[Tj3]

And I have seen you suggesting that same misrepresentation of reality time and time again...

Well, if you deny it, that tells me more about you as a person.

No personal attacks, Tom. I just will remind you again and again of your own uninvited promise to supply OSE for the existence of god.

As I did.

Now, if you want to join the discussion, then do so, if not then please note that you are off topic.

[Tj3]

EXACTLY WHY YOU SEE I DROPPED OUT OF THIS MYSELF!

I understand very well.

It is interesting that it is nigh on impossible to get evolutionists to discuss the scientific basis for evolution. Quite telling actually.

[Alty]

Going to cut in here. I admit I don't know allot about science, nope, not my subject at all.

As a believer in God I can honeslty say that I also believe in Evolution. There's too much proof of Evolution, and though I hate to admit it, none if any that God actually created the earth, other than what's written in the bible.

My belief, that both Science and God had a hand in creating the earth, but that's just my belief, don't ask me to back it up, I can't.

[N0help4u]

I believe God 'used' what we call science to create the universe. While I believe the Bible basically I also think Christians take a good bit of it out of context yet at the same time science IS in the Bible. I do not believe in evolution from a single cell etc...

[Tj3]

Gonna cut in here. I admit I don't know allot about science, nope, not my subject at all.

As a believer in God I can honeslty say that I also believe in Evolution. There's too much proof of Evolution, and though I hate to admit it, none if any that God actually created the earth, other than what's written in the bible.

My belief, that both Science and God had a hand in creating the earth, but that's just my belief, don't ask me to back it up, I can't.

I used to be an evolutionist because I believed, as some of the folk on here do, that the scientific evidence was un-deniable. That was before I took the time to examine it in detail. Once I did, I was shocked at what the evidence actually indicated. Too often book and displays intended for the non-scientific community are not presenting scientific evidence, but rather the interpretation of one or more persons without stating the numerous assumptions that have gone into that interpretation.

The problem with that is that when it is presented as fact, most people believe that what they are reading is in fact proven by the evidence, when in fact many of the most critical details have in fact no evidence whatsoever to validate them.

The reason that I started looking into this topic in more detail at the time was to be better prepared to defend evolution when debating the issue with fellow Christians who opposed evolution. What I found went in a much different direction than I anticipated, and I believe that it is important to follow truth, even when it heads in directions that are contrary to whgat you currently believe.

[Tj3]

I believe God 'used' what we call science to create the universe. While I believe the Bible basically I also think Christians take a good bit of it out of context yet at the same time science IS in the Bible. I do not believe in evolution from a single cell etc.....

I am amazed at how well science and the Bible agree.

[N0help4u]

I am amazed at how well science and the Bible agree.

Yep

Science and the Bible

And Maury 'discovered' underwater sea currents BY reading the verse in Psalms

[Credendovidis]

Now, if you want to join the discussion, then do so, if not then please note that you are off topic.

Not off topic at all. Tom : my posts are about YOUR OWN unwillingness to supply evidence for God's existence based on arguments referring to evolution and religion. So on topic in "Evolution" (or "Origin of the Universe") and religion.

See your own post on SUPPOSED OSE for God's existence here ! (LINK)

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

Not off topic at all. Tom : my posts are about YOUR OWN unwillingness to supply evidence for God's existence based on arguments referring to evolution and religion. So on topic in "Evolution" (or "Origin of the Universe") and religion.

See your own post on SUPPOSED OSE for God's existence here ! (LINK)

:rolleyes:

·

So you have found one of my posts (no doubt you have done some edits), so when you said that you did not see my posts, you were not being honest!

Perhaps you should try answering some of the questions. If you remember, before we started the discussion, we all agreed that there were two options, either creation was by God or by natural causes (no doubt you will deny that now :D ), so now you have absolutely no reason or excuse for refusing to provide answers (as you have in the past).

I look forward to your answers!

[Credendovidis]

So you have found one of my posts (no doubt you have done some edits), so when you said that you did not see my posts, you were not being honest!

Not true Tom. As usual you are twisting the truth . I took me a lot of time finding your posts on Answerway. All I did was retrieving and reposting it here. I did not do any editing other than deleting some misspelling and references to others on Answerway.
Once again you show with such statements your own approach and subsequent mistrust for others who however do not cheat .
You are just measuring my corn with your bushel...

... If you remember, before we started the discussion, we all agreed that there were two options...

No Tom : you decided yourself that that was so. Why would I and others agree with your logical fallacy ?

... either creation was by God or by natural causes

There is no reason for (religious) creation Tom. Creation is not more than a religious claim.

... so now you have absolutely no reason or excuse for refusing to provide answers (as you have in the past).

But I have provided answers to every point you made, Tom. Several times in fact. And every time (at least 10) all you did was reposting "Blindness is no excuse" and a repeat of your list.

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

Not true Tom. As usual you are twisting the truth .

John, I wonder sometimes if you remember what the truth really is.

No Tom : you decided yourself that that was so. Why would I and others agree with your logical fallacy ?

John, you'd argue to the death to avoid appearing to be wrong no matter what. As you see by other comments on here, people know you and how you behave.

But I have provided answers to every point you made, Tom. Several times in fact. And every time (at least 10) all you did was reposting "Blindness is no excuse" and a repeat of your list.

Good, then if you have answers you should have no problem posting them as well. I look forward to seeing them!

Now that you have another thread for that topic, let's keep this one on topic moving forward shall we, and we can keep the discussion of those other questions on that thread.

[Tj3]

Okay, not that we hopefully have the distraction out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand.

So far I have not seen anyone post a feasible manner by which life comes from non-living substances, and some folk are even saying that they don't want to deal with this as part of the theory of evolution (even though it is critical).

So we will move on from Question 1 and just leave it that evolutionists have no answer.

Okay guys, let's move on to step 2. Since you want to start with life having already existed, this should be much easier for you.

Question 2: Describe this first living cell.

[N0help4u]

Hmmm maybe he answered that?

What I want to know is how the first living cell evolved and
How humans developed/evolved

Reply #3 never really did state any more than cell structure in the reply though.

[Credendovidis]

John, I wonder sometimes if you remember what the truth really is.

A good guideline to what you call the "truth" is to start with doubting whatever you state to be the "truth"...

John, you'd argue to the death to avoid appearing to be wrong no matter what. As you see by other comments on here, people know you and how you behave.

All I have is a clear opinion. An opinion you disagree with. The difference between us is that I clearly state and reason my views, while you focus on innuendo and posting "misrepresentations of reality", Tom.

Now that you have another thread for that topic, let's keep this one on topic moving forward shall we, and we can keep the discussion of those other questions on that thread.

This topic is about "Evolution" or "Origin of the Universe" and religion. So far you yourself have pushed it completely into the evolution corner.

Your list is about "Evolution" in your religious support of OSE for god's existence. So it can be discussed here just as well. It is completely on topic here !

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

A good guideline to what you call the "truth" is to start with doubting whatever you state to be the "truth"....

John I am not interested in your continued abuse of this thread and its users.

[Tj3]

hmmm maybe he answered that?

What I want to know is how the first living cell evolved and
how humans developed/evolved

reply #3 never really did state any more than cell structure in the reply though.

I have a much more detailed drawing of what a cell is like. It appears no one on here can provide a feasible guess as to how non-living substances became living.

Now if this diagram is what John thinks that the first cell looked like, that is an immense leap from a bunch of chemicals to a very organized structure.

I am trying to go through this a step at a time to see which steps these experts in evolution on here can provide feaible explanations for.

[Credendovidis]

John I am not interested in your continued abuse of this thread and its users.

So I am in YOUR continued abuse of this thread and its users.

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

I have a much more detailed drawing of what a cell is like. It appears no one on here can provide a feasible guess as to how non-living substances became living.

Now if this diagram is what John thinks that the first cell looked like, that is an immense leap from a bunch of chemicals to a very organized structure.

I am trying to go through this a step at a time to see which steps these experts in evolution on here can provide feaible explanations for.

Let's see if John can explain how non-living substances turned into a living single cell.

[Credendovidis]

Let's see if John can explain how non-living substances turned into a living single cell.

I'll see to that tomorrow. I'm now off to horizontal mode for a couple of hours...

:D

·

[N0help4u]

Now if this diagram is what John thinks that the first cell looked like, that is an immense leap from a bunch of chemicals to a very organized structure.

EXACTLY! I agree and it seems like an immense leap of faith to believe in a bunch of chemicals to a very organized structure. I also have yet to see Cred0 answer and as you can see we are all the way up to reply #200 and still haven't gotten an answer when Cred0's Original post topic clearly states all you have to do is ask.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: