Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: edmc^2

You forgot to add something at the beginning.

It was "In my biased and religious based opinion......".

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

You forgot to add something at the beginning.

It was "In my biased and religious based opinion......".

Ok - come back when you have something substantial to discuss.

ciao

a reply to: edmc^2

Says the guy that uses a biased opinion to try and prove a creator lol.

All your "math" has proved is that math can be twisted to fit whatever you want it to. But when someone uses your own logic to counter you, they're instantly wrong.

That's called bias.

Now, you'll try and dismiss is as fact or some other twisted version of logic, but you've still failed.

a reply to: edmc^2

Actually this entire thread, and many others are full of the implication that evolution , includes the hypothesis of abiogenesis, or one of the other hypotheses. Hell some of your chums have tried to cram the Big Bang in there too.

So yeah, don't do your own smoke screen neighbour, its not very good at covering your tactics

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

Actually this entire thread, and many others are full of the implication that evolution , includes the hypothesis of abiogenesis, or one of the other hypotheses. Hell some of your chums have tried to cram the Big Bang in there too.

So yeah, don't do your own smoke screen neighbour, its not very good at covering your tactics

To the contrary, there was no mention nor any implication of abiogenesis hypothesis here. It was you who brought it up.

But since you're fond of the abiogenesis hypothesis, then explain why it should not be part of the discussion?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Says the guy that uses a biased opinion to try and prove a creator lol.

All your "math" has proved is that math can be twisted to fit whatever you want it to. But when someone uses your own logic to counter you, they're instantly wrong.

That's called bias.

Now, you'll try and dismiss is as fact or some other twisted version of logic, but you've still failed.

Well, all I can say is, you're entitled to your bias opinion.

But since you can't refute the evidence I've presented in the Model, you've nowhere to go but throw meaningless words.

a reply to: edmc^2

Oh it was me who brought it up was it? Which post was that in then?

You talked about it in all but name on the first page. You of course would not be being intellectually dishonest would you? That would be cliche

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

Oh it was me who brought it up was it? Which post was that in then?

You talked about it in all but name on the first page. You of course would not be being intellectually dishonest would you? That would be cliche

Well if you want to include it in the discussion, then, by all means, do so.

But beware, abiogenesis is a weak platform to stand on in support of your BELIEF - whatever it is!

It's a laughable hypothesis if you even consider it as one.

a reply to: edmc^2

Already been disputed time and time again. You just spit your dummy out and default to "you're wrong because my opinion is more right!"

You've still got to prove that "creation is the only logical explanation". You know? The thing you haven't been able to do.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Already been disputed time and time again. You just spit your dummy out and default to "you're wrong because my opinion is more right!"

You've still got to prove that "creation is the only logical explanation". You know? The thing you haven't been able to do.

But I did, you just refused to understand it.

From the op:

"Life comes from pre-existing life" (to use Prof. Hawking's criterion for a good model pg 51 The Grand Design )


1. is elegant
2. contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
3. agrees with or explains all existing observations.
4. makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not born out.


www.amazon.com...

Hence, you can't get life from nothing. It's impossible no matter what experiment you do. So, the only logical explanation then, and the only conclusion (that makes sense) is this:

There MUST be an Always Existing Life to produce life! There MUST be a pre-existing all powerful intelligent life to produce the physical Universe and all the things in it. A loving, all powerful UNCREATED God who willed the universe into existence. He is not the created "god of the gaps" that atheist like to throw at Christians but The Living God.

The Creation Model - satisfy the criterion set above.

"Something from absolute nothing" is illogical and requires great faith to be believable.

a reply to: edmc^2

Yep that would be you being intellectually dishonest all right. You are ingoring the bits of my posts which you can't talk too, and deciding what the topic of my reply was about.

You have yet to prove that Creation is the only logical explanation. You make the mistake of including evolution into the discussion.

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

Yep that would be you being intellectually dishonest all right. You are ingoring the bits of my posts which you can't talk too, and deciding what the topic of my reply was about.

You have yet to prove that Creation is the only logical explanation. You make the mistake of including evolution into the discussion.

Try if you may, evolution theory or even its predecessor (spontaneous generation ) now known as the abiogenesis hypothesis is unable to satisfy the criteria set by Prof. Hawkins.

But Creation does! With absolute precision.

a reply to: edmc^2

If you can't post the proof, and the citations, you are speaking from an orifice different to the one that you believe your god created to speak from, or as thinking individuals know evolution adapted to the use we use it for.

Post the proof, in a peer reviewed reputable journal. Not a blog, not a creationist rag, but an actual journal.

a reply to: edmc^2

Oh and while we are at it, where is the credible scientific evidence to show that creation passes scientific method? No seriously? You invalidated the statement you made even before we consider that with the phrase "with absolute precision". I do not believe you understand scientific method, let alone the use of the word precision in a scientific setting.

Post the evidence neighbour. OR be branded a fraud.

a reply to: Noinden

OR be branded a fraud.

Far too late for that brother...

a reply to: Akragon

What we applied the brand already? I was heating it up nice and cherry red too *sulks*

a reply to: Noinden

I urge you to have a peek at said persons threads...

dude sat on his own "brand" long ago

a reply to: Akragon

Oh I know this persons threads well I do my research. I know brands tend to wear off over time however, or get branded over.

I'm here to be a voice of reason, which many folk see as fruitless, but as I keep repeating I'm here on my spirituality's imperative an fhirinne in aghaidh an tsaoil, on the off chance, a word of reason will make someone step away from the ingorance these threads are based on. After all ATS has the dogma of "deny ignorance" for what it is worth

a reply to: Noinden

mmmhmm

And as you've seen i've repeatedly said in this and other threads... whats the point?

with the reply being "leave me to my fun"... lol

I am all for that line of reasoning... but one can only beat a dead horse so much....

Dust is what remains at this point... but hey.... have at er

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

If you can't post the proof, and the citations, you are speaking from an orifice different to the one that you believe your god created to speak from, or as thinking individuals know evolution adapted to the use we use it for.

Post the proof, in a peer reviewed reputable journal. Not a blog, not a creationist rag, but an actual journal.

Why do you have to rely on others to tell you if a statement is true or not? Can't you look at the evidence yourself and decide if it's factual or not?

Why must you rely on others to make the decision for you? Oh I see, you have to rely on them because they are the ultimate arbiter of the truth.

I pity you because if as Jesus Christ said:

[Mat 15:14 KJV] 14 "...they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

In addition, when it comes to the Origin of Life, many of the so-called "peer-reviewed reputable journal" are not at all in agreement with each others position. So what to do? Which journal is reputable? And who made them reputable when it comes to this topic?

Here's a list of competing hypothesis/theories as to the Origin Of life:

"Primordial soup" hypothesis
The RNA world hypothesis
The Iron–sulfur world hypothesis
The Zn-world hypothesis
The Deep sea vent hypothesis
The Clay hypothesis
The lipid world theory
The PAH world hypothesis
The Radioactive beach hypothesis
etc...


Which one of these do you believe is the true explanation for the Origin Of Life?