[asking]

So if we claim that god made the first cell but then evolution happened then you would consider evolution a complete valid theory? odd...

Cool!

[Tj3]

And you are arguing that it's scientifically easier to account for the creation of an invisible, entirely undetectable, all powerful God than a single mushy cell?

There is evidence of the existence of God, so yes. Note how you and your buds are completely unable to come up with even a feasible guess of a way for the first cell to come about?

[asking]

There is evidence of the existence of God, so yes. Note how you and your buds are completely unable to come up with even a feasible guess of a way for the first cell to come about?

I don't have any buds. It's a personal matter, but I don't reproduce asexually. Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone else you know? Anyway, there's lots of stuff on biogenesis, as I suspect you know. You are using a well known argument technique called diversion; if you can't win a point in an argument, you change the subject. The fact remains that no one needs to prove exactly how the first cells came into existence in order to know that dinosaurs once walked the face of the Earth.

I'm off to dinner.
Cheers,
Asking

[michealb]

There is evidence of the existence of God, so yes. Note how you and your buds are completely unable to come up with even a feasible guess of a way for the first cell to come about?

Did you watch the video?

[Tj3]

Did you watch the video?

Yes, and it is hard to believe that you seriously intended this as a defence. It was so full, of assumptions and strawman arguments. Very few if any of the statements made in that video are claims made by those opposed to evolution, and the few that are have twisted the statements to make them easier to defend.

I have not yet questioned whether some of the chemicals could exist in nature. I asked how the first living cell came to be.

A question that remains unaddressed.

[Tj3]

I don't have any buds. It's a personal matter, but I don't reproduce asexually. Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone else you know? Anyway, there's lots of stuff on biogenesis, as I suspect you know. You are using a well known argument technique called diversion; if you can't win a point in an argument, you change the subject.

I have been on this point, the same point since I came into this thread. A point that was being discussed prior to my arrival.

Instead of attacking me for sticking to a point that so far has not been addressed by your side, why not just be forthright and admit that there is no answer.

[michealb]

We have been saying we don't have a solid answer on how the first cell came about for 3 pages now. What we are saying is that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that portion of biology. You keep maintaining that if a theory doesn't explain everything that lead up to what the theory explains you can't have a good theory. Which means since we haven't figured out the beginning of the universe yet. We can't teach children any science theories what so ever.

You are pushing an agenda you don't care about science you only care about pushing your religion on other peoples children.

[asking]

We have been saying we don't have a solid answer on how the first cell came about for 3 pages now. What we are saying is that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that portion of biology. You keep maintaining that if a theory doesn't explain everything that lead up to what the theory explains you can't have a good theory. Which means since we haven't figured out the beginning of the universe yet. We can't teach children any science theories what so ever.

You are pushing an agenda you don't care about science you only care about pushing your religion on other peoples children.

Yeah.

I have nothing to add to this. But this captures my sense of where this has been going.

[Credendovidis]

There is evidence of the existence of God, so yes.

Than what is that evidence of the existence of god than? I have never seen any Objective Supported Evidence towards that claim. Neither have you ever provided any Objective Supported Evidence towards that claim. So please provide that Objective Supported Evidence towards the existence of god at last...

All you so far have done on WeTellYou, Answerway, or AMHD is making empty unsupported claims!

As soon as YOU provide that Objective Supported Evidence towards the existence of god, it is not more than fair for those who are called here "evolutionists" to expand their support for their views.

But I won't hold my breath, as I already know your answer...

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

We have been saying we don't have a solid answer on how the first cell came about for 3 pages now. What we are saying is that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that portion of biology. You keep maintaining that if a theory doesn't explain everything that lead up to what the theory explains you can't have a good theory. Which means since we haven't figured out the beginning of the universe yet. We can't teach children any science theories what so ever.

You are pushing an agenda you don't care about science you only care about pushing your religion on other peoples children.

Michaelb,

For a person who so far has simply attacked those who disagree and has failed to deal with the science, I find you reference to science humourous. Heck you even attacked me for having a scientific background!

And I note that you twisted once again what I said. I never said anything about the need to have a "solid" answers regarding the first cell. I stated that if you cannot even come up with a feasible guess, then you also don't have a feasible theory. I never said that the theory must "explain everything". Please stop mis-representing me.

The truth is that the theory of evolution has no answer for the first cell.

If you have no feasible explanation for the first cell, just concede that point.

[Tj3]

Than what is that evidence of the existence of god than? I have never seen any Objective Supported Evidence towards that claim.

John, if you knew how good of a laugh you gave me with that. It's get funnier the more than make that claim. I just cannot imagine why anyone would want to deny that they have not seen something which they have seen so ogften unless it is that they studiously want to avoid it.

I presume that bringing it up once again here is to help your friends by distracting from the problems with the theory of evolution.

[Credendovidis]

To Michaelb .... I stated that if you cannot even come up with a feasible guess, then you also don't have a feasible theory.

Total nonsense, Tom Smith!

You can be an expert builder without ever knowing how a brick is constructed. As long as you know how to lay bricks properly.

You can be an expert electrician without ever knowing what an electron actually is, or how it is constructed inside (if it has an inside). As long as you know what you can do and not do with that electron.

You can be an expert in evolution without knowing how that first cell developed. And the Evolution Theory is a valid scientific theory without the need for inclusion of how that first cell came into being. Evolution is about CHANGE from the first cell to the next cell(s) and lifeforms. How that first cell developed is for sure interesting to find out, but t is not relevant to the Evolution Theory itself.

And you can be an expert in religion without ever supporting your BELIEFS with any format of OSE.
But what you can not support without BELIEF are your religious ideas themselves.
All you can (and you did) is boasting that you can prove the existence of God, but if called to supply that proof you have to sidestep, and backup with steer waste and little lies.

John, if you knew how good of a laugh you gave me with that. It's get funnier the more than make that claim. I just cannot imagine why anyone would want to deny that they have not seen something which they have seen so ogften unless it is that they studiously want to avoid it. I presume that bringing it up once again here is to help your friends by distracting from the problems with the theory of evolution.

That's what I expected you to post. Babble, but no Objective Supported Evidence towards the existence of god. Because your misplaced haughty ego withholds you from admitting that there is no such Objective Supported Evidence, although you promised to supply that, and lied about having ever supplied that...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

[Tj3]

Total nonsense, Tom Smith!
You can be an expert builder without ever knowing how a brick is constructed. As long as you know how to lay bricks properly.

You can be an expert electrician without ever knowing what an electron actually is, or how it is constructed inside (if it has an inside). As long as you know what you can do and not do with that electron.

Being a tradesperson has no co-relation to studying the theory of evolution. Even in science, a person does not need to know all aspects of an area to study it, but that does not deny the need for those other aspects of the topic to be known.

Rather than trying to find ways of avoiding the issue, why not simply admit what is abundantly obvious - there is no answer to the question that I have asked.

[Credendovidis]

Rather than trying to find ways of avoiding the issue, why not simply admit what is abundantly obvious - there is no answer to the question that I have asked.

Funny ! That is just the thought I had about your evasive reply regarding your statements on the OSE for the existence of god.
Why don't YOU simply admit that you can't supply that?

:D

·

[Tj3]

Funny ! That is just the thought I had about your evasive reply regarding your statements on the OSE for the existence of god.
Why don't YOU simply admit that you can't supply that?

:D

·

John,

I got a laugh when I first saw your tagline ""Credendovidis" translates into "I believe it as soon as I see it !"", because every time that I posted something in the past which disagreed with what you wanted to believe, you did one of two things - claim that you did not see it, or go after me. Now have a look at all your posts in this thread. :D No matter how many times something was posted, one of your first responses was to claim to not see it.

Why should I waste my time when you will simply deny that you see it. Why do you try to distract from the question at hand?

I think that we know.

Now we are discussing the scientific basis for evolution, and I am sticking to the science of the issue - staying on the topic.

Tom

[michealb]

For a person who so far has simply attacked those who disagree and has failed to deal with the science, i find you reference to science humourous. heck you even attacked me for having a scientific background!

I pointed out that you saying you have scientific background adds nothing to the debate.

Maybe if you would present some evidence to support your outlandish theories maybe I'd have something else to discuss.

[Tj3]

I pointed out that you saying you have scientific background adds nothing to the debate.

It is fascinating. First you complained that I would be mis-leading "young educated people", and then when I point out that I have scientific education, you attack me for saying that, claiming that scientific education adds nothing.

Fascinating.

Maybe if you would present some evidence to support your outlandish theories maybe I'd have something else to discuss.

You keep accusing me of using religion against science (which I have not yet done), but rather I am sticking strictly with science.

My outlandish theories? I am looking for the mounds of evidence that your side claims for evolution. So far on the first stage of the creation process, we have come up with not so much as a feasible guess, let alone any evidence.

Now, instead of constantly trying to make demeaning comments about me, why don't you defend your theory using science? Or is that harder than attacking your opponent?

Do you actually feel that there is a scientific basis for your theory of evolution? If so, then why won't you stand and defend it on the basis of the scientific evidence?

[michealb]

The problem is that you don't look at the evidence presented so it doesn't matter what I post. There will never be enough evidence for evolution for your standards. Like I said if you would put half of the standards for truth that you apply to evolution towards your own religion we wouldn't be having this debate.

[Smoked]

There will never be enough evidence for evolution for your standards.

I think this goes both ways.. just saying.

[Smoked]

Btw- I have opted to stay on the sidelines of this circular argument until some real headway is made towards the topic.