Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Yea...great minds...who both didn't say whether or not you agree that cells are made of atoms.

---

And here you were making remarks about others and what they know, and you don't even know if matter is made of atoms. Heck, if you want to go back to first principles. Why don't we discuss what an atom is made up of, or an electron, or a quark, or a neutrino, or a photon...

Why don't we just all take a course in quantum physics - no wait why don't you, I already have a degree which requires an understanding of quantum physics (I mention this because you apparently don't think that anyone else knows anything - just you).

You did not tell us how life came to be.

And now that you raise the question - how did these various sub-atomic particles come to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Just to correct you. Atheists would never use evolution as an excuse for the rejection of god since an atheist doesn't care if a god exists or not. In an atheist mind there is no god to reject.

---

If they don't reject God for a reason, then what you are saying by definition is that their belief that there is no God is not rational.

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I'll assume Tj3 agrees with this as well. So we have something we agree on. Good.

I'll hand out three questions this time.

1.The fist question is on the age of the earth. Are we in agreement that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old give or take a billion it really doesn't matter but the question is do we agree that earth is really old? This is important because most theories of abiogenesis and evolution require this. So if this is debatable we need to discuss this first because without this large time frame evolution becomes less likely so we need to establish this first.

2.The next question assumes you all agreed on the age of the earth. Have the element that make up a cell been on earth since it first cooled and liquid water formed. Elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and iron.

3.Are you familiar with self replicating chemical reactions? These are molecules that replicate themselves as long as they have the raw elements that they are made of available and have an energy source or catalyst. Are you aware that these types of molecules exist and do you understand the basic principles behind how they work?

---

Spontaneous generation of life has not been proven. Furthermore, it's not likely to ever be proven. The theory suggests that the building blocks of life existed on earth some 4-Billion years ago - which hasn't been shown to be true. And, they must remaine stable for Billions of years so that the proto-life could be established. The earth is known to be a volatile place for billions of years - so this isn't likely.

There are several models suggested for spontaneous generation of life, none of which has yet synthesized a proto-cell; none has come close. Nor has any approached a workable hypothesis that identifies at which point in the process that a chemical process turns into sustainable life. Also, scientists have yet to discern the amino acids that “trigger” reproduction, awareness, but more important, self-awareness.

But, I'm repeating myself. See post 108

You're swatting at fleas with a hammer. Suppose you are able to turn a bucket of amino acids (goo) into some semblance of life. You still haven't shown “first cause.” See my post.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I'll hand out three questions this time.

---

I see that you are studiously avoiding the OP, and the issues raised there. I don't blame you. Trying to deal with those would be an absolute disaster for your point of view.

Where is the OSE for your belief that there is no God?

You did not tell us how life came to be.

And now that you raise the question - how did these various sub-atomic particles come to be?

As I've said I will address abiogenises but we need to answer some basics established first because we can debate the top of the pyramid if we disagree on what makes up its base.

I'm not avoiding the op question I'm establishing a base line for the discussing the first cell.

So is the answer yes to all 3 questions because if it is we can go on to other points or do you dispute any of the three?

I'll give the next question assuming you argee on the other 3.

Is it possible for organic compounds to form in the absence of life under any conditions? Things like fatty acids and nucleotides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

As I've said I will address abiogenises but we need to answer some basics established first because we can debate the top of the pyramid if we disagree on what makes up its base.

---

The point is that if you think that what you claim to be facts are true, it is for you to establish that they are true. Even if I did agree with you on all these points (and I don't), it would mean nothing because science is based on facts, not whether you can get three people on internet to agree. And if you think that getting three people to agree establishes a fact, then by the fact that anyone disagrees with one or more of your claims, your argument therefore would become false.

Quote:

---

I'm not avoiding the op question I'm establishing a base line for the discussing the first cell.

---

No you are not establishing a baseline. Establishing a baseline requires that you prove a factual basis for your claims - you have not done so. You are trying to hijack the thread, and avoid the OP.

You did not tell us how life came to be.

And now that you raise the question - how did these various sub-atomic particles come to be? How about neutrinos? Photons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

1.The fist question is on the age of the earth. Are we in agreement that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old give or take a billion it really doesn't matter but the question is do we agree that earth is really old? This is important because most theories of abiogenesis and evolution require this. So if this is debatable we need to discuss this first because without this large time frame evolution becomes less likely so we need to establish this first.

---

I've conceded this already

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

2.The next question assumes you all agreed on the age of the earth. Have the element that make up a cell been on earth since it first cooled and liquid water formed. Elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and iron.

---

Wikipedia would suggest the following composition:
Primary Methane, Ammonia , Water , Hydrogen sulfide , Carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide , and Phosphate , with molecular oxygen and ozone rare. Other sources would suggest that this is the current thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

3.Are you familiar with self replicating chemical reactions? These are molecules that replicate themselves as long as they have the raw elements that they are made of available and have an energy source or catalyst. Are you aware that these types of molecules exist and do you understand the basic principles behind how they work?

---

I understand the basic principles but I don't believe that conditions on the surface of the earth would have been stable for sufficient periods for life to have taken hold without a creator.

But in either case get on with your argument. Pare it down and spit it out; my attention span has already been stretched to the limit.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

I've conceded this already

---

I wouldn't. And indeed, even if it were true, if something cannot be shown to be feasible, adding any amount of time that one wishes will not help. Any accountant knowns that zero times anything is still zero. But athesist seems to thing that if you add a few billion years, it is like a wand and one need not apply normal; scientific principles for that timeframe.

I'm not buying that story. I expect that if he plans to use the magic billion year wand theory, that he validate how it can happen, and not just say "presto, after a billion years it happens". That is not science.

Quote:

---

But in either case get on with your argument. Pare it down and spit it out; my attention span has already been stretched to the limit.

---

My thoughts exactly. He seems to be trying to stretch it out as long as possible to distract from the OP, and I can understand how someone with his beliefs might wish to avoid the issue at hand.

If he has a point to make, then he should provide the evidence to demonstrate that his claims are factual. The validity of facts does not depend upon one or more people agreeing, but it does require validation that will withstand examination.

If your god does exist how did he/she/it come into being?
If this all powerful entity which can do wonders and miracles
Was created then a more powerful being/entitiy must have created it.
This then means a further being/entity even more powerful must have
Created that one and so on.
No doubt you will say your god has always existed, which is no answer, but a cop out!
A bit like the bible, full of inconsistancies and obvious contradictions.
Anyway, how do you know your god is the correct one? What about all the
Other religions. I don't mean judaism and islam as they worship the same god.
Why do we need people to interprate god's will, and they can't decide amongst
Themselves what that interpretation is, why doesn't he/she/it speak to us all without
Any ambiguous and meaningless fireworks?
It seems to me that religion is a great way of controlling people and fleecing them of their money etc. There are just too many gullable people in the world today!
I would suggest you avail yourselves of Prof Richard Dawkins' books and videos
Which will enable you to open your evolved eye and actually accept the world for what it is and not what you would wish it to be.
Davers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

If they don't reject God for a reason, then what you are saying by definition is that their belief that there is no God is not rational.

---

I didn't say that, you did. It's the same as saying there is a giant purple teapot in the sky, the fact that it has no bearing on my life doesn't mean I'm irrational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I didn't say that, you did. It's the same as saying there is a giant purple teapot in the sky, the fact that it has no bearing on my life doesn't mean I'm irrational.

---

I know that you did not say that, but for something to be rational, there must be a reason. That is the measing of the word "rational" - check it out. So if you are denying God without a reason, then that denial is not rational, by definition.

I also did not say that you are irrational. I said that your belief that there is no God is not rational if there is no reason for it. And again, for something to be rational, there must be a reason for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davers

If your god does exist how did he/she/it come into being?

---

God has existed from eternity.

If not knowing where God came from keeps you from believing in God, then tell me, how did electrons comes into being? Do you know? Do you believe that they exist? Or do you deny the existence of electrons because you don't know how they came to be?

How did life come to be?

Quote:

---

A bit like the bible, full of inconsistancies and obvious contradictions.

---

Years ago, I took on a lot of those cut and paste claimed contradictions that people got from websites on internet, and found none that held up to the light of day. I am speaking at a conference in 2 weeks on the very topic of whether the Bible is credible, and whether there are contradictions and inconsistencies!

But this is not the "let's attack Christianity thread". If you want to do that, or discuss these claimed contradictions, start your own thread. This one is to discuss the scientific evidence for the existence of a creator as indicated in the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I know that you did not say that, but for something to be rational, there must be a reason. That is the measing of the word "rational" - check it out. So if you are denying God without a reason, then that denial is not rational, by definition.

I also did not say that you are irrational. I said that your belief that there is no God is not rational if there is no reason for it. And again, for something to be rational, there must be a reason for it.

---

Ok. If this helps you be stronger in your beliefs than so be it. Have a great day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ok. If this helps you be stronger in your beliefs than so be it. Have a great day!

---

It does nothing for my beliefs for you to believe that there is no God. I am telling you the facts - look in your own dictionary if you don't believe me.

Ok. Bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ok. Bye.

---

Bye. Enjoy your weekend!

Back to the topic.

How did this animal come to be through natural means?

Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point is that you will never understand point E if you don't know points A B C D first. That's why I'm trying to find out what points you agree with and which you don't. As I said in the beginning though you apparently aren't interested in a debate or knowledge you just want to push your agenda.

If you would like to question one the question I've post so far please explain why you don't agree with it so we can have some where to start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

My point is that you will never understand point E if you don't know points A B C D first.

---

And my point is that if you hwant to establish something as a "fact", you need to put forward the basis for believing it to be fact. That is the scientific approach. If you believe some points need to be validated first, then put forward that point with the scientific validation.

Quote:

---

That's why I'm trying to find out what points you agree with and which you don't. As I said in the beginning though you apparently aren't interested in a debate or knowledge you just want to push your agenda.

---

Give up on the personal shots. They get you nowhere. Take the time to do your research and present a scientific based argument and stay on topic.

How do I know want I need to establish as fact if when I ask if you agree with something you don't answer?

I'm trying to determine where exactly are the weak points so we can debate those instead of wasting time on things we both take as fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

How do I know want I need to establish as fact if when I ask if you agree with something you don't answer?

---

If you don't know what the scientific basis is for your porposition, and thus what you need to establish as fact, don't expect others to know. You need to put forward your own argument, and do your own research.

Quote:

---

I'm trying to determine where exactly are the weak points so we can debate those instead of wasting time on things we both take as fact.

---

Then stop beating around the bush as Joe also suggested and come out with your theory. That is, BTW, the way that scientists do it. They lay their cards in the open on the table for peer review. They don't beat around the bush hiding what they are trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

How do I know want I need to establish as fact if when I ask if you agree with something you don't answer?

---

If you don't know what the scientific basis is for your porposition, and thus what you need to establish as fact, don't expect others to know. You need to put forward your own argument, and do your own research.

Quote:

---

I'm trying to determine where exactly are the weak points so we can debate those instead of wasting time on things we both take as fact.

---

Then stop beating around the bush as Joe also suggested and come out with your proposition.

Back to the topic.

How did this animal come to be through natural means?

Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what the scientific basis for the theories are the problem is YOU don't and if I was presenting theories to a group of my peers yes I could lay them out but your not a group of my peers. I don't know a single scientist who disagrees with the age of the earth. Yet you seem to think this is something that is debatable. I am trying to avoid you doing what you always do, where someone lays out a theory and you complain about one of the underlying principles instead of the actual theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I know what the scientific basis for the theories are the problem is YOU don't and if I was presenting theories to a group of my peers yes I could lay them out but your not a group of my peers.

---

I agree that you do not appear to be our peers with respect to science which is why I get a kick out of you trying to talk down to others while refusing to put forward your theory. Perhaps you are afraid to reveal any more about what you do or don't know about science.

Quote:

---

I don't know a single scientist who disagrees with the age of the earth.

---

Thus why it might be good for you to research the topic further. In any case, it would not matter because you first must establish that something which has not be proven to be able to happen at all can somehow happen if a lot of time is added it.

First prove that and then we will see if it even matters if the earth is young or old.

If you are not willing to lay out your theory, then stop wasting our time.

It does me no good to tell you that the pre-biotic environment contained fatty acids. That under a wide range of PH form stable vesicles and that vesicles are permeable to organic monomers but not polymers. So once a polymer forms in a vesicle it is trapped. Even if the vesicle gets divided the polymers are still trapped. Now if this vesicle got caught up in a convection cycle. Near the heat source the polymer stands will separate and the vesicle will increase it's ability to absorb monomers. As it cools the polymer stands will absorb the monomers and the cycle continues. To go from polymers in a vesicle to a life form is a matter of selection. Any vesicle that contains a polymers will absorb vesicles that don't contain as many polymers. So it becomes an advantage to have more polymers and because of this advantage vesicles with more polymers have an advantage over vesicles with less. That means complexity builds over time.

The reason we haven't been able to form life this way is a matter of numbers we don't have a laboratory the size of the earth or millions of years to show increased complexity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

It does me no good to tell you that the pre-biotic environment contained fatty acids. That under a wide range of PH form stable vesicles and that vesicles are permeable to organic monomers but not polymers. So once a polymer forms in a vesicle it is trapped. Even if the vesicle gets divided the polymers are still trapped. Now if this vesicle got caught up in a convection cycle. Near the heat source the polymer stands will separate and the vesicle will increase it's ability to absorb monomers. As it cools the polymer stands will absorb the monomers and the cycle continues. To go from polymers in a vesicle to a life form is a matter of selection. Any vesicle that contains a polymers will absorb vesicles that don't contain as many polymers. So it becomes an advantage to have more polymers and because of this advantage vesicles with more polymers have an advantage over vesicles with less. That means complexity builds over time.

The reason we haven't been able to form life this way is a matter of numbers we don't have a laboratory the size of the earth or millions of years to show increased complexity.

---

Nice try, but you completely ignore at least four issues:

1) You cannot even tell me what life is. It does not exist just because the chemicals are there, so it is not a chemical reaction. So if you cannot tell me what life is, you cannot tell me how to make it happen in one, ten, 100, or even 10 billion years. That is the magic wand theory, but it is not science. You have that simple math problem that zero times anything is still zero, and you cannot tell me how something came to be if you don't know what it is or how it comes about in the first place.

2) Even if I put aside the major problem that you have in #1, complexity may build over time, but in this case, for a simple single cell, you need to build several perfectly compatible complex systems simultaneously. And time is likely to be an issue, because none of the system does anything useful on their own.

3) You need to be able to tell me, step by step how these complex processes build over time. I don't buy the magic wand theory.

4) You tell me what the pre-biotic environment contained without any validation of that claim. Indeed, it would be interesting to see how you prove that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I don't buy the magic wand theory.

---

But yet that's your answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Nice try, but you completely ignore at least four issues:

1) You cannot even tell me what life is. It does not exist just because the chemicals are there, so it is not a chemical reaction. So if you cannot tell me what life is, you cannot tell me how to make it happen in one, ten, 100, or even 10 billion years. That is the magic wand theory, but it is not science. You have that simple math problem that zero times anything is still zero, and you cannot tell me how something came to be if you don't know what it is or how it comes about in the first place.

---

So if I take away your chemical input will you continue to live? No, you have to take in chemicals to continue to live. So life does exist because the chemicals are there. Life is a very complex chemical reaction it's that simple. You can deny it all you want but everything life does can be explained through different chemical reactions. No magic needed just science. Show me one thing life does that isn't a chemical reaction and I'll concede this one otherwise your just plain wrong.

Quote:

---

2) Even if I put aside the major problem that you have in #1, complexity may build over time, but in this case, for a simple single cell, you need to build several perfectly compatible complex systems simultaneously. And time is likely to be an issue, because none of the system does anything useful on their own.

---

Your assuming that all of these complex systems don't break down into less complex systems that break down into even simpler systems and in this case you would be assuming wrong. Please so one complex system that it's is impossible for it to be broken down into a simpler system or developed for some other purpose that could be broken down.

Quote:

---

3) You need to be able to tell me, step by step how these complex processes build over time. I don't buy the magic wand theory.

---

No I don't evolution is a proven fact. Even if we don't have A to Z. If we find 90% of the puzzle we can figure out what the picture is without the rest.

Quote:

---

4) You tell me what the pre-biotic environment contained without any validation of that claim. Indeed, it would be interesting to see how you prove that.

---

You didn't ask for that. In fact when I tried to establish that you complained I wasn't answering the questions. So now we are past that point. Regardless life formed so what ever life needed to get going was obviously there so if you want me to back to the beginning of the universe I will but you specifically asked how the first cell could form and I told you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

But yet that's your answer.

---

Show me the quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

So if I take away your chemical input will you continue to live? No, you have to take in chemicals to continue to live. So life does exist because the chemicals are there.

---

I will continue to live, though not in the flesh. But if you are speaking solely of the flesh, indeed without the flesh, the flesh cannot live. Just like without a car, you have nothing to put gas into. But the key is not whether the chemicals are able to exist, but what makes them alive.

Quote:

---

Life is a very complex chemical reaction it's that simple.

---

Really? I look forward to your proof of that claim.

Quote:

---

Your assuming that all of these complex systems don't break down into less complex systems that break down into even simpler systems and in this case you would be assuming wrong.

---

Then why don't you just show us how the first single cell could come about naturally. Making unsubstantiated claims is not proof.

Quote:

---

No I don't evolution is a proven fact.

---

Let's be clear what we are discussing. Micro-evolution (change within a species) has been proven, but macro-evolution has not. I know of very few secular scientists who would make such a claim, even if they believe in evolution. So you tell me that the very issue that we are asking to you validate, you refuse to validate because you think that it is a fact. That is a logic fallacy known as circular reasoning.

Quote:

---

Even if we don't have A to Z. If we find 90% of the puzzle we can figure out what the picture is without the rest.

---

So far you are essentially asking me to take it upon faith in your word.

Quote:

---

You didn't ask for that. In fact when I tried to establish that you complained I wasn't answering the questions.

---

I did not ask you for it until you brought it up. Once you bring it up, then it becomes a critical factor in your claim.

I see that you are trying to avoid all the tough questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

It does me no good to tell you that the pre-biotic environment contained fatty acids. That under a wide range of PH form stable vesicles and that vesicles are permeable to organic monomers but not polymers. So once a polymer forms in a vesicle it is trapped. Even if the vesicle gets divided the polymers are still trapped. Now if this vesicle got caught up in a convection cycle. Near the heat source the polymer stands will separate and the vesicle will increase it's ability to absorb monomers. As it cools the polymer stands will absorb the monomers and the cycle continues. To go from polymers in a vesicle to a life form is a matter of selection. Any vesicle that contains a polymers will absorb vesicles that don't contain as many polymers. So it becomes an advantage to have more polymers and because of this advantage vesicles with more polymers have an advantage over vesicles with less. That means complexity builds over time.

The reason we haven't been able to form life this way is a matter of numbers we don't have a laboratory the size of the earth or millions of years to show increased complexity.

---

Where is the link for what you state?

How do you get from fatty acids to nucleic acids [ genetic material ] and proteins [ what the genetic material is translated into ] ?

How did the first functioning genetic code happen? To be in a cell ? And that cell have the means [ amino acids, ribosomes ] to put that genetic code to use? Where did all the enzymes and proteins necessary for this genetic code to be used, come from and happen to be in the right cell at the right time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I will continue to live, though not in the flesh. But if you are speaking solely of the flesh, indeed without the flesh, the flesh cannot live. Just like without a car, you have nothing to put gas into. But the key is not whether the chemicals are able to exist, but what makes them alive.

---

I would like proof of your continued existence after your body dies.

Quote:

---

Really? I look forward to your proof of that claim

---

.

My proof is the fact that you can't name one process that life does that can't be broken down to a chemical reaction. This is on you to disprove I'm not going to name every chemical reaction that takes place. When you would only need to write down one that isn't in order to prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

Then why don't you just show us how the first single cell could come about naturally. Making unsubstantiated claims is not proof.

---

This is a hypothesis, I've said from the very beginning we don't have a complete theory yet. If we had proof we would have a theory as we do with evolution. You didn't ask for proof though you asked for a possible natural process of how a cell developed and I've given you one. The might be millions.

Quote:

---

Let's be clear what we are discussing. Micro-evolution (change within a species) has been proven, but macro-evolution has not. I know of very few secular scientists who would make such a claim, even if they believe in evolution. So you tell me that the very issue that we are asking to you validate, you refuse to validate because you think that it is a fact. That is a logic fallacy known as circular reasoning.

---

Your right macro-evolution doesn't exist. It's a term made up by fundies to mislead people that don't know anything about evolution. All evolution occurs through very minor changes that we have seen and observed. Macro Mico evolution assumes some barrier between species. Evolution doesn't claim this barrier that fundies have falsely put out there.

Quote:

---

I did not ask you for it until you brought it up. Once you bring it up, then it becomes a critical factor in your claim.

I see that you are trying to avoid all the tough questions.

---

I knew it was critical to my claim which was why I tried to establish it first. I am becoming more and more convinced of your troll status. When I answer the question you ask you divert the topic to something else. When I try to answer the diverted topic you complain I'm not answering the original question make up your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Show me the quote.

---

Do you believe in creation?

[QUOTE=Tj3;1351286]God has existed from eternity.

If not knowing where God came from keeps you from believing in God, then tell me, how did electrons comes into being? Do you know? Do you believe that they exist? Or do you deny the existence of electrons because you don't know how they came to be?

Actually we do know where electrons etc came from, they were formed after the big bang, we know that energy and matter are two sides of the same coin. However, not knowing an answer to a question doesn't automatically mean there must be a god.
I find it very difficult to understand why people still want to worship some middle bronze aged deity. At that time people didn't know what caused things to occur, e.g. lightening, thunder. They invented the idea of god(s) which could explain these naturally occurring events. No I didn't get the contradictions form any other source than the book itself. If you honestly think that it isn't full of contradictions and rubbish then you are either deluding yourself or are unable to read properly. This may sound (if that's the right term to use when you are typing) rude but I'm no diplomat, and when I see pure ignorance I speak out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I would like proof of your continued existence after your body dies.

---

I don't have to. That part is by faith. I am quite willing to stick to what we can assess scientifically in this discussion (as I said previously), so let's continue to look at the flesh, and let's see you substantiate your claims with regards to life in the flesh.

Quote:

---

My proof is the fact that you can't name one process that life does that can't be broken down to a chemical reaction.

---

I don't have to. The fact is that the chemicals alone are proven not to bring life. As someone else said, when a person dies, the chemicals are still there but life isn't - what changed? Why when the chemicals are created and put together, why is there no life resulting from the chemical reactions? Scientists around the world have been struggling with this question.

So I don't need to prove anything in this regard. You made the claim - the onus is on you to show us what life is and how it came to be.

Quote:

---

This is a hypothesis, I've said from the very beginning we don't have a complete theory yet.

---

You have not even provided a feasible hypothesis yet. You are talking a lot, but you seem to not want to discuss the details of your hypothesis.

Quote:

---

If we had proof we would have a theory as we do with evolution. You didn't ask for proof though you asked for a possible natural process of how a cell developed and I've given you one.

---

Where? I keep asking and you have talked about so many things and even said that until we went through the "20 questions" process you wouldn't talk about it.

Quote:

---

Your right macro-evolution doesn't exist. It's a term made up by fundies to mislead people that don't know anything about evolution.

---

Those people who don't know anything about evolution, in your opinion, must therefore include:

- Berkley University: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...finition.shtml

- Evolution and Nature of Science Institute at the Indiana University: Lesson: evolution mini-lesson: Macroevolution

- British Natural History Museum: Macroevolution

And I could go on and on. Again, if you spent half the time doing your research and addressing the issues rather than trying to avoid them or making derogatory comments about those who don't agree with you, you'd come across much better and would, I am sure, be putting forward a much more credible argument.

Quote:

---

I knew it was critical to my claim which was why I tried to establish it first.

---

You have not yet established it at all. When you first raised the topic, I asked for it and you refused - now you are avoiding it by saying you gave it already. Post #?

Quote:

---

I am becoming more and more convinced of your troll status. When I answer the question you ask you divert the topic to something else. When I try to answer the diverted topic you complain I'm not answering the original question make up your mind.

---

Look who's talking. I have been trying right from the start to focus you on the OP, and you have posted very few messages that even relate to it. So once again, stop attacking those who disagree with you, and put forward your hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davers

Actually we do know where electrons etc came from, they were formed after the big bang, we know that energy and matter are two sides of the same coin.

---

Nice try - but the big bang theory (which has not been proven either) says that all matter (that includes electrons) came together in a large highly compressed black hole that exploded. The electrons were already there, according to the theory.

So, once again, where did electrons come from? If you cannot answer that, do you still believe in the existence of electrons?

Quote:

---

However, not knowing an answer to a question doesn't automatically mean there must be a god.

---

Partly true - it depends upon what the question is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

So, once again, where did electrons come from?

---

They have been there for eternity.

[QUOTE=Tj3;1351944]Nice try - but the big bang theory (which has not been proven either) says that all matter (that includes electrons) came together in a large highly compressed black hole that exploded. The electrons were already there, according to the theory.




This does show that you know nothing of the origin of the universe. The big bang was not an explosion as in a bomb going off. It also wasn't a black hole or the like. The name big bang was coind by hubble to give an answer to his question as to why all the galaxies are moving away from each other and the further apart they are the faster they are moving.
You obviously believe in this god rubbish and I doubt any evidence will stop that, oh well it's your life to waste. However, tell me, how do you know you are right and all the other religions are wrong? What makes your god correct and say shebah incorrect? You cannot use a book that was written hundreds of years after the supposed events as proof because that was written by men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

They have been there for eternity.

---

Really? And your evidence for this is?