Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Hieronymus]

Don't you? Or will we simply be able to fly without them?

No i don't believe in DNA writing purposeful code by itself.
Let alone gradually,implying incomplete (not working) systems to dominate the gene pool.
Humans do fly without wings, we designed and manufactured flying machines.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No i don't believe in DNA writing purposeful code by itself.
Let alone gradually,implying incomplete (not working) systems to dominate the gene pool.
Humans do fly without wings, we designed and manufactured flying machines.

I never said they had to be our own wings...

 

[Subduction Zone]

No,the evidence shows otherwise, or let's say that a different scenario (the Biblical one) is supported by the evidence.

The let's see it. Please, only valid sites, creationist sites tend to lie, let's see the the peer reviewed article that you base this claim upon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No there weren't.

But wait a minute!! By your mythology -- you have to then "imagine" that those "thousands of people" were meticulously wiped out!! Yes EVERY STRAIN that does not have the ONE mitochondrial Eve and the ONE y-chromosome Adam magically deleted to get the present outcome!!!


What a horrific leap of blind faith!!!

What makes you think that? Those people simply died as people always do. You don't seem to understand what these two individuals were. When you don't understand something you should ask questions. You should not come to ridiculous conclusions.

A "trick" not very unlike the trick for getting dirt to turn into rabbit.

Blatantly obvious flaw in the blind faith religion we know of as "evolutionism" which is as noted previously "the worst of all choices, the worst of all risk, the worst of all benefits"

Please, try to be honest and polite. Let's use proper terms. I don't call creationists "creatards" even though there is ample reason to do so, you should not call people that accept reality "evolutionists". And people that accept reality do not base their acceptance on faith. In fact all you did was to insult your own faith by imply that faith is a flaw, I agree with you there, but my beliefs are not based upon faith. They are based upon evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

No there weren't.

But wait a minute!! By your mythology -- you have to then "imagine" that those "thousands of people" were meticulously wiped out!! Yes EVERY STRAIN that does not have the ONE mitochondrial Eve and the ONE y-chromosome Adam magically deleted to get the present outcome!!!

What a horrific leap of blind faith!!!

A "trick" not very unlike the trick for getting dirt to turn into rabbit.

Blatantly obvious flaw in the blind faith religion we know of as "evolutionism" which is as noted previously "the worst of all choices, the worst of all risk, the worst of all benefits"

Bob, you seem to be under the impression that we're (by which I mean anyone who accepts naturalistic explanations for the beginnings and diversity of life) somehow dogmatic in what we believe. That is wrong and you should disabuse yourself of such ideas if you want to be taken seriously. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have which fits in with the evidence we can gather by examining the world around us, however, if a better explanation presents itself the TOE will be discarded or adapted. I'd suggest that it's your blind faith that's clouding your thinking.

 

[Astrophile]

But wait a minute!! By your mythology -- you have to then "imagine" that those "thousands of people" were meticulously wiped out!! Yes EVERY STRAIN that does not have the ONE mitochondrial Eve and the ONE y-chromosome Adam magically deleted to get the present outcome!!!

What a horrific leap of blind faith!!!

You have misunderstood this. All of us are descended from mitochondrial Eve in the female line, and from Y-chromosome Adam, in the male line.

But there were other women besides mitochondrial Eve and we are descended from them as well, but not only in the female line. These women had only sons, who didn't pass on their mother's mitochondrial DNA, or
only grandsons, or only great-grandsons, etc. The same applies to males. There were other men besides Y-chromosome Adam, and we are descended from them, but not purely in the male line. These men had only daughters, or only grand-daughters, great-grand-daughters, etc., who didn't inherit a Y-chromosome from their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, etc.

You should be able to see that all of us have only one chain of ancestors in the female line and only one in the male line, but there are innumerable chains that include both male and female ancestors. There is no need for 'meticulous wiping-out of thousands of people; all one needs is for some women to have sons but no daughters, and some men to have daughters but no sons, a common enough situation.

 

[BobRyan]

You have misunderstood this. All of us are descended from mitochondrial Eve in the female line, and from Y-chromosome Adam, in the male line.

As it turns out -- that as "my point".

But there were other women besides mitochondrial Eve and we are descended from them as well, but not only in the female line. These women had only sons, who didn't pass on their mother's mitochondrial DNA, or
only grandsons, or only great-grandsons, etc.

All of those sons that had children passed on the mitochondrial DNA of their mothers - without exception. Unless you could "imagine" that all families from non-mitchondrial Eve only had sons who married nobody, or who married the women from only the ONE Mitochondrial Eve -- or had no children at all.. what a pile of "just so" story telling and ALL of it - "because evolutionism NEEDS it"!!!

Such fantastic "just so" story telling is the sort of business that blind faith evolutionism "is made of".

 

[BobRyan]

You should be able to see that all of us have only one chain of ancestors in the female line and only one in the male line, .

But for ALL both male and female to be pointing to just ONE mitochondrial eve -- as the 'END RESULt' denies the existence of the many thousands of peer "eves" that evolutionism so loves to "imagine" for us.

 

[BobRyan]

The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have

Only true if you start with the apriori bias of atheism.

It is like saying "there are no engineers so this computer could only have evolved".

But the simple facts are - a pile of dirt (no matter how large) will never produce a rabbit --

Admitting to such basic facts - fits in with the evidence we can gather by examining the world around us,


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As a seeker, you know I am more than open to the possibility a deity/deities exist, but without evidence for it, .

"As if" you had evidence that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse... but have no evidence that the various systems built into the horse happened by design and not by "direction as dictated from a predecessor pile of dirt". Thus your claim is hard to take seriously.

And given that the "risk" in that "a pile of dirt is the mastermind behind living systems" mythology - is that the Word of God - is true "instead" and the lake of fire is the doom for those who reject the Gospel, it is "more than merely reasonable" to take up the Christian Gospel and try out the 'way of escape' -- instead of clinging to the "pile of dirt" mythology.

You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.

It's also a discussion about events (presumably) in the real world --

Indeed and in the real world - rabbits do NOT come from a pile of dirt... neither do horses.

All such mythology - simply fails the test of the "real world".

I couldn't agree more; all such mythology fails the test:

That's a bit more objectivity than one can normally expect from evolutionists. I affirm your bold step forward.

The fact that "dirt" will not turn into a rabbit is a hard pill to swallow for many evolutionists.

The fact that an artist can take a pile of dirt and paint a rabbit -- also seems to surprise them as if it is the same thing as dirt itself turning into a rabbit.

Man - (engineers) - take raw elements from the earth - and make a computer.

But the pile of dirt - does not go forth and seek to make a computer on its own.

This is more than a little obvious to most of the non-evolutionists on this board.

Which gets us back to the OP.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"As if" you had evidence that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse... but have no evidence that the various systems built into the horse happened by design and not by "direction as dictated from a predecessor pile of dirt". Thus your claim is hard to take seriously.

We do have evidence that supports our claims and there is no evidence for "design". That is one of the main reasons that the creation side lost the Dover trial.

And given that the "risk" in that "a pile of dirt is the mastermind behind living systems" mythology - is that the Word of God - is true "instead" and the lake of fire is the doom for those who reject the Gospel, it is "more than merely reasonable" to take up the Christian Gospel and try out the 'way of escape' -- instead of clinging to the "pile of dirt" mythology.

Again, you lack both evidence and reason in this claims. You are also using an inappropriate description of the science that you hate. This is not a good debating technique.

You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.

Again, using strawman arguments is dishonest. A Christian should not do so.

Indeed and in the real world - rabbits do NOT come from a pile of dirt... neither do horses.

All such mythology - simply fails the test of the "real world".

Correct, they are the product of evolution. And since you are the one that believes in myths your complaints about mythology is highly ironic.

That's a bit more objectivity than one can normally expect from evolutionists. I affirm your bold step forward.

The fact that "dirt" will not turn into a rabbit is a hard pill to swallow for many evolutionists.

The fact that an artist can take a pile of dirt and paint a rabbit -- also seems to surprise them as if it is the same thing as dirt itself turning into a rabbit.

Man - (engineers) - take raw elements from the earth - and make a computer.

But the pile of dirt - does not go forth and seek to make a computer on its own.

This is more than a little obvious to most of the non-evolutionists on this board.

Which gets us back to the OP.

So you have nothing but strawman arguments. Is it any wonder that reasoning people laugh at creationists?

 

[PsychoSarah]

"As if" you had evidence that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse... but have no evidence that the various systems built into the horse happened by design and not by "direction as dictated from a predecessor pile of dirt". Thus your claim is hard to take seriously.

That is not what abiogenesis claims occurred, and it most certainly has no connection with evolution. To summarize: abiogenesis involves organic molecules, primarily proteins, organizing themselves over times into units capable of replicating themselves, which ultimately grew larger and more complex until the result was the first living organism. Chemically, not only is this possible, but multiple conditions can stimulate and maintain the process.

Also, the process predates what is conditionally considered "dirt". However, I am not trying to convince you that abiogenesis is a valid theory at all. I couldn't care less if it is or not while participating in a debate about evolution. It's a nonsequitur.

And given that the "risk" in that "a pile of dirt is the mastermind behind living systems" mythology - is that the Word of God - is true "instead" and the lake of fire is the doom for those who reject the Gospel, it is "more than merely reasonable" to take up the Christian Gospel and try out the 'way of escape' -- instead of clinging to the "pile of dirt" mythology.

As a seeker, I obviously am not clinging to that. Not consciously, anyways. Ironic that you call it a "pile of dirt" mythology, given that you believe that a deity created the first human literally out of dirt. If you really want to talk about abiogenesis, this is not the subforum for it, and you need to be more well-informed about it. Furthermore, my position on the matter is not going to change because of the reward of heaven or the threat of hell "just in case they exist" because what I find to be true isn't so strictly under my control that I could change my mind for that reason. At most, I would be fully aware of constantly lying to myself, and that is not the kind of belief I seek.

You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.

No, because that would be spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. Furthermore, you don't even know if I support abiogenesis or not, and you are just assuming I do because I am an atheist. Besides correcting people on what abiogenesis theory is actually about and what evidence does exist for it, I will never try to convince people that theory is an accurate representation of reality. I might convince people that it is possible, though.

Indeed and in the real world - rabbits do NOT come from a pile of dirt... neither do horses.

Duh, but that isn't what abiogenesis theory claims happens, so it's irrelevant to even talking about that theory, let alone evolution.

The fact that "dirt" will not turn into a rabbit is a hard pill to swallow for many evolutionists.

Nah, but the fact that people seem to think that is what abiogenesis claims occurs probably incites more than a few sighs and headaches.

The fact that an artist can take a pile of dirt and paint a rabbit -- also seems to surprise them as if it is the same thing as dirt itself turning into a rabbit.

What? Weird choice of drawing material, although I have seen some artworks made that way. Still, since when would painting a rabbit out of dirt be the same as making a living, breathing bunny out of dirt? Even if abiogenesis claimed such a thing happens (which, it doesn't, and any insistence that it does shows you weren't willing to do any sort of research or fact-checking on your part), this statement of yours would not make sense.

Man - (engineers) - take raw elements from the earth - and make a computer.

But the pile of dirt - does not go forth and seek to make a computer on its own.

Computers will always be artificial, because the chemistry of metals is not the same as carbon and other components of organic molecules. However, it is possible that, with the right conditions, silicon based life could form, perhaps. That's the closest to a non-artificial computer you are going to get, aside from the life we already see around us.

This is more than a little obvious to most of the non-evolutionists on this board.

Which gets us back to the OP.

Of course the people with the same position as you are likely to feel that certain interpretations are intuitive and obvious. That's nearly a prerequisite for agreeing with another person, and is pretty much required if they have matching reasoning. Feeling that your position is "obviously correct" doesn't mean it is.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Correct.
You think they will grow wings though?

Unlikely, given that we have airplanes and other devices that eliminate all selective pressure for that trait. In fact, since we adapt so much through technology, human evolution from this point on is likely to be very slow, like a coelacanth.

 

[BobRyan]

PsychoSarah said: ↑
As a seeker, you know I am more than open to the possibility a deity/deities exist, but without evidence for it, .

"As if" you had evidence that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse... but have no evidence that the various systems built into the horse happened by design and not by "direction as dictated from a predecessor pile of dirt". Thus your claim is hard to take seriously.

And given that the "risk" in that "a pile of dirt is the mastermind behind living systems" mythology - is that the Word of God - is true "instead" and the lake of fire is the doom for those who reject the Gospel, it is "more than merely reasonable" to take up the Christian Gospel and try out the 'way of escape' -- instead of clinging to the "pile of dirt" mythology.

You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.

That is not what abiogenesis claims occurred, and it most certainly has no connection with evolution.

Now there is a nice bit of fiction - who ELSE argues the abiogenesis angle - other than blind faith evolutionists.

Oh no wait! - you were just about to argue that the God of the Bible exists - created the entire universe, came here and created bacteria ... then left. (no -- in fact you were not going to go there ... as we both know).

To summarize: abiogenesis involves organic molecules, primarily proteins, organizing themselves over times into units capable of replicating themselves

Because we see proteins doing this all the time in the lab - organize themselves into self-replicating molecules then become bacteria then turn into amoeba... then onward and upward to "rabbit"!

Yes - yes we know about all those 'never seen in an actual lab - stories'.

I never doubt that the many-storied mythology exists... just that the fiction it describes - is never observed and never happened in all of time. the dirt-to-bunny story is DOA.

Also, the process predates what is conditionally considered "dirt". However, I am not trying to convince you that abiogenesis is a valid theory at all.

In that case - "good job"!

Secondly -- I don't mind if you want to substitute "rocks, dust and gas" in for my "dirt" element in the abio fiction.

But if you are claiming that you 'need God for your self-replicating' molecule that 'needs no host cell to replicate' -- and that magically becomes a full fledged bacteria "because that is what proteins do when left alone" -- well I don't blame you for wanting God to help that story out.

As a seeker, I obviously am not clinging to that. Not consciously, anyways. Ironic that you call it a "pile of dirt" mythology, given that you believe that a deity created the first human literally out of dirt.

Here you equivocate between "dirt painting the Mona Lisa" and "an artist doing it" as if they are "the same thing.. the same leap of logic".

In doing so - you show again the flaw in the mythology of evolutionism's religion. Such gross equivocation is "needed" to support evolutionism. But not the God of the Bible.

If you really want to talk about abiogenesis, this is not the subforum for it, and you need to be more well-informed about it. Furthermore, my position on the matter is not going to change because of the reward of heaven or the threat of hell "just in case they exist"

The many gaps of logic in your stories has already been pointed out - but your response that you don't care about the lack of logic in your mythology - you dearly loving having the 'worst upside' AND the 'worst downside' in your selected solution no matter how full-of-holes the logic to support it... then my answer to you is "you have free will".

"you can lead a horse to water..."

in Christ,
Bob

 

[PsychoSarah]

1. You are not Hindu and neither am I. This is specifically and agnostic - vs - Christian discussion.

No it's not. It's a creationism vs evolution discussion. Interesting that you mention Hindus, though, because the majority of creationists worldwide are, infact, Hindu. That we each have one position doesn't mean our discussions should behave as if only the two possibilities are in play. Just because neither of us are Hindu doesn't mean a dichotomy is justified in considerations.

2. We both know that your statement is false - as it has already been pointed out to you that no other religion claims that it is "evil" or "wrong" to believe that Christ was good - and that we should follow his teaching. (excluding Satanists of course).

Actually, Hindus persecute Christians hardcore. I don't know if their doctrines have anything that would actually say that believing in Jesus was inherently wrong, but they certainly behave as if it does. I don't know if any religion explicitly states that viewing Jesus as a deity is evil, but Jews and Muslims certainly disagree with that sentiment. Even if no religions explicitly go against yours via demonizing your faith in their doctrine, they generally disagree in terms of creation myth, number of gods, etc., so you can't lump in all theism as being ok with Christianity and treat this as a dichotomy legitimately. If Hindus are right, you are wrong. If Muslims are right, Jesus isn't the son of god but a prophet, so, again, you are wrong. If Buddhists are right, Jesus was at most an enlightened man, and you are wrong. If the ancient Greeks were right, Zeus, Hades, etc. are gods and YHWH doesn't exist, so then you would be wrong. Of the countless possible religions that have never existed, if any of those are right, you are wrong. If theism of any kind is correct, I am wrong, but that doesn't mean Christianity would be right by default.

Not that it matters, since I can't force myself to believe because of punishment or reward. I have been trying to believe for nearly 8 years, I need actual evidence, not someone arguing that my position is more likely to give me a losing hand. It wouldn't matter if that was true (which, it isn't), I can't force myself to believe out of convenience. If I could, I would have forced conversion upon myself ages ago.

"As if" you had evidence that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse... but have no evidence that the various systems built into the horse happened by design and not by "direction as dictated from a predecessor pile of dirt". Thus your claim is hard to take seriously.

There is no evidence that life didn't develop through naturalistic processes on its own either. That's the big problem. Also, that's not what anyone thinks happened... except you, but with Adam instead of a horse.

And given that the "risk" in that "a pile of dirt is the mastermind behind living systems" mythology - is that the Word of God - is true "instead" and the lake of fire is the doom for those who reject the Gospel, it is "more than merely reasonable" to take up the Christian Gospel and try out the 'way of escape' -- instead of clinging to the "pile of dirt" mythology.

I have already said: I can't force myself to believe because of some personal gain or loss involved. The truth doesn't conform to desire; I do want to believe that there is something after I die, but without evidence, I cannot believe it is so. Evidence I would find convincing and not just an opinionated interpretation of evidence that differs from person to person.

You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.

I not only don't desire to spread atheism or abiogenesis, but I would hate myself if I unintentionally did the former, and do a facepalm if I accidentally did the latter. Not that anything comes from dirt in actual abiogenesis theory; that's you being misinformed. Also, I not only didn't choose to be an atheist, but I have actively fought against it for many years. I was raised in a household where kids were left to find their own path and adults would give very unsatisfying answers about deities and religion.

Indeed I am pointing out that EVEN if you could not figure that rabbits do not come from a pile of dirt - you should at least have noticed that the "pile of dirt does everything" religion is the WORST of all options.

I'm actually moderately insulted that you think I, or any other atheist, thinks that complex lifeforms come spontaneously from dirt. We don't. Please read up on abiogenesis, and not from Answers in Genesis.

But in the "real world" you have come to a Christian discussion forum -- so this IS indeed an "Agnostic" or "Christian" context. ... in the 'real world'.

Nope, as long as other possibilities exist, it doesn't matter even if this forum was restricted to only discussion those two, because that doesn't stop the others from existing. Not only am I not obligated to behave as if Christianity is the representative for all theism, but it would be illogical for me to do that. Also, this may be a Christian forum, but nonChristian theists are free to debate here. You don't see it a whole lot, but there have been some Jews and Muslims on here before, and a few Buddhists (some of them are theists as well).

None of those outcomes is WORSE than the atheist/agnostic one.

The hypothetical "everyone goes to hell no matter what because the true religion never developed" is actually the worst, in my opinion, and frighteningly enough, it's more likely that a deity that cares about what is worshipped has never been worshiped and sentenced all people to punishment than for YHWH as Christians interpret the deity to exist. Also, deity but no afterlife wouldn't end any differently than no deity and no afterlife, now would it? You treat those possibilities as irrelevant because no one believes in them, but belief is not relevant to reality. Those are possible, so you have no choice but to count them.

ALL of them allow for following Christ -- except for some ancient forms of emperor worship and satanism.

So "again" it is total nonsense and "fluff" that is being argued as the "Alternative".

Hindus don't, Buddhists don't, Muslims don't, Jews don't... the majority of the world doesn't. By definition, you cannot be a Jew or Muslim if you accept Christ as your lord and savior, and you can't believe in YHWH if you are a Hindu.

 

[BobRyan]

We do have evidence that supports our claims and there is no evidence for "design".

A nice "fiction" too bad that your own atheist world-class scientists like Martin Rees and Leonard Susskind don't buy it. They need an almost infinite number of entire - "other universes" to escape the logical conclusion for "design" in the 'observations in nature' that confront us - in this "real" one.

Also too bad that even your own Dawkins admits to the design observed in nature.

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

If all evolutionists have is blind-faith-denial of facts that EVEN their own fellow atheist evolutionists refute - then I will by all means choose heaven - and choose to avoid the fire-and-brimstone lake of fire.. rather than bet my soul on such self-conflicted fictions, so blatantly wrong that even your own fellow atheists know to reject it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

2 - to be precise.

y-chromosome Adam.
Mitochondrial Eve.

Rather than "all coming from a pile of dirt".

You do realize that y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve not only didn't live at the same time, but the individuals themselves are not static, right? They represent the man all modern men are related to, and the women all modern people share as an ancestor. As new people are born and others die, this position changes to different individuals.

 

[BobRyan]

You forgot other religions. This isn't a dichotomy, at most, only one religion can be right, and it is entirely possible none of them are.

1. You are not Hindu and neither am I. This is specifically and agnostic - vs - Christian discussion.

2. We both know that your statement is false - as it has already been pointed out to you that no other religion claims that it is "evil" or "wrong" to believe that Christ was good - and that we should follow his teaching. (excluding Satanists of course).

You are simply grasping at straws -- and have circled back to this again ... without addressing the point that debunks it.

No it's not. It's a creationism vs evolution discussion.

Turns out - ChristianForms.com is a Christian discussion board - not a Hindu one.

Interesting that you mention Hindus, though, because the majority of creationists worldwide are, infact, Hindu.

you are trying to flee the point - which was that there is no "downside" to following the teachings of Christ in Hinduism, nor is there some "downside" in atheism for following the teaching of Christ because hole-in-the-ground wonderful ending that you vainly imagine for yourself in that model - is the same you would then imagine for the Christian. No difference.

The point remains - no downside.

Actually, Hindus persecute Christians hardcore.

Not in real life - I have been to India many times, have a pastor that worked in India for 30 years, and continue to work with Hindus today as I have for the past Twenty years -- not a problem. In fact in Hyderabad even the Muslims flock to the Christian schools because they prefer a monotheistic based education for their children rather than polytheism in the state schools.

The world of reality is very different from what you have imagined. The real opposition comes from Islam "nations" but not from the religion of Islam in terms of their 'belief' in the virgin birth of Christ, and the 2nd coming of Christ - both of which they teach.

I don't know if any religion explicitly states that viewing Jesus as a deity is evil,

I stated specifically that following the teachings of Jesus - and insisting that He was 'good' rather than evil - is not something that any religion condemns to this very day - aside from Satanists.

In any case - just pointing out that from the standpoint of the 'religion' there is no prediction of any 'bad outcome' for a Christian in the afterlife - in any religion based on the fact that the Christian claims Christ is a good person and follows his teaching.

this is an obvious point and leaves your feigned confusion over which religion you would need to choose -- as 'the obstacle' - without any evidence to support it because that aspect does not at all justify the option with the 'worst upside' and the "worst downside".

Think about what you are handing off to your child in that 'worst of the worst' solution that even you admit - is a bad one.

 

[BobRyan]

You do realize that y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve not only didn't live at the same time, but the individuals themselves are not static, right? .

Next thing you will tell us that one was left-handed and the other right-handed and one had the favorite color of brown and the other of yellow.

that is not what the actual 'chemistry' shows. And we both know it.

The y-chromosome can be SEEN - but we CANNOT see y-crhomosome Adam! He is long gone - so also Mitochondrial Eve.

But then 'making stuff up' was never a barrier to blind faith evolutionism's story-telling "engine". As we both know.

Yet this is all the sort of "fluff" that atheist evolutionists offer as their "alternative" to the word of God - and their excuse for choosing a lake of fire ending in fire and brimstone for both themselves and their children.

Who in the world goes for that stuff???

 

[BobRyan]

I'm actually moderately insulted that you think I, or any other atheist, thinks that complex lifeforms come spontaneously from dirt. We don't. Please read up on abiogenesis, and not from Answers in Genesis. .

Ignoring the facts does not help your argument.

Blind faith atheist evolutionists have 'no other starting point' but dirt - for their blind-faith-story-telling. And we both know it. Certainly you have never claimed "God stepped in and got us from dirt to rabbit"

your argument that "the dirt needs lots of time to make a rabbit" is not as reasoned or ignored as you seem to imagine to yourself.

And my understanding of the Urey-Miller experiment debunking while flunking abiogenesis, is not as lacking as you may have at first imagined when it comes to the random distribution of chiral orientation in their amino acids. But hey - I don't deny that atheist evolutionists love to "make stuff up" when they lack facts. I never question their ability in that regard.

All I am saying is that your "pile of dirt" solution claiming that all the properties of human intelligence, or rabbit intellect, or horse body-plan design is contained in "inherent properties of dirt" be it 'gas dust and rock' (dirt) or "gas dust and rock plus a very long clock' (dirt) -- is a rather short sighted one, and poor comfort for clinging to the fire-and-brimstone-ending that the Gospel seeks to get you out of.