How much longer?

[Subduction Zone]

False, creation was life coming from Life.

No, there is no reliable evidence for that story. But then you knew that.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Of course not.

If you did, you couldn't say this:

Even creationists believe in an abiogenesis event, though they tend to deny it.

Then you don't believe that life came from non-life when God told it to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did the angels come from then?

In scientific philosophy, abiogenesis is a chemical process that kick-started life.

Anaheim.

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=ana

 

[DDan]

Where did the angels come from then?

Also leprechauns, the Phoenix, the Cyclops, Unicorns, Dragons, etc. don't forget that winged horse in the Koran and the half dozen other winged horses from other myths? where did they all come from? could they have all come from the minds of men?
As most religions have angels where do you think they come from or don't they exist because they are all from the wrong religions?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you don't believe that life came from non-life when God told it to?

Yes, but that is not abiogenesis per se.

 

[mickiio]

How do I delete , sorry I'm new.

 

[mickiio]

And yet Creationism DOES follow the law of Biogenesis. Abiogenesis doesn't ....hum who doesn't have evidence again?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes, but that is not abiogenesis per se.

Sure it is. Your team gets to redefine "Creationism" and "Atheist" to suit your needs. Why are we banned from redefining "abiogenesis" from what you believe it is to something that helps us weaken your arguments? Seems like a double standard to me.

 

[Strathos]

Is the consol dupe banned yet?

 

[crjmurray]

Is the consol dupe banned yet?

Any day now.

 

[justlookinla]

I said intent, not words and ofcourse you will ignore someone who will not allow you to deal falsly with others here. You seem to represent God here and I might represent that same God. I will not sit idly by why you besmirch the name by acting falsely other others.

I've clearly presented the conclusions of Darwinist evolution. If you disagree with those conclusions, simply point out the areas of disagreement.

You can change the words around all you want,. It's your intent that is in the wrong

Point out the what you believe my intent is and how it's wrong.

Boy you are indeed a piece of work. You haven't asked for any clairification. You've created a strawman, as I have stated and then ask them why they are not that.

The conclusions of Darwinist evolution concerning the process whereby a human is produced yields a life form which is nothing more than a sack of chemicals, like it or not.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I've clearly presented the conclusions of Darwinist evolution. If you disagree with those conclusions, simply point out the areas of disagreement.

Point out the what you believe my intent is and how it's wrong.

The conclusions of Darwinist evolution concerning the process whereby a human is produced yields a life form which is nothing more than a sack of chemicals, like it or not.

You have been at this for a few years now and have never supported your claimed "conclusions of Darwinist evolution". Please quote an evolutionary scientist who states that humans are mere "sacks of chemicals".

 

[bhsmte]

You have been at this for a few years now and have never supported your claimed "conclusions of Darwinist evolution". Please quote an evolutionary scientist who states that humans are mere "sacks of chemicals".

Fundies need to keep their straw men arguments intact.

They will protect them at all costs.

 

[DDan]

Fundies need to keep their straw men arguments intact.

They will protect them at all costs.

Without them they are all at sea, none of them are truly convinced that's why they must attack evolution, even they realise that the creation stories are too far fetched and they don't have a leg to stand on, their faith is just not enough and they have nothing with which to promote creationism so their only alternative is to decry evolution.

 

[mickiio]

Without them they are all at sea, none of them are truly convinced that's why they must attack evolution, even they realise that the creation stories are too far fetched and they don't have a leg to stand on, their faith is just not enough and they have nothing with which to promote creationism so their only alternative is to decry evolution.

Some of us truly believe in a God and Creator. This world is far too fabulous to just have happened "by chance".

 

[bhsmte]

Some of us truly believe in a God and Creator. This world is far too fabulous to just have happened "by chance".

Most people who believe in a God, don't have to create straw men arguments against well evidenced science, to support their specific religious beliefs.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Some of us truly believe in a God and Creator. This world is far too fabulous to just have happened "by chance".

And that God and Creator, could have used evolution to create all the life on Earth....or do you believe that would be impossible for Him?

 

[justlookinla]

You have been at this for a few years now and have never supported your claimed "conclusions of Darwinist evolution". Please quote an evolutionary scientist who states that humans are mere "sacks of chemicals".

Quote an evolutionary scientist who is between 5'5" and 6', has brown hair and blue eyes and walks with a slight limp. Can't do it?? Ha, told ya!!

Meanwhile......

"What are we? We are bags of chemicals with relatively uncertain futures. I choose to believe that I do have free will. And, although some decisions that I am confronted with are stressful, I am thankful for them, because they define who I am. "

http://theengineerspulse.blogspot.com/2011/05/are-we-just-bags-of-chemicals.html
​

"Anthony Cashmore is a plant biologist who describes animals, including human beings, as a "bag of chemicals" entirely determined by the laws of physics and chemistry. He says, "we live in an era when few biologists would question the idea that biological systems are totally based on the laws of physics and chemistry."

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/cashmore/

​

Are we to assume that you believe humans to be more than just bags of chemicals? If so, explain.

 

[DDan]

Are we to assume that you believe humans to be more than just bags of chemicals? If so, explain.

Why don't you decide for yourself?

Your body is approximately:

• 65% Oxygen
• 18% Carbon
• 10% Hydrogen
• 3% Nitrogen
• 1.5% Calcium
• 1% Phosphorous
• 0.35% Potassium
• 0.25% Sulfur
• 0.15% Sodium
• 0.15% Chlorine
• 0.05% Magnesium
• 0.0004% Iron
• 0.00004% Iodine

Your body also contains trace amounts of other elements, such as silicon, manganese, fluorine, copper, zinc, arsenic and aluminium.

What do you think?

 

[justlookinla]

Why don't you decide for yourself?

Your body is approximately:

• 65% Oxygen
• 18% Carbon
• 10% Hydrogen
• 3% Nitrogen
• 1.5% Calcium
• 1% Phosphorous
• 0.35% Potassium
• 0.25% Sulfur
• 0.15% Sodium
• 0.15% Chlorine
• 0.05% Magnesium
• 0.0004% Iron
• 0.00004% Iodine

Your body also contains trace amounts of other elements, such as silicon, manganese, fluorine, copper, zinc, arsenic and aluminium.

What do you think?

See my sig line for what I think.