Abiogenesis or God?

Where did living things come from?

  • God

  • Abiogenesis

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mistermystery

Here's looking at you kid
Apr 19, 2004
4,220
169
✟5,275.00
Faith
Atheist
RyanLJohnson1 said:
Either God created the universe, or it developed completely by itself.

By the way... if evolution is true... where did sound come from? Did sound evolve? I've been wondering about that one :)

Love in Jesus Christ be to all of you,
Ryan
Can you give us a basic definition of the theory of evolution? Because you clearly demonstrate that you know NOTHING about it. Evolution is an explaination of how diffrent species came to be, not where matter came from.
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
RyanLJohnson1 said:
So do you want to go into the Law of Conservation of MASS AND ENERGY now, too? Mass cannot be created. Energy cannot be created. Simple physics, by Einstein.
No, let's not go into that since you clearly don't understand what we were talking about in the first place. As I already told you, the first law of thermodynamics is about the preservation of energy, not of mass. It is also completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Either rebut that (I gave you the laws, you can work from there) or stop blurting out more nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

ernest_theweedwhackerguy

Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell
Jun 1, 2004
7,646
251
35
New York
✟16,541.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Mechanical Bliss said:
...Thats irrelevent.,,
And he's back...Welcome back Bliss...I look forward to the famous, "Thats irrelevent....Thats just a strawman..." type comments again. Nice to have you back, and i look forward to reading your posts again so i can prove you wrong. I got my facts straight, and in this thread you cant say those famous one-liners.
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
And he's back...Welcome back Bliss...I look forward to the famous, "Thats irrelevent....Thats just a strawman..." type comments again. Nice to have you back, and i look forward to reading your posts again so i can prove you wrong. I got my facts straight, and in this thread you cant say those famous one-liners.
Ernest, just scanning through the thread I get the idea that your responses aren't any better. Some posts were you get a point by point rebuttal get precisely the same from you. Why don't you address those point by point, in stead of playing pot calling the kettle?
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
And he's back...Welcome back Bliss...I look forward to the famous, "Thats irrelevent....Thats just a strawman..." type comments again. Nice to have you back, and i look forward to reading your posts again so i can prove you wrong. I got my facts straight, and in this thread you cant say those famous one-liners.
Posts like this make me want to ask the question, "why do creationists lie?"

Try reading the MASSIVE context of what you dishonestly mined from that post. I explained that the laws of thermodynamics are NOT what you or Ryan think they are and WHY they were irrelevant to the points brought up.

Also take note that you did not post anything dealing with facts nor did you prove what I wrote in that post to be wrong (or the previous one detailing a lie told by Kent Hovind). In reality, the only thing you've accomplished thus far is showing that you don't know what you're talking about and you do it with unwarranted arrogance.

Post #122 requested your attention (not to mention numerous posts by others you have ignored). Start addressing posts or else people will not continue to take you seriously.

Tomk80 said:
Ernest, just scanning through the thread I get the idea that your responses aren't any better. Some posts were you get a point by point rebuttal get precisely the same from you. Why don't you address those point by point, in stead of playing pot calling the kettle?
Considering both of my recent posts in this thread including the one he so dishonestly mined for the comment had far more substance than he has contributed in this thread as a whole, the pot/kettle analogy is invalid. It's not even that but rather a distraction from having to address the meat of the posts here.
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
Mechanical Bliss said:
Considering both of my recent posts in this thread including the one he so dishonestly mined for the comment had far more substance than he has contributed in this thread as a whole, the pot/kettle analogy is invalid. It's not even that but rather a distraction from having to address the meat of the posts here.
You're right. I just scanned through the thread to find your post, didn't find it (since I thought he had quoted the whole post) and thought I just missed it. Hence my comment. My apologies, should I have known better (I'm doubting here)?

Ernest, so you are not only doing yourself what you accuse others of doing, you are also dishonestly quote mining there posts (again without addressing any criticism raised against your position). Do you really think people will take you seriously when you do that?
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
Tomk80 said:
You're right. I just scanned through the thread to find your post, didn't find it (since I thought he had quoted the whole post) and thought I just missed it. Hence my comment. My apologies, should I have known better (I'm doubting here)?

Ernest, so you are not only doing yourself what you accuse others of doing, you are also dishonestly quote mining there posts (again without addressing any criticism raised against your position). Do you really think people will take you seriously when you do that?
It's no big deal. In fact, I was really just half (or more than half) joking with you about the notion that his posts and mine were on equal footing in the context of a pot/kettle analogy. It's hard to convey a sense of humor in writing especially on something so subtle that it sounds critical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tomk80
Upvote 0

ernest_theweedwhackerguy

Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell
Jun 1, 2004
7,646
251
35
New York
✟16,541.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Ask the questions again. Ill be more than happy to answer them, I'm just only on for 15 minutes a day, so i don't have time to read all of it. I still need to catch up on some of the posts. The last one i remember is the one about stalactytes. And i have another queston. Why is it that evolutionists lie, and say that they don't?
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
Ask the questions again. Ill be more than happy to answer them, I'm just only on for 15 minutes a day, so i don't have time to read all of it. I still need to catch up on some of the posts. The last one i remember is the one about stalactytes. And i have another queston. Why is it that evolutionists lie, and say that they don't?
Because they don't.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
Ask the questions again.
Evolution requires mutation, reproduction and selection. Which of these is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics?

Ill be more than happy to answer them, I'm just only on for 15 minutes a day, so i don't have time to read all of it. I still need to catch up on some of the posts. The last one i remember is the one about stalactytes. And i have another queston. Why is it that evolutionists lie, and say that they don't?
I can point to specific documentable lies told by creationists, and have done so frequently. On the now closed "Second question" thread, one creationist poster told two lies in one post, and I demonstrated that they were lies - i.e. untrue factual statements that the person who stated them knew to be untrue, with intent to deceive.

Can you do the same about evolutionists?

In other words, if we're liars, you prove it. Hint: us being wrong in your eyes does not us liars make.
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
Ask the questions again.
No. They've already been asked...again...and again...and again. Multiple times in this very thread! What you need to do is go back and read.

First you need to read all of the posts that already addressed your claim about the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Then you need to look back at this:

What Hovind says is completely correct.
I refuted that claim and illustrated a lie perpetrated by Hovind in Post #122. This is the second time I've had to remind you that post #122 exists. I shouldn't have to repeat the claim over and over simply because you don't read what people write. We've already been patient with repeating claims for you that you ignore and misrepresent. It's time you pull your own weight here.

So basically, we don't have to repeat our responses for you. You have to actually go back and read them.


Ill be more than happy to answer them, I'm just only on for 15 minutes a day, so i don't have time to read all of it.
Then, as the saying goes, don't write checks that you can't cash.

Don't go around making quick posts full of fallaceous statements only to not be willing to take the time to read the replies and address what people really say, and then don't lie about what people write rather than taking the time to read and address those posts.

I still need to catch up on some of the posts.
Yes, you do. It's not our responsibility to repeat the same claims in this thread if you haven't even read them the first time. A quick recap of the thermo. issue:

In response to the question, "because I understand them and know that they are not violated in evolution and abiogenesis. tell me, which one of those laws is violated and why?"

First law, says matter cannot be created or destroyed.
This was addressed directly and succinctly by people like notto and Karl. Yet only a little later in the thread you complain:

Let me ask you one thing, why do both the first and second law disprove evolution, yet you won't even touch it?
You repeat your same claim and then complain that no one addressed it even though they did!

Then your cheerleader posted the same claim that the first and second laws of thermodynamics are violated by evolution by making the same two mistakes that you did: first, both of you posted INCORRECT definitions of the laws of thermodynamics and failed to correct them even though it was pointed out more than once, and neither showed why they were violated by evolutionary theory or addressed the refutations.

Other people like Tomk80, Ondoher, Jet Black, Mistermystery and myself corrected this AGAIN and rather than actually address what any of us wrote you replied with this:

And he's back...Welcome back Bliss...I look forward to the famous, "Thats irrelevent....Thats just a strawman..." type comments again. Nice to have you back, and i look forward to reading your posts again so i can prove you wrong. I got my facts straight, and in this thread you cant say those famous one-liners.
You implied that my post was a one-liner reply of "that's irrelevant" (which is NOT a direct quotation from my post coincidentally) even though my post was more detailed and explained why both of you did not represent the laws of thermodynamics correctly, why they are not violated by evolution and asked other questions like why scientists don't agree with that claim of yours. You avoided ALL of that.

You picked out the word "irrelevant" in my post and then complained that it was nothing but a one-liner, which is not representative of what I wrote at all...you know, all of that you had to delete from my post that you could have addressed. That's another example of a creationist lie right there by yourself.

And i have another queston. Why is it that evolutionists lie, and say that they don't?
That's because they don't, yet there is ample documented evidence that creationists do lie. Take my Hovind example above. Creationists on this forum have been known to lie from time to time even to the point of saying it out in the open, that arguments for creationism should be exaggerated dishonestly because the end goal justifies the means. Even when faced with a refutation of your claim you lied about what I wrote and ignored what everyone else wrote.
 
Upvote 0

ernest_theweedwhackerguy

Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell
Jun 1, 2004
7,646
251
35
New York
✟16,541.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
....Three words.....Your a dork. If evolutionists don't lie, then how do you know that creationists lie? One of them does...The people who use faulty data(evolutionists) to prove points, or the people who use the Truth to prove points?
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
....Three words.....Your a dork. If evolutionists don't lie, then how do you know that creationists lie? One of them does...The people who use faulty data(evolutionists) to prove points, or the people who use the Truth to prove points?
What physical process or mechanism involved in the description of the theory of evolution violates any laws of thermodynamics. Answer the question. Put up or shut up.

A statement such as "The theory of evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics" is a lie unless you can show that it actually does by naming a mechanism involved in the theory that does this. Typically when explaining thermodynamics, you would need to show your calculations and proofs. Go for it. I'm guessing you have nothing and are parroting **** you have heard elsewhere.

Answer the question. Put up or shut up.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
....Three words.....Your a dork. If evolutionists don't lie, then how do you know that creationists lie? One of them does...The people who use faulty data(evolutionists) to prove points, or the people who use the Truth to prove points?
As expected, nothing of substance.

You have not demonstrated that "evolutionsts" use "faulty data" yet people have demonstrated on this thread that creationists do: (1) the example of Hovind lying about paleogeographic maps, which was a point that you ignored and (2) creationists, including yourself in this very thread, have used incorrect descriptions (thus, "faulty data") of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which was something demonstrated to you by several users and you ignored those points as well.

So really, you've been caught in a couple of lies in this very thread and you don't like being called out for it. Rather than address the points people bring up (and have had to repeat for you several times), you respond with immature comments. Your object of worship, Kent Hovind, has also been caught in a lie, as evidenced in post #122 and you don't like him being called out for it either because it demonstrates that your source of information is flawed.

You're playing the same game you did in the official polls forum. People addressed your arguments in detail, you ignore them and pretend like they weren't addressed and posture yourself with unwarranted arrogance from a position of total ignorance on these topics.

Either address what people write (and that means what people REALLY write, not your two word edits), or else stop complaining and leave the discussion already.
 
Upvote 0

Ondoher

Veteran
Sep 17, 2004
1,812
52
✟2,246.00
Faith
Atheist
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
....Three words.....Your a dork. If evolutionists don't lie, then how do you know that creationists lie? One of them does...The people who use faulty data(evolutionists) to prove points, or the people who use the Truth to prove points?
Be specific. Which data is faulty? How do you know it is faulty? Where has this been published? Who has used this faulty data to advance which arguments?
 
Upvote 0

ernest_theweedwhackerguy

Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell
Jun 1, 2004
7,646
251
35
New York
✟16,541.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The people who came up with evolution. Darwin came up with the natural selection and survival of the fittest parts, which are right, but then people added on to it. So basically all of the hypothesis of evolution is wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ondoher

Veteran
Sep 17, 2004
1,812
52
✟2,246.00
Faith
Atheist
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
The people who came up with evolution. Darwin came up with the natural selection and survival of the fittest parts, which are right, but then people added on to it. So basically all of the hypothesis of evolution is wrong.
So, you agree with natural selection. Which of the other parts are wrong? How do you know they are wrong? Where was this published?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.