My Abiogenesis Challenge

[TLK Valentine]

Then you tell THE FATHER that you choose to profess yourself and have no need for HIS SON

Once we're in heaven, none of us will have any need of Him anymore. His mission is accomplished; His job is done.

So again, what's the point of the scars?

 

[miknik5]

Once we're in heaven, none of us will have any need of Him anymore. His mission is accomplished; His job is done.

So again, what's the point of the scars?

How did you get there ,?

HIS mission has not been accomplished yet

There's another ministry coming

 

[miknik5]

Once we're in heaven, none of us will have any need of Him anymore. His mission is accomplished; His job is done.

So again, what's the point of the scars?

To remind YOU of what HE did for you

 

[miknik5]

Ok... so what?

So what?

Again before the earth came forth by GOD's WORD all it was was a soupy disorganized formless empty void mad of water and GOD alone hovered over the face of that water

 

[TLK Valentine]

How did you get there ,?

HIS mission has not been accomplished yet

There's another ministry coming

perhaps you missed the "once we're in heaven..." part of my response -- although I can't imagine how, except perhaps deliberately.

 

[TLK Valentine]

To remind YOU of what HE did for you

Again, is it possible to forget in heaven?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So what?

Again before the earth came forth by GOD's WORD all it was was a soupy disorganized formless empty void mad of water and GOD alone hovered over the face of that water

Cool story, bro. So what?

 

[miknik5]

perhaps you missed the "once we're in heaven..." part of my response -- although I can't imagine how, except perhaps deliberately.

Perhaps you missed revelation 5

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps you missed revelation 5

Perhaps I haven't. So what?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No.

I'm going to pin it on you, since you are the one who used it on me.

Lol. So that was me writing, not miknik? The implication is that anything anyone ever posts here, including direct quotes, are the poster's own words. You say such foolish things.

I'm not going to stomp around CF and butt-in on every conversation that uses "hover" to tell them how a KJVO treats that word.

So I'm being singled out for special attention? Is that because you need to defend a fellow KJVO rather than admit that it was the KJVO who used that word first?

Blaming me the first time was, perhaps, unintentionally dishonest. Continuing to do so is lying.

But if they want to use it on me ... especially if they ask me "How does that work?" like you did ... they'll get my answer.

If you butt into somebody else's conversation and you have a problem with a certain word, take it up with the person who introduced that word.

 

[miknik5]

Perhaps I haven't. So what?

Nothing

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nice try.

Here's the conversation:

You very conveniently missed the opening post in the conversation:

You do know the earth before it was the earth was just dark disorganized formless...water....and THE SPIRIT of GOD hovered over the deep

Now, you can either admit you got it wrong or you can continue lying.

 

[miknik5]

You very conveniently missed the opening post in the conversation:


Now, you can either admit you got it wrong or you can continue lying.

I didn't get it wrong and never did:

God hovered over the face of the waters (JPS)

Just as I said
I use the Jewish Publication when quoting OT scriptures

You said to AV: "poor miknik"
And AV responded she might have her own version which she quotes from

I did
Now you know

"Poor bungle bear"

 

[miknik5]

Bungle bear
You didn't know and weren't really focusing on "hovered" until AV used "moved"

Then you went with it thinking that you had found an error

You didn't
Forget it
Let's move on

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, you can either admit you got it wrong or you can continue lying.

I'll continue lying.

 

[Astrophile]

I've read those questions on page 20 and maybe it's me, but I can't make out what it is you are asking.

They are long drawn-out questions, and I can't make heads or tails as to what you're asking.

I will try repeating the questions in a simpler form.

Suppose that scientists, specifically chemists and biologists, showed beyond reasonable doubt that life cannot have originated from non-living matter by any natural process and therefore that the first life-forms must have been created by a god. Would creationists then accept what scientists have found about the origin of the universe in a Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, about the age of the Earth (4540±20 million years), and about the evolution of the first created life-forms into the present diversity of living things?

If creationists would not accept these well-established scientific findings, what grounds would they have for accepting the original statement by scientists that life could not have originated from non-living matter by any natural process?

Does this make the questions clear enough for you to understand them?

 

[AV1611VET]

Suppose that scientists, specifically chemists and biologists, showed beyond reasonable doubt that life cannot have originated from non-living matter by any natural process and therefore that the first life-forms must have been created by a god. Would creationists then accept what scientists have found about the origin of the universe in a Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, about the age of the Earth (4540±20 million years), and about the evolution of the first created life-forms into the present diversity of living things?

I think some do.

They call it guided evolution.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I didn't get it wrong and never did:

God hovered over the face of the waters (JPS)

Just as I said
I use the Jewish Publication when quoting OT scriptures

You said to AV: "poor miknik"
And AV responded she might have her own version which she quotes from

I did
Now you know

"Poor bungle bear"

These conversations go right over your head, don't they? A quick synopsis for you:
1. miknik said "hovered"
2. I replied using "hovered"
3. AV replied saying "the bible doesn't say hovered, it says moved"
4. I replied saying "miknik said hovered so I replied with the word she chose. I'm happy to say moved to you, AV"
5. AV replied "miknik didn't say hovered"
6. I replied "Yes she did"
7. AV replied "I'm going to continue lying and say that miknik didn't say hovered"
8. miknik replied "Bungle, what's your problem with hovered?"

Let's make this very clear. I don't care what word you use. I will reply using whichever word you choose - you said "hovered", I said "hovered", AV said "moved" I said "moved". AV is the one who has a problem with the word hovered, and for some reason he cannot accept that you used the word.

In post #393 AV's exact words were

Nor can you change words like "moved" to "hover,"

That's AV saying it's unacceptable to change "moved" to "hover". Get it? AV said it, not me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think some do.

They call it guided evolution.

Well, there you go -- some scientists do include God in the process... so what's your beef?

 

[miknik5]

ok.

AV I forgive you for not knowing the JPS

And Bungle Bear, I'm sorry you got the brunt of it