The creator did it.

[Audie]

What’s interesting and typical in the three videos is that each one of them scream intelligence and order. Do you notice that? Assumptions and speculation are so overwhelming how can any reasonable person take it seriously? To sum up, oh, and by the way, in the second video, Darwin’s citations acknowledged his doubts of his theory which plagued him throughout his remaining years.

The evolutionist/naturalists are only trying to convince their side that the immense intelligence of an omnipotent creator, namely the living God of the Bible (must specify that) who is the author of life, is being circumvented by trying to make impossible origins by natural processes sound feasible!

Every time evolutionists try to explain our world and all life, they must use words like, could be, might have, if the early earths atmosphere or conditions were this or that, this might be possible for meaningless, purposeless matter to become intelligent through chemical processes to create the vast and incomprehensible information in cells to build organisms upward into viable life both male and female able to reproduce their own kind! You seriously are unable to see this?

Here is a fact you will deny because it doesn’t fit your baseless religion. It is impossible for life to spontaneously generate from nonlife. Your last comment is beautiful!

“It is just hypocritical to totally depend on the reliability of science, and dismiss it only when it clashes with our beliefs.”

Let’s be clear here. We are talking about the context of the origin of life when you say “the reliability of science” The more science discovers, the more it must bend it’s knee to the reality of Intelligent Design and not some “Malfunction Junction” process. You continue, “So, unless you can demonstrate how you know that "God did it", and creation did not naturally occur, then you are simply just another flea biting the back of an elephant.”

Not only did the God decide to tell us about his creation through the Genesis account, the very science you hold so dear validates, or as you say demonstrates the staggering intelligence we see in all life forms! The feeble attempts always being put forth from you guys for the origins of viable reproducible life never changes, it’s always full of false speculation and wishful thinking. The truth of Gods creation surrounds you and yet you are unable to comprehend it which is why you continue to make these meaningless statements. No amount of evidence or truth will be enough for you because you are quite honestly, exactly what you describe, just another flea biting the back of the elephant!
I'd be interested in your ability to discredit these scientific facts in a reasonable way.
Creation - Evolution

Nobody sees behaviour as per your third paragraph
because you made it up.

 

[Audie]

What’s interesting and typical in the three videos is that each one of them scream intelligence and order. Do you notice that? Assumptions and speculation are so overwhelming how can any reasonable person take it seriously? To sum up, oh, and by the way, in the second video, Darwin’s citations acknowledged his doubts of his theory which plagued him throughout his remaining years.

The evolutionist/naturalists are only trying to convince their side that the immense intelligence of an omnipotent creator, namely the living God of the Bible (must specify that) who is the author of life, is being circumvented by trying to make impossible origins by natural processes sound feasible!

Every time evolutionists try to explain our world and all life, they must use words like, could be, might have, if the early earths atmosphere or conditions were this or that, this might be possible for meaningless, purposeless matter to become intelligent through chemical processes to create the vast and incomprehensible information in cells to build organisms upward into viable life both male and female able to reproduce their own kind! You seriously are unable to see this?

Here is a fact you will deny because it doesn’t fit your baseless religion. It is impossible for life to spontaneously generate from nonlife. Your last comment is beautiful!

“It is just hypocritical to totally depend on the reliability of science, and dismiss it only when it clashes with our beliefs.”

Let’s be clear here. We are talking about the context of the origin of life when you say “the reliability of science” The more science discovers, the more it must bend it’s knee to the reality of Intelligent Design and not some “Malfunction Junction” process. You continue, “So, unless you can demonstrate how you know that "God did it", and creation did not naturally occur, then you are simply just another flea biting the back of an elephant.”

Not only did the God decide to tell us about his creation through the Genesis account, the very science you hold so dear validates, or as you say demonstrates the staggering intelligence we see in all life forms! The feeble attempts always being put forth from you guys for the origins of viable reproducible life never changes, it’s always full of false speculation and wishful thinking. The truth of Gods creation surrounds you and yet you are unable to comprehend it which is why you continue to make these meaningless statements. No amount of evidence or truth will be enough for you because you are quite honestly, exactly what you describe, just another flea biting the back of the elephant!
I'd be interested in your ability to discredit these scientific facts in a reasonable way.
Creation - Evolution

Your link to thermodynamics and the
statement that ToE violatrs basic laws
of nature-

That one is among the moldiest of
pratts. Perhaps you are unaware?

But it is sort of funny. Your "god"
and creoism probably breaks every law
of nature other than maybe the law of
diminishing returns

You did not, btw, present "scientific facts"
against ToE. (Nobody has any, for one thing)

What you did do was drop a gish gallop,
a most predictable and shoddy cteo-ploy.

IF you understood some physics you could
state the issue in your own words- except then
you would understand enough to know there is no
issue.

But easy to link you to a site that will patiently
explain how ignorant and silly the thermo "argument"
is.

Maybe you want duelling websites, with neither
side read by or comprehensible to you?

Why not set up two computers, set them on
full auto and let them debate, no intelligence
requitred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What’s interesting and typical in the three videos is that each one of them scream intelligence and order. Do you notice that? Assumptions and speculation are so overwhelming how can any reasonable person take it seriously? To sum up, oh, and by the way, in the second video, Darwin’s citations acknowledged his doubts of his theory which plagued him throughout his remaining years.

There is not even a hint of "intelligence" being the cause. And order appears constantly in nature without intelligence. And you missed the point. Darwin's doubts were answered.

The evolutionist/naturalists are only trying to convince their side that the immense intelligence of an omnipotent creator, namely the living God of the Bible (must specify that) who is the author of life, is being circumvented by trying to make impossible origins by natural processes sound feasible!

Please, where is there evidence of this intelligence? All you can do is to scream and flap your seems wildly. If you understood the concept of evidence you would realize that you have not posted any yet.

Every time evolutionists try to explain our world and all life, they must use words like, could be, might have, if the early earths atmosphere or conditions were this or that, this might be possible for meaningless, purposeless matter to become intelligent through chemical processes to create the vast and incomprehensible information in cells to build organisms upward into viable life both male and female able to reproduce their own kind! You seriously are unable to see this?

We see this. It is because we rely on evidence. This tells us that you rely on blind faith. There is nothing wrong with that language. The fault lies with the people that cannot understand it.

Here is a fact you will deny because it doesn’t fit your baseless religion. It is impossible for life to spontaneously generate from nonlife. Your last comment is beautiful!

Watch the personal insults. Religion is your flaw. You appear to know It is a flaw since you used the term in a derogatory manner. Once again, science is evidence based. Your beliefs are faith based. You keep stating that life is impossible to from on its own. That is mere have flapping, do you have any evidence?

“It is just hypocritical to totally depend on the reliability of science, and dismiss it only when it clashes with our beliefs.”

Can you not see that that is what you are doing? You reject science when it clashes with your beliefs.

Let’s be clear here. We are talking about the context of the origin of life when you say “the reliability of science” The more science discovers, the more it must bend it’s knee to the reality of Intelligent Design and not some “Malfunction Junction” process. You continue, “So, unless you can demonstrate how you know that "God did it", and creation did not naturally occur, then you are simply just another flea biting the back of an elephant.”

If that was true you could support that claim. Meanwhile we can and have shown how question after question has been answered in the field of abiogenesis.

Not only did the God decide to tell us about his creation through the Genesis account, the very science you hold so dear validates, or as you say demonstrates the staggering intelligence we see in all life forms! The feeble attempts always being put forth from you guys for the origins of viable reproducible life never changes, it’s always full of false speculation and wishful thinking. The truth of Gods creation surrounds you and yet you are unable to comprehend it which is why you continue to make these meaningless statements. No amount of evidence or truth will be enough for you because you are quite honestly, exactly what you describe, just another flea biting the back of the elephant!
I'd be interested in your ability to discredit these scientific facts in a reasonable way.
Creation - Evolution

The only way that could be true was it God is a liar. Why do you keep insisting that your God is a liar? Why do you still believe in that God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Rapture Era , your link is worthless by the way. Not only has it been refuted a thousand times, to even work at the site that wrote it one must swear not to follow the scientific method. That makes any of their "scientific" claims of no value whatsoever.

 

[He has Risen!]

I am just posting this to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222


(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (chap.6) by John Willis (this book is a great resource), Zondervan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Manuscript P52 - CSNTM

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just posting this to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222


(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Zondevan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM

How does this support the "historical reliability" of the New Testament at all? Your dates are a bit older than most recent scholarship, for example Mark, the oldest of the Gospels is thought to have been written between AD 65 and 75:

When was the Gospel According to Mark Written?

Serious scholars do not seem to think that any of them are "eyewitness testimony". What makes the Gospels historically reliable? Being written more than a generation after the fact hurts their reliability. Luke's error with the date of the Census of Quirinius sinks his Nativity story. The contradictions between Luke's and Matthew's Nativity tells us that both can't be right, but both can be wrong.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How was he ever shown to be a fraud?

You apparently know very little about what you espouse:

“In the interests of forthrightness, one point must be conceded straight out: Haeckel's embryo drawings have no place in textbooks except as an example of how erroneous ideas can get tacked onto important truths and perpetuated even after being debunked...”

Icon of Obfuscation


Were you being dishonest, or really didn’t know?

Either way, it doesn’t bode well for your credibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You apparently know very little about what you espouse:

“In the interests of forthrightness, one point must be conceded straight out: Haeckel's embryo drawings have no place in textbooks except as an example of how erroneous ideas can get tacked onto important truths and perpetuated even after being debunked...”

Icon of Obfuscation


Were you being dishonest, or really didn’t know?

Either way, it doesn’t bode well for your credibility.

What are you talking about? How do you think that link supports your claims?

You do not appear to understand how Haeckel was right and how he was wrong. I understand why they put Haeckel's drawings in textbooks (hint they are not used as "proof of evolution").

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So, when we speak of abiogenesis, why is it so hard to see how the natural forces(chemical evolution) could have driven the creation of life?

Yeah, very hard. Lol.

Here’s just one issue:
DNA requires proteins to form, then to function.
Yet, proteins are built by DNA.

And RNA (outside a lab, ie., intelligent design) doesn’t replicate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, very hard. Lol.

Here’s just one issue:
DNA requires proteins to form, then to function.
Yet, proteins are built by DNA.

And RNA (outside a lab, ie., intelligent design) doesn’t replicate.

You fail to understand how RNA replicating in a lab is not intelligent design.

 

[Rapture Era]

Nobody sees behaviour as per your third paragraph
because you made it up.

But it's true!

 

[Rapture Era]

Your link to thermodynamics and the
statement that ToE violatrs basic laws
of nature-

That one is among the moldiest of
pratts. Perhaps you are unaware?

But it is sort of funny. Your "god"
and creoism probably breaks every law
of nature other than maybe the law of
diminishing returns

You did not, btw, present "scientific facts"
against ToE. (Nobody has any, for one thing)

What you did do was drop a gish gallop,
a most predictable and shoddy cteo-ploy.

IF you understood some physics you could
state the issue in your own words- except then
you would understand enough to know there is no
issue.

But easy to link you to a site that will patiently
explain how ignorant and silly the thermo "argument"
is.

Maybe you want duelling websites, with neither
side read by or comprehensible to you?

Why not set up two computers, set them on
full auto and let them debate, no intelligence
requitred.

Yes, also let the computers make little computers.
What do you have to offer in this thread besides, well, nothing?

 

[Rapture Era]

You fail to understand how RNA replicating in a lab is not intelligent design.

Yes Hockycowboy! You fail to understand!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes Hockycowboy! You fail to understand!

Actually he probably does understand how he fails. He has been roundly refuted on this matter many times.

If you don't understand how he failed I will go over the failure of creationists in this matter with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, also let the computers make little computers.
What do you have to offer in this thread besides, well, nothing?

Projection again. How many times have you claimed "impossible" and never been able to support your claims. Meanwhile you appear to have no interest in learning how we know that abiogenesis appears to be more than possible.

 

[Audie]

But it's true!

It is true that you made it up, sure, so move on.

 

[Audie]

Projection again. How many times have you claimed "impossible" and never been able to support your claims. Meanwhile you appear to have no interest in learning how we know that abiogenesis appears to be more than possible.

You explain the 2LOT thing to him, you've more patience. Maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You explain the 2LOT thing to him, you've more patience. Maybe.

If asked I will give it a shot.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You fail to understand how RNA replicating in a lab is not intelligent design.

No, the failure is yours...creating lab-controlled conditions, requires intelligence. They even call it, "forced adaptation".

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the failure is yours...creating lab-controlled conditions, requires intelligence. They even call it, "forced adaptation".

Wrong again. This only shows a lack of understanding, at best, of what the scientists are doing in the lab. They are trying to replicate early Earth environments. One cannot replicate abiogenesis naturally today since existing life will consume the various precursors to life. The only way to test it is in a laboratory.