Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: edmc^2

No, it doesn't allow the earth to be billions of years old, you're wrong. Also, you haven't rebutted against my last reply yet. I'm waiting - the whole problem with the water.

It was a lot easier many years ago when if someone dared to actually challenge accepted norms, they were simply tied to a stake and burned before a baying crowd.

None of this pesky "thinking for yourself" or rationality nonsense had to be tolerated.

We can't do that these days and thanks to Zeus and Mars for that.

Mars was always a bit of a contrary old sod anyway,...handy in a punch up though.

They don't have any evidence that God exist? They don't have evidence that Jesus Christ came to earth to reveal his God and Father?

This also includes the thousands of men and women who are scientists themselves but believe in God?"

No - None of those citations contain any scientific evidence for the existence of a God. They are all either opinion, speculative in nature or irrelevant to the existence of a God. None provide conclusive, scientific evidence.

Please select one of those citations whose subject is the existence of a God and which is written in standard scientific format which includes abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, conclusion and discussion.

a reply to: edmc^2

You need to be critical of what you read. Just because a brilliant scientist said it doesn't mean it's true.

i trust certified experts who support their claims with data derived from properly executed experiments and peer reviewed analysis over internet jesus warriors who cant (or refuse to) tell the difference between faith and evidence. also, look up the definition of "hypocrite". and be more critical of what you read, both on the internet and in bronze age manuals on mass superstition.

ok, im done for real. i just couldnt resist poking at your post one last time. you make it far too easy, and the best part is, you dont even realize it. not even after having your nose rubbed in it. which i have no shame in doing because you keep BEGGING for it, every time you post a thread. you beg to be schooled, and then you drop out. funny how that happens eh?

but yeah, deuces. the rest of you guys might as well follow suit because you sure as hell arent getting anywhere with edmc2. unless you have that kind of time and energy to waste - in which case, have fun!

and happy halloween!

a reply to: edmc^2

You are aware that assumptions do not count as evidence, right? Since your entire basis for your argument is that life can only come from life, you fail to follow logic. You cannot prove that assumption. You guess about it based on what is NOT known. You keep repeating it but it's wrong. It's extremely lazy and dishonest.

I don't care in the least if you believe this, but you are presenting it like fact. Just admit it's faith and I'll leave it alone and let you preach all day unobstructed from silly things like facts and logic.

originally posted by: Badams
a reply to: edmc^2

No, it doesn't allow the earth to be billions of years old, you're wrong. Also, you haven't rebutted against my last reply yet. I'm waiting - the whole problem with the water.

Yes it does. Check again.

“. . .In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

There's no time frame. As you said - don't take it literally but subjectively. That I did.

It merely says "God created the heavens and the earth". This allows whatever the current age the earth is, was. If science says 4.5 billion, why not?

As for the water appearing "...around 3 billion years after the spherical shape that is the earth, was formed". Again, I have no problem with that since the Bible doesn't say when water appeared.

It merely says:

[Gen 1:2 KJV] 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

You need to be critical of what you read. Just because a brilliant scientist said it doesn't mean it's true.

i trust certified experts who support their claims with data derived from properly executed experiments and peer reviewed analysis over internet jesus warriors who cant (or refuse to) tell the difference between faith and evidence. also, look up the definition of "hypocrite". and be more critical of what you read, both on the internet and in bronze age manuals on mass superstition.

ok, im done for real. i just couldnt resist poking at your post one last time. you make it far too easy, and the best part is, you dont even realize it. not even after having your nose rubbed in it. which i have no shame in doing because you keep BEGGING for it, every time you post a thread. you beg to be schooled, and then you drop out. funny how that happens eh?

but yeah, deuces. the rest of you guys might as well follow suit because you sure as hell arent getting anywhere with edmc2. unless you have that kind of time and energy to waste - in which case, have fun!

and happy halloween!

Sure TzarChasm sure.

Wait for next thread - it will be a trip.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

You are aware that assumptions do not count as evidence, right? Since your entire basis for your argument is that life can only come from life, you fail to follow logic. You cannot prove that assumption. You guess about it based on what is NOT known. You keep repeating it but it's wrong. It's extremely lazy and dishonest.

I don't care in the least if you believe this, but you are presenting it like fact. Just admit it's faith and I'll leave it alone and let you preach all day unobstructed from silly things like facts and logic.

logically speaking, whatever you say, it doesn't change the reality that life can only come from pre-existing life, hence an Always Existing Life must by necessity exist. Otherwise, we're left with nothing and 'we don't know'. Both of which are illogical when it comes to Origins.

Thanks for participating.

originally posted by: edmc^2
logically speaking, whatever you say, it doesn't change the reality that life can only come from pre-existing life, hence an Always Existing Life must by necessity exist. Otherwise, we're left with nothing and 'we don't know'. Both of which are illogical when it comes to Origins.

So once again you just repeat the original faulty claim. It would be nice if you could prove or justify your stance or even show that you are working with logic here, but you clearly are not.

Life CAN ONLY come from pre-existing life. There is no evidence anywhere that suggest Life CAN ONLY come from pre-existing life. That is something that we cannot possibly know for sure right now, since life has not been observed arising in any case. You seem to magically know this to be a universal fact, yet you can't justify it or show evidence to back it up. Assumptions do not follow logic.

Why is is so difficult to grasp this very basic concept?

Logic doesn't mean, "I think this sounds right and I like the sound of it, so I believe it". Sorry. Care to try again and salvage the thread or are you just going to continue spouting ignorance into oblivion? Time to put up or shut up.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
logically speaking, whatever you say, it doesn't change the reality that life can only come from pre-existing life, hence an Always Existing Life must by necessity exist. Otherwise, we're left with nothing and 'we don't know'. Both of which are illogical when it comes to Origins.

So once again you just repeat the original faulty claim. It would be nice if you could prove or justify your stance or even show that you are working with logic here, but you clearly are not.

Life CAN ONLY come from pre-existing life. There is no evidence anywhere that suggest Life CAN ONLY come from pre-existing life. That is something that we cannot possibly know for sure right now, since life has not been observed arising in any case. You seem to magically know this to be a universal fact, yet you can't justify it or show evidence to back it up. Assumptions do not follow logic.

Why is is so difficult to grasp this very basic concept?

Logic doesn't mean, "I think this sounds right and I like the sound of it, so I believe it". Sorry. Care to try again and salvage the thread or are you just going to continue spouting ignorance into oblivion? Time to put up or shut up.

It's just is. You just keep repeating yourself. There's no evidence of life coming from nonlife but we have AMPLE EVIDENCE of life coming out from pre-existing life. What's wrong with you?

I'm sorry but are you this dumb? I mean can't you even see that the often repeated Miller / Urey experiment never produced life?

If you can't even see this - what in the universe is there to show ye?

Stop repeating yourself - over and over because it's becoming dumber and dumber everytime you repeat yourself.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Sorry Krazy, but I now understand why you can't figure out FAITH. You see it ONLY as a religious word. That's where you're wrong. In fact, I can talk about FAITH on anything, on any subject without even mentioning God, without any religious connotations. I can even use it when talking about atheism - which is the title of my next thread. You need to expand your understanding of the word (FIDES) faith because it's a powerful word.

I know exactly what the word faith means and how it can be used. Don't patronize me.

originally posted by: edmc^2
It's just is. You just keep repeating yourself. There's no evidence of life coming from nonlife but we have AMPLE EVIDENCE of life coming out from pre-existing life. What's wrong with you?

Excellent explanation. It just is. I hate to burst your bubble (just kidding, I love it), but there is currently zero evidence of life being created. ZERO. Watering this fact down to intentionally muddy the waters with generalizing statements like "life only comes from life" referencing replication is so transparent. Nobody is going to fall for that. The only fact of the matter here is that the origin of life is still unknown. You refuse to admit this and instead equivocate words with different meanings and use every fallacy under the sun in a vain attempt prove something that cannot currently be proven. I guess I'll leave you to it.

How do you know the Bible is accurate and not some other religion or culture's origins accounts?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
Sorry Krazy, but I now understand why you can't figure out FAITH. You see it ONLY as a religious word. That's where you're wrong. In fact, I can talk about FAITH on anything, on any subject without even mentioning God, without any religious connotations. I can even use it when talking about atheism - which is the title of my next thread. You need to expand your understanding of the word (FIDES) faith because it's a powerful word.

I know exactly what the word faith means and how it can be used. Don't patronize me.

Not patronizing you. I'm just informing you that the word faith is not exclusive to religion. It has a wide application. Problem is, when it comes to religion it takes a wrong meaning. But like I said - I can use faith to define atheism without even mentioning God.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
How do you know the Bible is accurate and not some other religion or culture's origins accounts?

Because of evidence.

a reply to: Barcs

The only fact of the matter here is that the origin of life is still unknown.

Of course "unknown" to those who refuse to see the obvious. This is why atheism will forever remain to be an unknown point of view.

It just is because there's no other way to get life, other than from a pre-existing life. No way around it.

But it's your choice what to believe.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Barcs

The only fact of the matter here is that the origin of life is still unknown.

Of course "unknown" to those who refuse to see the obvious. This is why atheism will forever remain to be an unknown point of view.

It just is because there's no other way to get life, other than from a pre-existing life. No way around it.

But it's your choice what to believe.

If the only way to get life is from pre-existing life, doesn't that imply that life had no beginning and will have no end? In that scenario, there is no role for a God.

Also I would point out that although life on Earth is carbon/water based, the most important element to life is phosphorus. Without phosphorus there could be no energy cycle.

But there are other forms of life that don't depend on phosphorus. Life forms which generate their energy through an arsenic cycle were discovered in 2010. What preceded that life form?

And what's your definition of "life" anyway? Biologically, the ability to reproduce defines life. Robots that reproduce will be considered "alive". The first robot to reproduce will be a unique life form that had no pre-existing life form which produced it, except if you consider the engineers who developed it to be its "parents".

And robots which can reproduce will have autonomous evolution. In other words, they will mutate and evolve on their own.

You should think outside the box a little more - there's a lot of "life" that requires no intervention from a God to exist.

originally posted by: edmc^2
It just is because there's no other way to get life, other than from a pre-existing life. No way around it.

Then there is no way around it. God came from pre-existing life. Good to see that we can agree this is the case based on your logic. If you disagree with this, then it disproves your claim that there's no other way to get life. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

And how exactly do you know that there is no other way to get life again?

Oh yeah, you DON'T. You appeal to ignorance.

Sorry bud, you have your faith and your opinion, but none of it is based on logic, fact or evidence. I can respect that if only you would admit it rather than pushing your worldview on others as fact.