Evolution or Creationism?

[dad]

Do you have any sources for that?
Just appealing to common sense and feelings doesn't cut it. You need data.

The MU experiments weren't meant to show that "This is exactly how life formed on our planet." They were meant to show that "Allowing for purely chemical processes and no tinkering by an intelligence, some building blocks of life can spontaneously form"

Science says man came about that way. They invoke the sort of self assembling life from 'little almost life stuff' as the source of all life on earth and all creatures. Experiments are USED to fit in to the godless models.

 

[EcksDee]

Science says man came about that way. They invoke the sort of self assembling life from 'little almost life stuff' as the source of all life on earth and all creatures. Experiments are USED to fit in to the godless models.

I meant the sources which made you conclude that it is "A fool's game"

Calling 99% of the scientific community fools is a big claim, and should be backed up.

 

[dad]

I meant the sources which made you conclude that it is "A fool's game"

Calling 99% of the scientific community fools is a big claim, and should be backed up.

Easy to do. The claim I addressed was this

" building blocks of life could come about through abiotic processes."

You cannot do anything but tinker with what is already created. Whatever you use as building blocks are creation blocks. No so called 'life' you tink together is really life in a true biblical sense anyhow. Whatever you build will not produce man and woman. You won't even get a rose. Not so much as a mouse eyeball. You strain at some little nat of so called life that came from God's creation, that you manipulated, and try to wed that to some immense fable. 'See, eventually this could produce Marilyn Monroe and all plants and animals we see..'

No. If the community of science claims that sort of thing they are fools. Every last one.

 

[EcksDee]

Easy to do. The claim I addressed was this

" building blocks of life could come about through abiotic processes."

You cannot do anything but tinker with what is already created. Whatever you use as building blocks are creation blocks. No so called 'life' you tink together is really life in a true biblical sense anyhow. Whatever you build will not produce man and woman. You won't even get a rose. Not so much as a mouse eyeball. You strain at some little nat of so called life that came from God's creation, that you manipulated, and try to wed that to some immense fable. 'See, eventually this could produce Marilyn Monroe and all plants and animals we see..'

No. If the community of science claims that sort of thing they are fools. Every last one.

So it would be possible for God to have created the universe and then let abiogenesis act on already existing material?

I mean there's nothing within either evolution or abiogenesis which precludes the existence of God.

And your little comparison at the end is broken. Again, it seems like common sense to you that "A long amount of time and a self-replicating system with selection pressures can't end up in complex life", but that's what the evidence says happened.

Again, the point of the MU experiments wasn't to show exactly how abiogenesis took place on our planet, but

to demonstrate that some building blocks can appear through purely natural means.
In this case, it's your 'creation blocks' that spontaneously assembled, without the need for a creator.

 

[Smidlee]

The people having this discussion.



Actually, the discussion was about the universe. You brought up the Earth.

Again though, I don't much care which tact you take. You can't defend either assertion.

you wrote "You have no rational account for the inhospitability of the planet, its natural disasters, its diseases etc."

I didn't realize your "planet" meant universe.

'Scripture' does not magically help your case.

What are you talking about? My case is based on scriptures which is a lot more than you claims.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

you wrote "You have no rational account for the inhospitability of the planet, its natural disasters, its diseases etc."

Because by that time, the conversation had been shifted to Earth.

You still don't have an account for those things, by the way, nor any reason why nature should be thought of as anthropocentric.

My case is based on scriptures

'Scriptures' do not magically help your case. You're welcome to quote as many Bible verses you want, but I'm not obligated to pretend you've put forth anything like an actual argument.

 

[Smidlee]

Because by that time, the conversation had been shifted to Earth.

You still don't have an account for those things, by the way, nor any reason why nature should be thought of as anthropocentric.

7 billion people on Earth refute your claim this planet is inhospitable.

'Scriptures' do not magically help your case. You're welcome to quote as many Bible verses you want, but I'm not obligated to pretend you've put forth anything like an actual argument.

I quoted scripture to reveal where I stood on the issue.

 

[dad]

So it would be possible for God to have created the universe and then let abiogenesis act on already existing material?

No. Any evolving we did after Eden did not lead to the genesis of life, it merely was a part of life!

I mean there's nothing within either evolution or abiogenesis which precludes the existence of God.

False. When you start crediting evolution with creation of life itself, that is idolatry and unbelief.

And your little comparison at the end is broken. Again, it seems like common sense to you that "A long amount of time and a self-replicating system with selection pressures can't end up in complex life", but that's what the evidence says happened.

Show me something where evidence says this happened. I will show you only belief says that happened and the evidence was abused and sullied.

Again, the point of the MU experiments wasn't to show exactly how abiogenesis took place on our planet, but

to demonstrate that some building blocks can appear through purely natural means.

Making the connection to the fantasy seem possible. 'see if life can come by stuff that is not alive, then our fable could be true'.

No. You tinker with created stuff IN this present nature. Then you assume it had to have happened with no direct hand of God, and that it had to happen with today's physics etc. Pure pure pure religion.

In this case, it's your 'creation blocks' that spontaneously assembled, without the need for a creator.

Only in you head, and the head of those that believe not God.

Imagining vanities like some self assembling creation not only opposes Scripture, but the very love and plan of God for us all. He Personally made us, allowed us to chose, was with us all the time as we learned what we needed to learn, Personally came down in a man's body to die and pay the horrible price for us, and has went to prepare a place for us after that. He also said we will be with Him there, that is the meaning of life. He also said He was coming back here to rule forever with us. That is the plan and love of God.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

7 billion people on Earth refute your claim this planet is inhospitable.

No they don't, actually. Never did I claim the inhospitability of the planet precludes human life altogether. What I actually said was that it renders the assertion of an anthropocentric Earth nonsensical - which you have yet to address in any meaningful fashion.

Once again, you attempt to move the goalposts, by invoking a straw-man. You know you can't defend an anthropocentric view of Earth, so you resort to these dishonest tactics.

I quoted scripture to reveal where I stood on the issue.

You can stop now, and present an actual argument.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

False. When you start crediting evolution with creation of life itself, that is idolatry and unbelief.

The ToE is intended to explain the diversity of life, not the origin.

You have not the slightest clue what you're talking about, so I wouldn't expect you to know that, but I point it out for the benefit of those reading along.

 

[Smidlee]

No they don't, actually. Never did I claim the inhospitability of the planet precludes human life altogether. What I actually said was that it renders the assertion of an anthropocentric Earth nonsensical - which you have yet to actually address in any meaningful fashion.

Once again, you attempt to move the goalposts, by invoking a straw-man. You know you can't defend an anthropocentric view of Earth, so you resort to these dishonest tactics.

I never move any goal post. 7 billion people totally falsify your claim.

You can stop now, and present an actual argument.

I called you out on the fact when someone has a different view than yours you shouldn't be so quick to suggest their idea is stupid. I don't see where you were any smarter.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I never move any goal post. 7 billion people totally falsify your claim.

I dare you to substantiate this. Find a single post I've made that says anything like 'humans don't/can't exist on Earth'.

When you fail at that (and you will), you can admit you either don't understand my actual claim, or are intentionally straw-manning me.

I called you out on the fact when someone has a different view than yours you shouldn't be so quick to suggest their idea is stupid. I don't see where you were any smarter.

It has nothing to do with being 'smart' and everything to do with being logically consistent.

 

[dad]

The ToE is intended to explain the diversity of life, not the origin.

You have not the slightest clue what you're talking about, so I wouldn't expect you to know that, but I point it out for the benefit of those reading along.

You don't even have the wherewithal to comprehend that the theory of evolution claims responsibility for life on earth starting at simpler life forms. Then you call other's dumb.

Anything that evolved started after Eden. Any other claim is not Scriptural. In fact it is evil.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You don't even have the wherewithal to comprehend that the theory of evolution claims responsibility for life on earth starting at simpler life forms.

I dare you to substantiate this. Cite a single primary scientific source in which the ToE is invoked, in any meaningful fashion whatosever, to explain the origin of life itself.

 

[dad]

I dare you to substantiate this. Cite a single primary scientific source in which the ToE is invoked, in any meaningful fashion whatosever, to explain the origin of life itself.

Anything that tries to explain the origin of man except by creation is the toe in action! What, you thought you could hide behind just having the anti Christmas theory plead ignorance on the first lifeforms?!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anything that tries to explain the origin of man except by creation is the toe in action! What, you thought you could hide behind just having the anti Christmas theory plead ignorance on the first lifeforms?!

The theory of evolution is not anti-Christian. Nor is the Big Bang theory, in fact a Christian originated that theory. They may only be against your particular brand of Christianity. That does not make it "anti-Christian" any more than the theory that the Earth is roughly spherical is "anti-Christian" because the Bible always describes the Earth as having a flat surface.

 

[dad]

The theory of evolution is not anti-Christian. Nor is the Big Bang theory, in fact a Christian originated that theory. They may only be against your particular brand of Christianity. That does not make it "anti-Christian" any more than the theory that the Earth is roughly spherical is "anti-Christian" because the Bible always describes the Earth as having a flat surface.

The bible says Jesus created the world and all thing, actually. Those making delirious dark, and demon 8th paired claims claims to claims to the contrary are absolutely anti Christ!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible says Jesus created the world and all thing, actually. Those making delirious dark, and demon 8th paired claims claims to claims to the contrary are absolutely anti Christ!

Actually it says that God created the world. You reinterpret it to say that is claims Jesus made the world. And the Bible need not be perfect to be of value. If you really want to go for a game of "all or nothing" then ultimately even you would have to go with "nothing".

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Anything that tries to explain the origin of man except by creation is the toe in action!

No it isn't, actually, as anyone with even a vague grasp of the ToE knows.

I'm not remotely surprised you didn't even attempt to meet my challenge. I know you can't. Thanks for making an example of yourself, and demonstrating you - like a typical creationist - have not the slightest ghost of a clue what you're talking about.

What, you thought you could hide behind just having the anti Christmas theory plead ignorance on the first lifeforms?!

'Anti Christmas theory'? Are you legitimately mentally ill? If not, what is your excuse for such asinine drivel?

Never mind. I don't care. By all means, continue to make an example of yourself.

 

[dad]

Actually it says that God created the world.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Re 4:11 -Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Col 1:16 -For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Eph 3:9 -And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

You reinterpret it to say that is claims Jesus made the world.

Lurkers, see how this poster claims truth and defies Scripture.

No one needs you to judge God and His word, your opinion is worth less than nothing.