ?
All I stated was that Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution. Evolution starts with the first living cell.
There is no doubt that this is a list of queries towards evolution. At the other hand it is not a list towards any format of OSE for "God's" existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Precisely the reason why such arguments remain a hypothesis (= a proposition). They only become scientific facts or Theory when there is Objective Supporting Evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I never stated that science can prove everything today. See also the previous line I posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The Cern experiment is a perfect example on how a thesis is tested against the reality.
If Cern can not prove the various proposed sub-atomic particles to exist, they will remain a hypothesis till proven in the future by other experiments. It doesl not mean that such sub-atomic particles do not exist.
No it is not. It is NOT LOGICAL at all, and it is PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC - just as all other ICR "science"!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
To conclude : your "list" contains various interesting questions on evolution. But it does not contain a single iota of evidence for the existence of "God"!!
The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God"!!
The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God" !!!
THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE "PROOF" FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" IS OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD"!!
Anything else is based on BELIEF !
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.
.
Same old, same old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Apparently you have no answer to the questions raised.
False accusations get you nowhere. But prove me wrong - post the feasible answer as to how the first living cell occurred naturally.Quote:
That is a deliberate lie. I really question here your repeated attempt to lie while you know it is a lie.
Thus evolution has no answer. And if there is no answer as to how life started, then the rest of the theory falls flat. You have nothing if creation does not occur in the first place.Quote:
All I stated was that Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution. Evolution starts with the first living cell.
And no one ever asked for that.Quote:
I never stated that science can prove everything today
I see no reason to respond to the rest. All your attempts to distract from the question shouts that you have no answer.
But correct. The claim that "God" exists was NEVER accompanied by any feasible answers regarding factual support, nor by any OSE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The questions on your list are questions about evolution. This topic's question was clear : it questioned the validity of your "list" towards it's claimed "proof" for the existence of "God". That validity is however zero. I have no need to reply to your evolution questions here. Try the evolution board for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Your original statement I refer to here is indeed a deliberate lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Any questions towards evolution are irrelevant in this respect. See my previous line.
Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution. Evolution starts with the first living cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Of course you don't like to respond. Because you know that your list is no "proof" for the existence of "God".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God"!!
The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God" !!!
THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE "PROOF" FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" IS OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" !!!
Anything else is based on BELIEF !
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.
.
Keep singing that chorus - maybe it will help drown out the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I asked only for a natural explanation - have another look. Perhaps you are trying to point to evolution because you know evolution has no answers, and you are trying to avoid that fact that there is no other answer either.Quote:
The questions on your list are questions about evolution.
Read this line from my original post:
"The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists."
So far, this has been your primary response. If there are answers, post them here and now.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:37 PM. |