Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
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.
you wrote "You have no rational account for the inhospitability of the planet, its natural disasters, its diseases etc."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.
What are you talking about? My case is based on scriptures which is a lot more than you claims.'Scripture' does not magically help your case.
you wrote "You have no rational account for the inhospitability of the planet, its natural disasters, its diseases etc."
My case is based on scriptures
7 billion people on Earth refute your claim this planet is inhospitable.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.
I quoted scripture to reveal where I stood on the issue.'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.
No. Any evolving we did after Eden did not lead to the genesis of life, it merely was a part of life!So it would be possible for God to have created the universe and then let abiogenesis act on already existing material?
False. When you start crediting evolution with creation of life itself, that is idolatry and unbelief.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.
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'.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.
Only in you head, and the head of those that believe not God.In this case, it's your 'creation blocks' that spontaneously assembled, without the need for a creator.
7 billion people on Earth refute your claim this planet is inhospitable.
I quoted scripture to reveal where I stood on the issue.
False. When you start crediting evolution with creation of life itself, that is idolatry and unbelief.
I never move any goal post. 7 billion people totally falsify your claim.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 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.You can stop now, and present an actual argument.
I never move any goal post. 7 billion people totally falsify your claim.
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.
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.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.
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?!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.
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.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 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!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.
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".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!
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?!
Actually it says that God created the world.
You reinterpret it to say that is claims Jesus made the world.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?