Despite what you think, there are only 2 possiblities to answer the question of the origin of life. This question makes the whole evolution/creation argument a complete waste of time. Either life can be generated by a set of circumstances, or it is wholly the creation of a Supreme Being. Think deeply about this. Consider the reality that we see today. Has anyone ever observed the spontaneous generation of life? Or is this something that has never been seen or re-created in a lab?

The evidence that we have today is that life cannot be generated spontaneously. Evolutionists build their case from a baseless foundation. And most of you people, who have little to no education regarding evolution cling to it simply because you do not like the idea that you will be held accountable for your actions.

Has anyone ever observed the spontaneous generation of life? Or is this something that has never been seen or re-created in a lab?

The evidence that we have today is that life cannot be generated spontaneously.

life consists of atoms, clumped together into molecules.

all of the atoms currently being used by life existed on earth before life started to use them.

where has anybody proved that atoms could not possibly spontaniously clump into the molecules that form life ?

life consists of atoms, clumped together into molecules.

You do realize this is inadequate, right? Inanimate objects consist of atoms as well but do not live.

all of the atoms currently being used by life existed on earth before life started to use them..

I'll agree to this, but it has no impact over the spontaneous generation vs creator argument.

where has anybody proved that atoms could not possibly spontaniously clump into the molecules that form life ?

1. It's never been observered in the natural world.
2. It's never been performed in an experiment.

Do you also suspect that pigs can fly just because it hasn't been proven otherwise? I'm not trying to belittle you, I just want to show you where your logic is flawed in the argument. If you're not serious, I understand.

You do realize this is inadequate, right? Inanimate objects consist of atoms as well but do not live.

not exactly, it is not as though there was a definite dividing line between live and not alive down at the virus level, which is where the first life would have formed from inantimate molecules.

down at the molecular level life is simply a solar powered chemical chain reaction {with the probable exception of deepsea thermal vent powered reactions ;) }


I'll agree to this, but it has no impact over the spontaneous generation vs creator argument.

yes, but it is a requirement for spontanious generation, wheras god could just wave his magic wand to create the atoms as well as organising them into lifeforms.




1. It's never been observered in the natural world.
2. It's never been performed in an experiment.

Do you also suspect that pigs can fly just because it hasn't been proven otherwise? I'm not trying to belittle you, I just want to show you where your logic is flawed in the argument. If you're not serious, I understand.

that actually was a trick question, because the chemicals of life HAVE been spontaniously generated in the labratory, the only thing keeping labs from allowing life to assemble itself is that it takes a lot of tries to get a specific complex chemical combination to spontaniously clump up and waiting for it to happen gets boring.

Well, we could also be jus the immagination of some ridiculous being
Or we could have been made by ridiculously superior computers haha. But yeah your right. I personallity believe in evolution

false

debunked decades ago


I'm sure there are resources that can be read into that say the same thing about the bible, I'll try to find some when you are unbanned, which should be a while I hope.

1. It's never been observered in the natural world.
2. It's never been performed in an experiment.



But, using that same logic, you can discount Creationism... It's never been observed, and it's never been performed in an experiment. It's all theoretical, and, until whatever "Supreme Being" did it pops in and explains it, it will remain theoretical... That's why faith is called faith.

Despite what you think, there are only 2 possiblities to answer the question of the origin of life. This question makes the whole evolution/creation argument a complete waste of time. Either life can be generated by a set of circumstances, or it is wholly the creation of a Supreme Being. Think deeply about this. Consider the reality that we see today. Has anyone ever observed the spontaneous generation of life? Or is this something that has never been seen or re-created in a lab?

The evidence that we have today is that life cannot be generated spontaneously. Evolutionists build their case from a baseless foundation. And most of you people, who have little to no education regarding evolution cling to it simply because you do not like the idea that you will be held accountable for your actions.
Only 2? Only interested in One. There is no god. Question answered.

look at lightning bolts.

what created the first lightning bolt ?

was it possible that all the stuff for a lightning bolt just got together in the EXACT formation required for a lightning bolt to strike ?

we understand lightning, and are understanding more about it every moment.
but we don't know exactly what happened at the instant of the first lightning bolt.

I see no need to postulate a angry god to cast it.

same thing with life, so far there is no part of life that requires an angry god for it to continue.
we see lightning bolts happening when it is ripe for lightning, not when an angry god uses supernatural powers to bend reality to his imperial will.

life is an ongoing lightning bolt moving energy from here to there.

Actually, Mr I don't reply to PMs, the negative charged isotopes that form the pillar from the ground and touch the sky are from gods footsteps. And I thought you knew everything.

sorry, I don't grok pming, or aim, email is emergency messeging when lots of detail is needed in hardcopy.

{I did so too reply, it's just, pming feels so very gay sortof, like I want to wash my hands AFTER typing instead of before kind of thing, I just don't like it. probably too much jerry springer fan praise of "meetin' people on the internet".}

this here is arguin', and a whole 'nother matter.

ok, gods footsteps...
a godly golden collar, with matching golden chain grounding god, tapdancing electricity into the grid, say 100 years of being grounded for each infant who ever died of brain cancer.

if god exists, and is a just god, he will provide the jewlry.

repost, but

so far you unbanned aren't all that much more fun than you banned.

so what caused the original spark is a pretty worthless question, far from an "Ultimate Question" it is more a fiddly nit-pickey bring the discussion to a halt for no good reason kind of question.

we don't need to worry about what exactly caused the first spark of life any more than we need to worry about what exactly caused the first lightning bolt.

or the first ocean wave, or the first snowflake.

if there are a billion possibilities we want to know them ALL, because knowlege is power, and fear is the beginning of wisdom.

no, strike that last, fear sucks.

Hoyle was forced to conclude "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics", as well as with chemistry and biology. Another scientist, Paul Davies, who once promoted atheism, wrote:

OK, that's great. So somebody made a conclusion. There is still no hard proof, it's all theory, and it is all FAITH. I am not swayed by what other people conclude happened, I am not convinced by someone else's opinion.

What amazes me is how easily you are swayed by opinion, at least as long as it goes along with your FAITH.

sorry, I don't grok pming, or aim, email is emergency messeging when lots of detail is needed in hardcopy.

{I did so too reply, it's just, pming feels so very gay sortof, like I want to wash my hands AFTER typing instead of before kind of thing, I just don't like it. probably too much jerry springer fan praise of "meetin' people on the internet".}

this here is arguin', and a whole 'nother matter.

ok, gods footsteps...
a godly golden collar, with matching golden chain grounding god, tapdancing electricity into the grid, say 100 years of being grounded for each infant who ever died of brain cancer.

if god exists, and is a just god, he will provide the jewlry.

lol you are something else. I hardly care of your personal problems. And I am sure you can handle yourself, huh? I promise I wont send a pic of my cawk for you to caress later. jesus.

Alright. So God isn't expected to wear any jewelry. Especially a form of a golden calf. So delete the collar. And besides, God really is bowling when we hear the thunder. the lighting are the strikes.

this isn't just the average joe's opinion, kevin...if you're going to make a decision based on consensus, I'd like to have a few of these guys in the room vs. a collection of people off the street

this makes me think about the movie 'Circle of Iron' in which our hero seeks the Book of Knowlege in which the answer to all the really big questions can be found, the pages are mirrors so what is looking back out of the book is you.

very zen, or something.

the folks you quote are seeing themselves reflected in the universe and YOU cult has so brainwashed them that they cannot see that it is their reflected image they see but instead they believe it is someboidy else, like you tell them it is over and over.

so when Einstein looked into the heavens he saw HIMSELF arranging everything into the perfect order that he found waiting for him.

this isn't just the average joe's opinion, kevin...if you're going to make a decision based on consensus, I'd like to have a few of these guys in the room vs. a collection of people off the street

OK, but you'll take any Christians' opinion over any non-Christians', no matter the credentials. Perfect example: My expertise in Blood Banking vs. that hodge-podge bullshit from AIG. I'm 100% right, they are 100% wrong, and you're blind.

complete nonsense....you don't have the SLIGHTEST clue what the background of anyone quoted is, where do you come up with this crap?

pretty much every one of them spoke english as his first language
every english speaking land is HEAVILY infiltrated by christianity.

are you saying that none of them ever heard of jesus and the cross, or noah and the ark, or moses and the red sea ?

every child who is raised speaking english knows about god up in the sky who spends all his time watching everything.

so having that cultural conditioning kick in from an unexpected direction is no way a stretch.



and now you're trying to speak for what went on inside Einstein's head? are you completely insane?

what, you think Einstein knew what the back of his head looked like ?
ok, the hair would be a givaway.

but he EXPECTED god to look jewish, 'huh, I really WAS made in his image' sort of thing.


the point is that finding order in "random chaos" is a primary function of our intellegence, the more intellegent you are the more order you can find.

there is no inherent order in reality, ALL order is a mental construct of ...US.


{ok, that last bit is a bit bendy. ;) }

Consider the reality that we see today. Has anyone ever observed the spontaneous generation of life? Or is this something that has never been seen or re-created in a lab?

The evidence that we have today is that life cannot be generated spontaneously.


what do you want to see the lab do ?

we can chop up DNA from one form of life and make an entirely different form of life.

we can make DNA from elemental chemicals.

is there a step in the creation of life that is missing ?

right now we are working on the problem of organising the possible recipes of DNA so we can describe what we want and the computer churns out the code for the new DNA string.

the only need for our intellegence is to choose a specific recipe from the vast array to suit our desire.


we can cure this cursed flesh.

Has anyone ever observed the spontaneous generation of life? Or is this something that has never been seen or re-created in a lab?

Your very premise is flawed. Argumentum ad ignorantiam et ad logicam.

RNA can be made from a collection of chemicals. It is possible that, given a specific set of conditions, RNA formed naturally.

RNA-based life has been proven, and quite probably lead to DNA-based life.

"Spontaneously" means to happen without apparent external cause, or self-generated. Since there are defined circumstances required to create RNA, and it requires specific chemicals, it is not "spontaneous generation of life".

No, actually, we can do that.

DNA synthesis is creating new shit as we speak.

As for the spontaneous generation of life: Its kind of hard to do because just about everything is tainted with life of some sort. Also, why would someone waste money and time on trying to make life when they could be using resources to make life better?

He said "different form of life", meaning something that looks different from other things. They are, as we speak, working on things that cross kingdom and phylum.

I'm sure we'll soon see a mouse that photosynthesizes. I'd call that a "different form of life".

define "new shit"

new "species", sure...new kinds of life, no

there are limits to speciation....definitive limits...otherwise genetic havoc results

there actually seems to be a difference of opinion here, based on looking at genetics in two radically different ways.

I have tried to see it the creationist way and have so far failed.

a creationist postulate seems to be that ONLY the forms of life created by god ARE POSSIBLE. if god did not create it it is NOT POSSIBLE to create it through genetic manipulation.

this seems based on the fact that DNA has spent millions of years running THROUGH uncountable possible DNA combinations and has settled on some really good recipes through trial and error.


would you {yzf} care to try to explain the problem without reposting any icr stuff that I have already read ?

the foundational evidence y'all seem to rely on is that we don't YET understand the DNA "code" and so are yet unable to create new code that will produce 'something new under the sun'


what is it that makes it impossible for us to do this thing ?

a belief best characterized as...

...lab tested fact.

I have data on my side, you've got an interpretation of a translation of a book that predates any knowledge of RNA.

OK, but you'll take any Christians' opinion over any non-Christians', no matter the credentials. Perfect example: My expertise in Blood Banking vs. that hodge-podge bullshit from AIG. I'm 100% right, they are 100% wrong, and you're blind.

What Mark, can't deny this?

...lab tested fact.

I have data on my side, you've got an interpretation of a translation of a book that predates any knowledge of RNA.

And the fact that lab based replication of DNA happens every single day. :)

Mark, what is DNA, exactly? We'll see how well you answer this to go on to the next part of our lesson.

the blood types stuff again? are you going to stand before God and tell him the Bible is wrong because of that?

No, Mark, read and comprehend:

OK, but you'll take any Christians' opinion over any non-Christians', no matter the credentials. Perfect example: My expertise in Blood Banking vs. that hodge-podge bullshit from AIG. I'm 100% right, they are 100% wrong, and you're blind.

This isn't about telling God the Bible is wrong, this is about ME SAYING YOU WILL ACCEPT ANY CHRISTIANS' OPINION OVER ANY NON-CHRISTIANS' OPINION, EVEN IF IT IS DEMONSTRABLY WRONG.

Pay attention, and stop trying to twist away from the point. Answer the point.

And what is the composition of DNA, Marky?

(good job on the google cut-n-paste...)

no, I won't, kevin....I will never question or challenge anything provable by empirical science (not fantasy land extrapolation of science/fact)

Hello, it is medical FACT, proven by years of RESEARCH that all the human blood types could NOT have originated from two people. It is IMPOSSIBLE. You just don't want to accept it because it goes against the fantasy story of Adam and Eve, which, by the way, is about as believable as Athena springing from the head of Zeus.

editing my post count in increments of 50 now, kevin? ;)

Nah, just 25. Sometimes 100, depends how much whoring you do.

God creating a human being from dirt is also impossible, humanly speaking

Mark, what if someone says they believe in Jesus, and the God of the Bible, but don't believe that the Bible is 100% historically accurate... Does that make the person a believer or a non-believer? What if someone says, "I believe in God, I believe Jesus died for my sins and was resurrected, but the whole creation thing, Adam from dirt, Eve from his rib... That's just not believable." Are they condemned to hell for that?

elephants can fly, too....in a fantasy world

Yeah yeah. I demonstrate how spontaneous generation is the improper definition of what's occurred, and you still think the argument is about spontaneous generation of life.

The ironic thing is, you go on to cut'n'paste items that discuss RNA, which has been shown to form from otherwise 'non-living' compounds - thereby proving my point and torpedoing your own.

do you want more cut and paste? I don't have this stuff memorized

DNA is a long polymer of simple units

good enough.

the fact that it is made of a few simple chemicals shows that DNA itself IS NOT COMPLEX.

all the stuff the creationists write about DNA being so incredibly complicated that it is impossible for it to form by random chance is purely bunk.

you stir up the base chemicals and DNA happens, the base chemicals are found everywhere in the sea and air, so no wonder at all that DNA erupted everywhere on the planet.

note that DNA can GET complex, if you assign meaning to specific sequences of the simple componants of the chain, but the chain molecule of DNA remains exactly as simple a structure as it was before you assigned a meaning to it.

so, a question I asked of a Believer in ID, is it possible to have a DNA molecule with NO Information in it whatsoever ?

if yes, then DNA can be a simple naturally occurring chain molecule, and there is nothing remarkable in such a common molecule forming in the right circumstances.

creationists seem constrained to say no, imparting some ill, or un, defined mystical quality to it.

it is that bit of magic I would like hauled out into the light, where gods fear to tread, for examination of technique and critique of style.

I've shown it to you multiple times on the other forum, goldfish-memory...

the chemical construction is not complex, per se,

exactly.

the chemical is simple, nothing special, everyday stuff.

it occurs in nature.


but the function is very complex and highly orchestrated,
the interesting effects changing the arrangements of the simple small chemicals has on reality has NOTHING TO DO with the formation of the chemicals, except to note that reality really seems to LIKE producing those chemicals.

all the magic is in the "information", none in the actual clay.

sure you have, darwin propaganda breath

produce your sources

:rofl:

'darwin propaganda breath'... you're that desperate, huh.

If molecules-to-man is ever completed successfully in an independent lab with likewise blind tasters, I shall detonate myself. Hock patooey. Until then, may Calvin be understood (peace and blessings be upon him).

but it's not "magic"...it's a supremely wise Designer...the elegant and simple construction of DNA bears the same handiwork of the God who created the universe, with it's elegant and simple Laws

fine, that means that the way god crafted the form of the atoms meant they would inevitably fall into the shape he decreed in their construction.

that shape being DNA.

so looking at it from this direction it is obvious that DNA HAD to happen naturally because the form of the carbon atom made it inevitable.

no god needed to guide the atoms into place, they just fall naturally into that configuration, like a snowflake. * .

so, again, the origin of that first DNA snowflake is of purely intellectual, to a paleochemist, interest.

god didn't NEED to do anything after he created all the atoms in the big bang. at which point evolution commenced.

and Who created the C atom? :)

that's sorta my point, "who created the atom" is NOT the same question as "how did life start".

physics instead of chemistry.

god yields to evolution.

which is really saying that god is skilled enough to program in evolution in only six days, how long the program takes to run ??? god doesn't have to wait through it, he can zip ahead and bask in the sweet savour of roasting sinner children.


this is a major honegod revelation....so you believe God exists?

you do, and now you should believe he doesn't exist as far as biology goes, because it really is just chemistry.

properly programmed every miracle would be a natural occurance with the precise timing being the beauty of it, the magic.

perfectly hiding god from the profane.

he can zip ahead and bask in the sweet savour of roasting sinner children.

over half of humanity as an eternal living Burnt Offering to god.

:bowdown: :screwyou:

over half of humanity as an eternal living Burnt Offering to god.

:bowdown: :screwyou:

Honegod,

If there is a God, and he created us, and we chose to disobey him, do we not deserve his punishment?

If there is a God, and he created us, and we chose to disobey him, do we not deserve his punishment?

if, and, and, yes, we do not deserve his punishment.


to be worthy of , to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital.

we chose to disobey him

this is the tricky bit, for him to be able to rightfully punish me he must first establish his authority.
I must recognise his authority, and I must understand his orders. THEN I can make an accountable decision on whether to obey his order or do something else.

your god fails at the establishing his authority part, a book of fairytales does not establish command.

watch the movie "Zulu" note the change of command ceremony when Color Sergant Bourne shifts Command to the new Officer.

up 'till that moment CS Bourne could NOT have been punished for disobeying the Officer in Command, because that Officer had not established his Command.

once command was established it was the responsibility of the Officer to give clear orders.

your god fails at giving clear orders.

multiplied thousands of books are written by men yzf admires trying to make sense of the book of orders claimed to be from the Commander.
none of them agree, and considering the koran versus the bible, not just the interpretation of the orders is in question, but the orders themselves are in question, as is the Command Authority that issued them.

do watch Zulu.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men

neither does a lightning bolt establish the authority of any particular book of fairytales.

what wrath of god is being revealed ?

give me an instance that is NOT found solely in any book of fairytales.

Romans 1 is not speaking of eschatologhical wrath per se, although it will culminate in that

epidemics such as AIDS are also a natural outworking of the wrath of God imo, because God designed everything and set the Laws...when these Laws are violated, there are consequences


The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

Suggestions for eschatologhical:
1. eschatological
of or relating to the end of the world or the events associated with it

a belief concerning death, the end of the world, or the ultimate destiny of humankind; specifically : any of various Christian doctrines concerning the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, or the Last Judgment .


nope, just some common wrath that is intended to establish god as a source of wrath / authority.

aids doesn't get it because evolution explains its existance nicely with no need for any fairytale.

besides, nice people get it too, not just the despicable fags.

oh, the dictionary bit is not a dig {much ;)} I recently installed a right click menue option to lookup selected words, I like it it gives us a possible common definition of potentially contentious words.

note: I am NOT playing the 'proof by dictionary' game, just submitting what I see as acceptable agreeable definitions to reduce confusion.

the extra "h" was a typo, of course

for all I knew it was a new variant of the old word with a new and different meaning that would have changed what you wrote dramatically.

anyhow, no, I am not talking about any future terrorist acts your god plans to commit, I am wondering about the CURRENT acts of wrath that identify the god of the bible as the source of judgement for the immoral acts of mankind.

is it all stuff like aids and 911 and the tsunami that require the holy spirit to show the hand of god hidden behind them or is there actually anything he personally does where his hand can be seen clearly by anyone without special favour or intercession ?


The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

natural disasters happen during the course of natural events in a cursed world, not necessarily some specific Divine judgement

right, sort of the cosmic background radiation of hate, constantly raining down on cursed mankind to keep us in a consistant state of misery...

as proof that god so loved the world that his son needed to be tortured to death.

naaw, same thing as Black Sabbath being accused of devil worship for singing songs ABOUT satan.

YOUR god is hatefilled and is the source of all human misery according to YOUR religion.

according to YOUR religion this world is nothing more than a test to see how well the chosen few can put up with mistreatment and abuse of power by YOUR god.

see the book of job for an explicit example.

since when does "testing" = "hate filled"?

are professors all hate filled?

according to YOUR religion this world is nothing more than a test to see how well the chosen few can put up with mistreatment and abuse of power by YOUR god.

a test by a professor is something to see how well you have learned what has been taught.

a 'test' by god is pulling wings off flies to see what they do.

mistreatment?

shall I post pictures of mutilated children who suffer as a direct result of gods game of disinformation ?

what part of his children being kept in a constant state of RELIGIOUS warfare does not constitute mistreatment ?

when the teacher lies to the class, gives them false textbooks to study, and then punishes them for giving the wrong answers on the test.

fallen implies 'tripped and fell' where fallen means "pushed into quicksand".

it's a fallena and cursed world

"fallena" never heard of this word, and its not in the dictionary.
Care to elaborate there skidMarked?

O LORD, You deceived me, and I was deceived; You overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me. Whenever I speak, I cry out proclaiming violence and destruction. So the word of the LORD has brought me insult and reproach all day long (Jer. 20:7-8).