Do creationists have anything new?

[Reggie Miller II]

"And for him to assume anything about me without knowing me indicates his desire for sarcasm and hatred of his mother and father without regard for the truth."

.

Skwim, one only needs to read a few of your posts to feel your disdain for God. Yes, it is that obvious.

 

[Skwim]

'We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” ~ Gene Roddenberry

Absolutely!

.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim, one only needs to read a few of your posts to feel your disdain for God. Yes, it is that obvious.

First, it's important to keep in mind that this is god as Christians make him out to be.
Secondly, within this context, in many cases he's earned it. Using Thumper's quote of Gene Roddenberry, "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes" and looking at it truthfully, why wouldn't someone have disdain for such a god? It's like breaking your son's leg and then blaming him for not running to the store for milk. Think people should admire, approve, and respect you for blaming him? You may think so, but to me it's a disdainful thing to do.

.

.

 

[Reggie Miller II]

First, it's important to keep in mind that this is god as Christians make him out to be.
Secondly, within this context, in many cases he's earned it. Using Thumper's quote of Gene Roddenberry, "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes" and looking at it truthfully, why wouldn't someone have disdain for such a god? It's like breaking your son's leg and then blaming him for not running to the store for milk. Think people should admire, approve, and respect you for blaming him? You may think so, but to me it's a disdainful thing to do.

.

.

Skwim, I do not seek the approval of men.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim, I do not seek the approval of men.

Gooood grief!

.

.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Um......exactly how does that validate your claim that there are more scientists "for creation than evolution now"?

Real scientist have only ever claimed theory of evolution. They know that evolution cannot be proved.
The man mentions take information from scientific papers and reports to prove his points that it is creation no evolution.
May be you should look up his teachings and also the papers he quotes as support.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Skwim, one only needs to read a few of your posts to feel your disdain for God. Yes, it is that obvious.

Atheists don't have disdain for gods. Nor for Marvel or DC Comics characters. It's pretty hard to get worked up about Santa Claus or Batman.

 

[Derek500]

Yeah, and most Christians accept evolutionary theory. I think that Reggie Miller II has been left behind in the real world.

A relict of the past.

 

[Derek500]

This one was funny.

I realize that you are already aware of the following, but I wanted to spell it out: There will be no irreducible complexity in biological systems if there is no intelligent designer, .. .

Actually, in 1909, a great evolutionary biologist predicted so-called irreducibly complexity based on what was evolutionary theory in those days. Without Spooks involved.

You guys are waaaaaay behind the times.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This one was funny.

It Aint Necessarily So said: "I realize that you are already aware of the following, but I wanted to spell it out: There will be no irreducible complexity in biological systems if there is no intelligent designer"

Actually, in 1909, a great evolutionary biologist predicted so-called irreducibly complexity based on what was evolutionary theory in those days. Without Spooks involved.

You guys are waaaaaay behind the times.

That's funny to you? It's obviously correct.

 

[Jose Fly]

Real scientist have only ever claimed theory of evolution. They know that evolution cannot be proved.
The man mentions take information from scientific papers and reports to prove his points that it is creation no evolution.
May be you should look up his teachings and also the papers he quotes as support.

Who specifically are you talking about?

 

[RESOLUTION]

Who specifically are you talking about?

How many scientist do you know claim they know where the first life came from?
You have your answer in the answer to that question.

 

[Thumper]

How many scientist do you know claim they know where the first life came from?
You have your answer in the answer to that question.

2 points:

1. That's biochemistry, not biology, so it is outside the scope of the biological theory of evolution.

2. We don't have a definitive answer for biogenesis yet, and neither do you. But "poof, god did it" is not any kind of answer.

 

[RESOLUTION]

2 points:

1. That's biochemistry, not biology, so it is outside the scope of the biological theory of evolution.

Was God a living being when created life?
As no one knows where the first life came from but the fact God did it... then really you cannot use the argument of biochemistry or biology regarding the life force. For the life force did not evolve which was my point that evolution does not exist.

2. We don't have a definitive answer for biogenesis yet, and neither do you. But "poof, god did it" is not any kind of answer.

The only possible answer if you have studied the science of man.
Why do you bandy words around of subjects you can only have limited knowledge about?
We are no different as you are not a scientist you have to accept on faith what scientist tell you.
You could never hope to explain and prove to anyone what you have read.

Biogenesis is not yet a proven fact.

Has man has no evidence and nothing to support evolution are far as the life force. Then all you have written is worthless in the great scheme of things.

 

[Thumper]

Was God a living being when created ....

So you're not here to have any sort of meaningful adult discussion. You're just here to rant.

I'm glad we got that straight right away.

 

[Jose Fly]

How many scientist do you know claim they know where the first life came from?
You have your answer in the answer to that question.

You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

 

[gnostic]

Gooood grief!

.

Oh...I just love this smiley.

Ha!

 

[gnostic]

The only possible answer if you have studied the science of man.
Why do you bandy words around of subjects you can only have limited knowledge about?

That's funny, because I was going this same question to you.

You apparently don't know much about evolution.

And it is clear to me that you are clueless about abiogenesis.

And, yet you feel the needs to debate about something that you really have limited understanding about them.

Evolution is not abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is not evolution...and if you can't understand this, then why do you even bandy words on subjects that you don't know anything about.

 

[RESOLUTION]

That's funny, because I was going this same question to you.

You apparently don't know much about evolution.

I do! I know enough to know the famous cop outs and the fact that you too, could find the knowledge I found if you looked and had an open mind.

And it is clear to me that you are clueless about abiogenesis.

No! just don't get drawn into useless arguments/debates.
You could also talk about the hypothesis of panspermia that life somehow came to the earth from out of space.
Another theory by scientist. Do you know no new life forms have ever come from nothing since the creation?
Do you know no other life come here from outer space hence the two theories do not work together.
It is about knowing the theory and knowing why it does not work. You can find out too. I don't intend to educate you
in these matters.

And, yet you feel the needs to debate about something that you really have limited understanding about them.

Cop out not being drawn in.

Evolution is not abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is not evolution...and if you can't understand this, then why do you even bandy words on subjects that you don't know anything about.

We all know that life cannot come from no life. It is impossible.
I do not care what you think. Because I know you have no way of proving abiogenesis.

It is called clutching at straws.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

as you are not a scientist you have to accept on faith what scientist tell you.

As you sit at your computer confidently typing away with the secure belief that your words will be read hundreds and thousands of miles away by others at their computers, do you believe by faith that the electronics and information scientists know what they're talking about, or do you have some evidence that they do?

How about the ones that gave us engines and motors, sent man to the moon and back, lit up the night, gave us real-time global communication, and developed effective vaccines against polio and smallpox. Can you find any evidence that supports believing them?

How can you miss it and say that there is no support for such belief except to believe it on faith the way some people believe in gods or astrology? Those are faith based beliefs, by which I mean unjustified belief. My opinions about science and scientists are justified by the past performance and brilliant successes of this method lengthening life, making it healthier, safer, more comfortable, and more interesting.

I don't need to be a scientist myself or even to have much understanding of science to recognize that such people know what they're talking about and that their opinions should be heeded when they approach consensus. Cutting edge science not so much. That requires further vetting.