Your conclusion on God's existence

[Jokerman]

Yes, i meant Manfred Eigen. Thanks for saving me the trouble of talking about Hoyle's theories. Good science fiction writer he was, but he would jump the gun with exotic theories.

As I expected from teck, more quotes from fringe scientists.

Teck, you don't represent the scientific point of view, so stop pretending by quoting scientists that support religion's views, as if you're arguing with us on our level, and you're being more scientific than us. You're just not.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Good science fiction writer he was, but he would jump the gun with exotic theories.

Funny you mention exotic theories, cause that's how one evolutionist described spontaneous generation and said:

"This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion (Harden: 1996, p. 138)."

As I expected from teck, more quotes from fringe scientists.

Yes i should have know that Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were fringe scientists, they are evolutionists and anti-creationists after all. It seems you atheists will accept only the parts you like from evolutionists and dismiss anything esle they say that doesn't support your religious beliefs. That's fuckin hilarious.. My fault though, i should have known better!. Who can trust evolutionists anyway!

Teck, you don't represent the scientific point of view, so stop pretending by quoting scientists that support religion's views,

Actually 95% of the scientists i've quoted are evolutionists, I've hardly used creationist arguments, Thats the problem with your type, Any scientist who opposes evolution and is sane enough to acknowledge the fact that life just simply can't come from non-life is quickly dismissed and labeled a religious nut.

as if you're arguing with us on our level, and you're being more scientific than us. You're just not.

Your level? you and duke jumped on Millers nuts and quoted him as if he is God who created life, his shit is much older than anything i've used and has been totally debunked for decades now. If there is anyone that has no clue wtf they're talking about and who's using old articles and unsupported ancient scientific theories to try and prop up your fantasies it's you and duke

Why did you decide not to respond to anything other than that one little quote i used from hoyle?

I have yet to see anything from you 2 or any evolution scientists that even gives the slightest possibility for life to come from inanimate objects. Thats fact, You can ignore and debunk the evolutionist arguments i've used all you want but really you're only debating and debunking yourself by doing that.

At the end of the day one must ask the question. How much evidence exists for this view(spontaneous generation) of life’s origin? None!!, It's fantasy and magic. Unlike you 2 hardcore fantasy nuts, many evolutionists who are unprejudiced and honest actually admit that the "missing link" is still missing.

However another honest Evolutionist Standen says:

"the term "missing link" is misleading because it suggests that only one link is missing whereas it is more accurate to state that so many links are missing"

Where are the links of evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules,?

Where are the links of evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules?


Where are the links of evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules,?

Where are the links of eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA?


Where are the links of evolution into the first cells?

The only place one can find evidence of such miracles is in a sci-fi section of a movie store or a religious book


Fact is this process requires multimillions of links, all which either are MISSING or controversial. Scientists even lack plausible just-so stories for most of evolution and the origin of life including that copy and paste job by Duke. The author of that article goes on to say:

"all that we need is some form of self-replication molecule that can absorb other molecules in order to replicate and mutate - already verified to be able to form naturally"

Is this true? of course not. Scientists have yet to discover a single molecule that has "learned to make copies of itself" (Simpson, 1999. Life’s first scalding steps. Science News, 155(2):24-26.)

 

[TecK NeeX]

Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the "spontaneous action of Nature" into living animals. His hypothesis was completely rejected though, but, in a way, he might not have been completely wrong. Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution (Science textbooks authors Wynn and Wiggins, 1997, p. 105, emphasis mine).


This is fucking rediculous seriously, We run out of fairy taleish theories so what do we do? We go centuries back in time and adopt a theory, rework it a little bit, give it a little addition of time and BAM the weak minded individuals automatically accept it as fact. talk about brainwashing!

 

[Duke]

Funny you mention exotic theories, cause that's how one evolutionist described spontaneous generation and said:

"This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion (Harden: 1996, p. 138)."



Yes i should have know that Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were fringe scientists, they are evolutionists and anti-creationists after all. It seems you atheists will accept only the parts you like from evolutionists and dismiss anything esle they say that doesn't support your religious beliefs. That's fuckin hilarious.. My fault though, i should have known better!. Who can trust evolutionists anyway!



Actually 95% of the scientists i've quoted are evolutionists, I've hardly used creationist arguments, Thats the problem with your type, Any scientist who opposes evolution and is sane enough to acknowledge the fact that life just simply can't come from non-life is quickly dismissed and labeled a religious nut.




Your level? you and duke jumped on Millers nuts and quoted him as if he is God who created life, his shit is much older than anything i've used and has been totally debunked for decades now. If there is anyone that has no clue wtf they're talking about and who's using old articles and unsupported ancient scientific theories to try and prop up your fantasies it's you and duke

Why did you decide not to respond to anything other than that one little quote i used from hoyle?

I have yet to see anything from you 2 or any evolution scientists that even gives the slightest possibility for life to come from inanimate objects. Thats fact, You can ignore and debunk the evolutionist arguments i've used all you want but really you're only debating and debunking yourself by doing that.

At the end of the day one must ask the question. How much evidence exists for this view(spontaneous generation) of life’s origin? None!!, It's fantasy and magic. Unlike you 2 hardcore fantasy nuts, many evolutionists who are unprejudiced and honest actually admit that the "missing link" is still missing.

However another honest Evolutionist Standen says:

"the term "missing link" is misleading because it suggests that only one link is missing whereas it is more accurate to state that so many links are missing"

Where are the links of evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules,?

Where are the links of evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules?


Where are the links of evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules,?

Where are the links of eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA?


Where are the links of evolution into the first cells?

The only place one can find evidence of such miracles is in a sci-fi section of a movie store or a religious book


Fact is this process requires multimillions of links, all which either are MISSING or controversial. Scientists even lack plausible just-so stories for most of evolution and the origin of life including that copy and paste job by Duke. The author of that article goes on to say:

"all that we need is some form of self-replication molecule that can absorb other molecules in order to replicate and mutate - already verified to be able to form naturally"

Is this true? of course not. Scientists have yet to discover a single molecule that has "learned to make copies of itself" (Simpson, 1999. Life’s first scalding steps. Science News, 155(2):24-26.)

Ive never said anything about Miller. Stop putting words in my mouth.

See, Jokerman, why arguing with this guy is just no fun? He will twist your statements, make shit up, flip shit around and respond to points you've never made.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Ive never said anything about Miller. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Because you didn't know fuck all about him, you just assumed what jokerman said about millers expirement was true so you used it your argument with fields. so in other words you did jump on millers nuts

See, Jokerman, why arguing with this guy is just no fun? He will twist your statements, make shit up, flip shit around and respond to points you've never made.

Lol, is that all you 2 are good at? yawn

 

[Duke]

You realize all your anti-science points hold a very same anti-religious side too, yes?

 

[kman_69]

well im an athiest...

i think it had to do with going to all catholic schools....having to do the same prayers and chants every day started to seem rediculous real early on...

then there was studying the bible in school....i thought (even at a young age) that the stories in it were comparitive to childrens stories..

and i remember one time specifically, one of my primary school teachers saying that heaven was "up in the clouds"...and i remember thinking to myself that either she was lying, or she was really stupid and didnt realise we travel in planes through the clouds every day...and even past the clouds into space...

even the concept of people going to hell at an early age seemed rediculous to me.... i mean it didnt seem to take into consideration that people are different, and have different chemical and biological make ups....which causes them to take different actions in the similar situations....i mean it was pretty obvious to me that what one person sees as being the right thing to do, may not be what another sees...and it has NOTHING to do with being 'evil' or 'good'

i think the thing that really convinced me that religion was primitive way of thinking was when i started reading books by stephen hawking....the first was "a brief history of time" -it really opened my eyes to how complex our universe is, and how the bible fails to mention any of it...i mean you would think that if God truly wrote a book, he would at least mention the other dimensions in our universe.

 

[Jokerman]

i mean you would think that if God truly wrote a book, he would at least mention the other dimensions in our universe.

Why? Was he writing a book on physics to physicists? Or was he writing a book to tell these people about the Covenant He made with them?

Was there any practical reason for God to mention dimensions or the scientific details on how the universe was put together to a pre-scientific people?

Atheists

 

[kman_69]

^^becuase it wasn't written by God, thats the whole point... it was written in a dead language by a primitive people as a way of trying to explain their lives to themselves, then it was translated and re-written several times, before it became the book you read today.


*EDIT* reading back over your posts....your an athiest also??....or are you just confused?

 

[Duke]

Another falls victim to the Joker

 

[kman_69]

for those who don't believe in god,how do you explain the creation of the world?

sorry, i just had to reply to this seeing as nobody answered him...


the creation of the world comes down to a theory called "the big bang" ...about 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

 

[TecK NeeX]

the creation of the world comes down to a theory called "the big bang" ...about 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

I agree with you, great way of supporting creation buddy, you rule Kman :thumb:

You realize all your anti-science points hold a very same anti-religious side too, yes?

All my points have been anti-science fiction not science. I Love science

i mean you would think that if God truly wrote a book, he would at least mention the other dimensions in our universe.

God never wrote any book

About God not mentioning the other dimensions well it's the same reason why he never mentioned Star Wars

 

[fields316_2000]

this topic can go on forever. science wants proof christians rely on faith. naturally the two can not exist because of the position each side holds as truth.

I'll say this though.
if i die and jokerman is right and there is no god, then we both have nothing to lose.
however. if we both die and there is a god, you might be in trouble...

 

[Jokerman]

About God not mentioning the other dimensions well it's the same reason why he never mentioned Star Wars

Because he never got to see it?

Wait...I know: because he doesn't exist! Bwahahaha. I'm glad to finally see you admitting it.

 

[kman_69]

God never wrote any book

About God not mentioning the other dimensions well it's the same reason why he never mentioned Star Wars

its supposed to be the 'word of God'.....lets not split hairs.




^^doing that shitty emoticon on every post you make does NOT make you look any more intelligent....its really really lame.

 

[kman_69]

I'll say this though.
if i die and jokerman is right and there is no god, then we both have nothing to lose.
however. if we both die and there is a god, you might be in trouble...

see, the whole notion of afterlife & God is redundant...living your life in fear of something that, in all terms of logic, most likely doesn't exist is rediculous....it can't effect your life, period....its a redundant concept, and if you can't admit that its redundant in terms of your LIFE, then thats just your problem.

 

[fields316_2000]

well i have had experiences with GOD and my faith that can not be taken away because of your lack of belief. I've experienced what would be called god's hand intervening and I've seen sick people healed at churchs. but I will not push my experience on you because this is what allowed my faith to grow. you have not had any experience like that so i can't imagine you just understanding or even believing because of your firm stance demanding proof.

but i'll say it again, that if we die and there is a god to answer to, you will come up short. it's not out of fear from what any bible verse says, it's from my own prospective that im saying that justifying all your disbelief is going to be hard...even harder after you realize you were wrong.
my bible states that you are accountable for every word you speak- we'll find out who's right or wrong.

 

[Chronic]

this topic can go on forever. science wants proof christians rely on faith. naturally the two can not exist because of the position each side holds as truth.

That isn't the topic though.

I'll say this though.
if i die and jokerman is right and there is no god, then we both have nothing to lose.
however. if we both die and there is a god, you might be in trouble...

So you're saying to better be safe than sorry? Good reason to have faith. Or what's your point?

 

[Duke]

I agree with you, great way of supporting creation buddy, you rule Kman :thumb:



All my points have been anti-science fiction not science. I Love science



God never wrote any book

About God not mentioning the other dimensions well it's the same reason why he never mentioned Star Wars

You only like the bits of science that don't go against your precious creation theory.

You are a farce, sir. You have no clue about science, it's foundation and it's principles, and most of all, you have no clue how one conducts science.

It seems to me you think science is being done by bearded professors sitting in a lab coming up with outrageous theories.

Nay, i say. The big difference with religion and faith is that science can be wrong, and will accept the fact that they may be wrong on subject X or Y. And even then, even if the theory doesn't hold up, there is years of research and hard work put into that, it's not a vague theory stemming from a 1500 year old book.

You keep calling evolutionist theories fairy tales. People have been putting in effort to obtain that knowledge for decades, yet you come in with your arrogant mug and dismiss it as fairy tales, when you yourself believe in some huge bearded ape who created us like we're an airfix kit.

Hilarity. Most of all, however, I got to have a few chuckles at you posting those lanky entropy and Hoyle theories. It just goes to show to which lows you will stoop.

What is your point for posting Hoyle's theories? The scientific world doesn't accept his work without question, his theories are vague and redundant. He doesn't even believe in God.

There was no point for posting Hoyle's story. Neither as there was a point for posting your entropy-cancels-evolution bullshit. You merely hoped to "foil science with science", to look cool and smart and interesting. You failed. It made you look desperate and ignorant.

When we post something scientific, you waltz in and call it fairy tales and try to debunk it with your own semi-science article. The difference is that your article tends to be "unaccepted" and devoid of any support. Bluntly put, it's wrong, while we dig up stuff that has a broad foundation within the scientific community and tends to be well researched.

And that's probably where the real difference lies. You view science as science as you view religion as religion. The truth is different, however. Science is not just science, science is a loose conglomerate of people and organizations united under the basic rules of theorizing and conducting experiments.

Science will be corrected if it's wrong. That's the beauty of science. Earth was round instead of flat? Our bad, corrected. Ridiculously huge amount of stars instead of 2? Right, duly noted. DNA, amino acids? Ok, got that.


Hell, maybe sciene turns out to be wrong and 40 years from now they'll find evidence of "teh Cr3at0r". It will be acknowledged.

While you religionists keep clinging to your ancient dogma's, rusted ideas and dusty tomes for eternity. There is no change in religion. Science is like a mountain stream. Vivid, changing, on point. Religion is a stale marsh.


And it will be a matter of time until the last vestiges of belief and it's last strongholds, things that science has been unable to disprove so far (also things that creationists can't prove themselves but ok), are gone. Science is gaining ground. For the past 500 years, the Catholic church in particular, had to give in to science countless times.


And that is what will happen. A 100 or 200 years from now we will know and understand how life started on Earth. And we will know all the intracacies and details of evolution, enough to stop you pesky creationists from bothering us with your half-science articles you merely quoted when you thought there was something to gain.

In any case, i'm wrapping this up for the final time. This discussion has been very very annoying thanks to Teck, and you have the dubious honour of being the first person to go on my Ignore list. Such is the impact of your non-reasoning vileness.

 

[EDouble]

I have faith & love in a God that i'm not positive exists. It's that shit that's there beyond any loves u have with fellow people & a diferent one diferent kind of love. whether people are tryin to prove he's there or provin that he's not..it's just what's deep in you. tryin to do that either way just shows your confused. man for real it's just somethin I at least kind of depend on in life. whether it's wisful thinkin or not but alot of love even is wishful thinkin Imo.

peace