The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
I rely on the Bible first. The verification of evidence comes from the world around us in parallel. Science points right back to the Bible.

Science doesn't point to the Bible. What has happened is that you have cherry picked a tiny subset of scientific theories that don't by your interpretation contradict your interpretation of the Bible, and then take this as evidence for the Bible being true. Everything scientific that you interpret to contradict your interpretation of the Bible on the other hand you deem false. It's such an obvious logical fallacy.

The fruit of knowledge was the primary theme of the Bible from the start and the main plot point to the end. Has history verified this? You see the fruit of knowledge (Technology) and the tree of life (DNA) mentioned in chapter 3. You then see the revelation of an out of place artifact in the last book. Could a man in a cave get it right 2000 years ago?

These are your interpretations and you have no proof what so ever that this was the original meaning. If the tree of life for example was about DNA, you would have thought that the writers would have also mentioned things like nucleotides, DNA and RNA polymerases, etc. To think that they were aware of these things is but your baseless fantasy. My interpretations that "thou shall not kill" actually means "you must eat yogurt every day", and that the Jonah and the whale thing was really about an alien submarine, have exactly as much backing as your wild interpretations. Also, the "tree of life" metaphor was scrapped after the discovery of horizontal gene transfer. It's now a bush of life..

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Your argument here would be better stated as against evolution, which is by far the weaker argument for a cause of life. I'm not sure how much more obvious design could be. If you are looking for clues, I suspect you would have a hard time arguing with Leonard Susskind on the issue of the universe being a woven fabric of information to purpose.

Evolution IS NOT the cause of life. Evolution cannot happen without life already existing. Evolution never claims to be the origin of life, it's a process of how life changes over time. I'm pretty sure that's been mentioned at least twice in here to you.

I'm still looking for the hard evidence behind Susskind's lecture. Where is the science paper that explains his experiments and results? I'm a meat & potatoes kinda guy, when it comes to this stuff, I don't have time to sit through an hour long video about something hypothetical. As a "credible scientist" he has to have some data published about this. Like I said, string theory is very interesting, and the math adds up, but it's not proven, as the strings are too small to be observed, if indeed they exist.

reply to post by Barcs

Evolution IS NOT the cause of life. Evolution cannot happen without life already existing. Evolution never claims to be the origin of life, it's a process of how life changes over time.

Really. I think you need to inform the teachers teaching in our classrooms. The theory of evolution starts and fails on the claim that life was created by inert matter.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Your argument here would be better stated as against evolution, which is by far the weaker argument for a cause of life. I'm not sure how much more obvious design could be. If you are looking for clues, I suspect you would have a hard time arguing with Leonard Susskind on the issue of the universe being a woven fabric of information to purpose.

Evolution IS NOT the cause of life. Evolution cannot happen without life already existing. Evolution never claims to be the origin of life, it's a process of how life changes over time. I'm pretty sure that's been mentioned at least twice in here to you.

I'm still looking for the hard evidence behind Susskind's lecture. Where is the science paper that explains his experiments and results? I'm a meat & potatoes kinda guy, when it comes to this stuff, I don't have time to sit through an hour long video about something hypothetical. As a "credible scientist" he has to have some data published about this. Like I said, string theory is very interesting, and the math adds up, but it's not proven, as the strings are too small to be observed, if indeed they exist.

edit on 4-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Many very good papers referencing Suskind and the holographic theory of energy. LINK

Here's one. LINK

Another. LINK

Another

Interesting Blog

The American Scientist Magazine

Remember. Leonard Susskind is from Stanford. Do you think his work is peer reviewed? Yes. These are vague links, but links none the less. I ended linking because there were so many.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Really. I think you need to inform the teachers teaching in our classrooms. The theory of evolution starts and fails on the claim that life was created by inert matter.

Wrong. It starts with genetic mutations, NOT inert matter. You are referring to abiogenesis. You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about with people criticizing a theory while knowing absolutely nothing about it. All you have to do is read the very basic wiki article on evolution to realize this... but alas you have not. You are only going based on what creationist websites tell you.

Thanks for posting those links. I will review them.

I believe very strongly in God. I believe in church state separation precisely because I do not want either the State controlling my walk with God or organized religious bodies able to use coercion in order to do so.

I also believe that knowing God is a matter of personal experience. God is beyond time and space.

I believe that evolution is strongly implied in the Torah ("Old Testament"):

"11 And G-d said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth' And it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and G-d saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:11)

Its kind? That sounds unitary to me, as though "kind" can include many species. Continuing in Genesis 1:

"20 And G-d said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven'.

21 And G-d created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and G-d saw that it was good.

22 And G-d blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth'."

One continuous Creation of all of these things? It does not sound like it went species to species in my reading of the Text.

"24 And G-d said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind' And it was so.

25 And G-d made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and G-d saw that it was good.

26 And G-d said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth'.

27 And G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created He him; male and female created He them."

28 And G-d blessed them; and G-d said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth'."

Again, one continuous Creation from animal to man. Man is given "dominion" in the sense of care, to tend the Garden as it says in Genesis 2:15. This means ecological consciousness and an awareness of kinship with all life.

Going to Genesis 2:

"Then HaShem G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)

Humans are formed from the Earth in to living matter. This is a form of evolution stated right out in my view, plain in the open. It admits of little debate in my view.

Lastly, a curious one:

"19 And out of the ground HaShem G-d formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.

20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him."

Again, a recognition of kinship with all life? Interesting if you think about it.

Neither the Hebrew nor Christian Bibles should be read as linear documents. Days are not distinguished from geological ages if one truly goes beyond time to Eternity. I believe that a lot of symbolism and allegory are used. The spiritual message is what is important to me.

My argument can be debated, of course. But, this is my view.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Really. I think you need to inform the teachers teaching in our classrooms. The theory of evolution starts and fails on the claim that life was created by inert matter.

Wrong. It starts with genetic mutations, NOT inert matter. You are referring to abiogenesis. You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about with people criticizing a theory while knowing absolutely nothing about it. All you have to do is read the very basic wiki article on evolution to realize this... but alas you have not. You are only going based on what creationist websites tell you.

Thanks for posting those links. I will review them.

edit on 5-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Your conclusion does not stand up to the incontrovertible evidence of design provided by science itself. Assumptions of misplaced concreteness do not confirm abiogenesis in any way. "What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?" Multimillions. No part of the theory of evolution is rational science if it assumes that the most obvious cause of life, backed by its own examination of reality, cannot be considered under any circumstances. This is your first warning sign that the conclusion is forced.

"7: New laws of nature

The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong."

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
© 1999 Creation Research Society. All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission
First published in CRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, March 2000

If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Your conclusion does not stand up to the incontrovertible evidence of design provided by science itself.

How? Again, evolution has nothing to do with design.

Assumptions of misplaced concreteness do not confirm abiogenesis in any way.

I was talking about evolution, not abiogenesis.

"What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?" Multimillions. No part of the theory of evolution is rational science if it assumes that the most obvious cause of life, backed by its own examination of reality, cannot be considered under any circumstances. This is your first warning sign that the conclusion is forced.

Dude, come on. Are you seriously going to repeat this nonsense ad infinitum regardless of what I clearly explained in the previous post? I'm not debating the probability of abiogenesis, in which there is far too many unknown variables to calculate accurately. Evolution DOES NOT ASSUME ANYTHING, including abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is separate. Evolution is a proven process that changes organisms over time. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, ABIOGENESIS OR WHATEVER FALSE DEFINITIONS YOU MAKE UP.

If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.

You just proved my point. You get your info from biased, unscientific creationist websites, not actual science studies.

Like I said, your other theories are interesting, you just need to drop the evolution bit from your assessment because you clearly have not done any research whatsoever on the subject besides creationist websites that intentionally lie and deceive people.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Your conclusion does not stand up to the incontrovertible evidence of design provided by science itself.

Stop whatever you're doing right now and send this 'incontrovertible evidence to all the major scientific institutions around the world, and prepare yourself for a Nobel prize and world wide fame. Seriously Superiorenoch if you truly believe this is the truth, you must do everything in your power to alert these institutes to what you have discovered. I am amazed no-one else has ever discovered this information and I am in awe of your intellect.



But the person you quoted?

Jerry Bergman, notorious around the web for ironically claiming that a Nobel prize winner was indeed a creationist, is unable to recognise that evolution and A-biogenisis are two separate fields of science. The former explains the diversity of life, the latter attempts to explain the origins of life. Two very different concepts don't you agree? and you would hope that someone with a Ph.D. would have this knowlwedge......even 13 years ago.

This is your chance to show the world that all creationists are not liars and frauds, who's entire agenda is to ensure that the bible is not contradicted, and provide the world with this 'incontrovertible evidence of design'.

Hurry do it now! the entire world will take notice, it will never be the same again!

I understand that there is a campaign among Creationists to encourage students to challenge evolution in biology class. Fair enough. That is freedom of thought.

I think that a similar campaign should be waged in Churches, Synagogues, and even Mosques if the danger is not too great. The campaign should be, "Why can't I be a religious believer and believe in Evolution at the same time?" It should be just as poignant. Biological facts should be brought out and the Sunday School teacher should be forced to address them just as biology teachers are forced to address religion. The existence of fossils in neatly arranged geological layers must be addressed by people who think that the planet is only a few thousand years old.

The idea of challenging science teachers is fair, and actually encourages free thinking. I also think that Sunday School teachers should face the same challenge. Again, the central question, "Why am I a bad Jew/Christian/Muslim if I accept that the Earth is billions of years old? Why can I not believe in God and praise Creator for the wonders of Nature? How are you really a better believer than me?" Call them on the hypocrisies and contradictions of the behavior of the clergy, the abuse scandals and the like. Call them on the fact that western democracy became more advanced in the eighteenth century when the power of the clergy was limited by Enlightenment thinking and Protestant Anti-Establishmentism. DO NOT ENGAGE IN THIS CHALLENGE IF YOUR LIFE MIGHT BE IN DANGER. This is especially poignant if you live in a peace loving multi-cultural Middle Eastern nation that might kill you.

Also, have consideration for your parents who work hard to support you. Ask them as questions that adults have to answer, not as challenges. Make it a point to declare that you consider yourself a Christian (or other type of believer). Make it a point that you follow the moral law of Hillel, Jesus, or whoever your religion follows. I think that it is fair for Creationists to be able to challenge authority. I agree. I think that the challenge needs to be addressed---and returned.

reply to post by Barcs

Dude, come on. Are you seriously going to repeat this nonsense ad infinitum regardless of what I clearly explained in the previous post? I'm not debating the probability of abiogenesis, in which there is far too many unknown variables to calculate accurately. Evolution DOES NOT ASSUME ANYTHING, including abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is separate. Evolution is a proven process that changes organisms over time. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, ABIOGENESIS OR WHATEVER FALSE DEFINITIONS YOU MAKE UP.

You are speaking of micro-evolution. There is plenty of evidence that the programming of DNA provides for adaptation and elevation in the species. This is a function of design. Macro-evolution as a cause of life has no evidence. It is an assumption based on misplaced concreteness. In order to force the conclusion, new natural laws must be theorized. As we are coming to find out, science is forcing the conclusion, despite the fact that Design is the obvious answer.

reply to post by Prezbo369

Stop whatever you're doing right now and send this 'incontrovertible evidence to all the major scientific institutions around the world, and prepare yourself for a Nobel prize and world wide fame. Seriously Superiorenoch if you truly believe this is the truth, you must do everything in your power to alert these institutes to what you have discovered. I am amazed no-one else has ever discovered this information and I am in awe of your intellect.

Another fallacy. Thousands of scientists, from all fields of science are on my side that evolution is bunk as a cause of life. I don't need to spread the word. Current theory is showing us that our universe is not anything like what we previously thought.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

When are you going to answer my post (top of this page)?

Originally posted by EnochWasRight


Another fallacy. Thousands of scientists, from all fields of science are on my side that evolution is bunk as a cause of life. I don't need to spread the word. Current theory is showing us that our universe is not anything like what we previously thought.

As has been pointed out to you many many MANY times, superiorbandteacher, evolution says nothing on the origin of life, nothing whatsoever. It explains the diversity of life...... that's it!

No scientist has ever claimed that evolution was the cause of life, the only time you hear that is from creationists when they are attempting to build strawmen arguments.

But if you had ever, EVER read even the smallest nugget of information on evolution that wasn't contained within a creationists video on youtube, you would know the difference between evolution and a-biogenisis. So I can only conclude that you have never taken the time to study evolution, or science in general, and give you the advice I gave you when you first posted in this forum:

You're in over your head, Ed

Originally posted by EarthEvolves

I think that it is fair for Creationists to be able to challenge authority. I agree. I think that the challenge needs to be addressed---and returned.

That goes without saying, however thats not what creationists do. They attempt to hijack science and knowledge in general in order to attempt to squeeze it into the bible. I present this thread, its author and the videos he has posted as evidence. He continually lies in the face of the evidence provided and ignores questions or points he cannot answer.

The thread title reveals it all

The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist

As he knows that usually.........they aint! (note: this is no exception)

reply to post by rhinoceros

Science doesn't point to the Bible. What has happened is that you have cherry picked a tiny subset of scientific theories that don't by your interpretation contradict your interpretation of the Bible, and then take this as evidence for the Bible being true. Everything scientific that you interpret to contradict your interpretation of the Bible on the other hand you deem false. It's such an obvious logical fallacy.

By science, I hope you mean "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Science is merely an observation of what God created. Science can only observe natural law, but has no answer to what governs the law. Metaphysics can then take the science and verify what has already been known from its own area of observation. Verification of the evidence then comes in the form of historical revelation that matches both sides of the observation. Science lacks this reflecting comparison. Not only does the spiritual person have the ability to verify scientific observation by comparison to what has been known since antiquity, we also have the enigma of the Bible. It draws the future into the past for us to see.

ON 666 being Carbon, the fruit of knowledge and the tree of life.

These are your interpretations and you have no proof what so ever that this was the original meaning. If the tree of life for example was about DNA, you would have thought that the writers would have also mentioned things like nucleotides, DNA and RNA polymerases, etc. To think that they were aware of these things is but your baseless fantasy. My interpretations that "thou shall not kill" actually means "you must eat yogurt every day", and that the Jonah and the whale thing was really about an alien submarine, have exactly as much backing as your wild interpretations. Also, the "tree of life" metaphor was scrapped after the discovery of horizontal gene transfer. It's now a bush of life..

Again, I have examples from other firsthand sources that verify. Here is one of many examples from the book of Jasher.

And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.

Feel free to dismiss this as mythology, but the artifacts speak for themselves. Every culture on earth that has a recorded record of their history will verify that divine beings visited this planet. We then have a chronicle in the Bible and other books to verify the accuracy of the claims. Beyond the claims, we have a further verification that a supreme ruler of the universe runs the show with a purpose and plan that cannot be fully conceived by us. We further have evidence that extra-dimensional reality is not only plausible, but is suggested from observation.

Would it be cheery-picking to say the following? As stated by Paul Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation, our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two universes represents the projection point of both.

Would it be a stretch to say that a simple statement by God in the VERY FIRST verse of the Bible stakes a claim on physics? Not at all. It's evidence.

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

Would it be a stretch, based on the best science of the day, to notice that we live in an image of energy? Not at all. We have created our own digital image of energy. You are using it currently to read this post.

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Would it be a stretch to say that the universe is large enough for God to build me a custom dwelling on some distant shore?

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

Would it be a stretch to say that God can melt the strong and weak nuclear forces of matter?

2 Peter 3:12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

I'm just getting warmed up. I could fill a hard drive with examples. The only stretch is to believe that we live in an accidental universe. Now that take some faith.

Remember, the Bible was there first. Science has only seen past the veil in recent history.

reply to post by Prezbo369

As has been pointed out to you many many MANY times, superiorbandteacher, evolution says nothing on the origin of life, nothing whatsoever. It explains the diversity of life...... that's it!

No. It claims to be the origin of life itself from inert matter devoid of previous life. Otherwise, science would leave the creation aspect open for debate. Not the case. They deny a Creator as a biased opinion and not a rational outcome from the observation. Bias can only deny an idea. Reason and rationality leaves all options open until the evidence is more than theory. When science is willing to invent new natural laws as theory to prop up the previous theory, we know something is amiss. Rationality would never do this.

From the THE SEVEN WARNING SIGNS OF VOODOO SCIENCE LINK

RULE 7) New laws of nature are proposed to explain an incredible observation. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. They also demand some explanation of how they can be reconciled with the same natural laws that govern everything else. If existing laws of nature must be changed, or new laws must be proposed, the observation is almost certainly wrong.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

No. It claims to be the origin of life itself from inert matter devoid of previous life. Otherwise, science would leave the creation aspect open for debate. Not the case. They deny a Creator as a biased opinion and not a rational outcome from the observation. Bias can only deny an idea. Reason and rationality leaves all options open until the evidence is more than theory. When science is willing to invent new natural laws as theory to prop up the previous theory, we know something is amiss. Rationality would never do this.

I know you think a lot of yourself but even you, Enochwaswrong, do not get to redefine scientific terms. I'm now absolutely convinced that you've never read even the most basic science text book.

You do not get to invent your own version of science, your own version of reality or your own version of truth.

To anybody looking for answers, as a representative of superstitionists or believers, I can see you being very off-putting.

So in regards to evolution, you're either incredibly mistaken on the very fundamentals of biology (which when I consider you have a place in a childs education is very very worrying), or very very dishonest.

And how do you reply? by ignoring anything you simply cannot answer and inserting a nonsensical paragraph of misinformation that would make any english teacher (note: a real educator) gag in disgust.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

No. It claims to be the origin of life itself from inert matter devoid of previous life. Otherwise, science would leave the creation aspect open for debate. Not the case. They deny a Creator as a biased opinion and not a rational outcome from the observation. Bias can only deny an idea. Reason and rationality leaves all options open until the evidence is more than theory. When science is willing to invent new natural laws as theory to prop up the previous theory, we know something is amiss. Rationality would never do this.

I know you think a lot of yourself but even you, Enochwaswrong, do not get to redefine scientific terms. I'm now absolutely convinced that you've never read even the most basic science text book.

You do not get to invent your own version of science, your own version of reality or your own version of truth.

To anybody looking for answers, as a representative of superstitionists or believers, I can see you being very off-putting.

So in regards to evolution, you're either incredibly mistaken on the very fundamentals of biology (which when I consider you have a place in a childs education is very very worrying), or very very dishonest.

And how do you reply? by ignoring anything you simply cannot answer and inserting a nonsensical paragraph of misinformation that would make any english teacher (note: a real educator) gag in disgust.

Keep stating your incredulity against me, but notice that you insert no science into the mix. You strike against my character incorrectly, then call that your proof. Please proved some science and context as I have done in this thread.

A sure sign someone has no foundation to their words is that the shaky ground they stand on is filled with bias and insult. If you want to be taken seriously here, provide words toward the subject and not words of insult at the object.

Where's your evidence? I will stand firm on mine. It's contained within this thread from top to bottom.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
You are speaking of micro-evolution. There is plenty of evidence that the programming of DNA provides for adaptation and elevation in the species. This is a function of design. Macro-evolution as a cause of life has no evidence. It is an assumption based on misplaced concreteness. In order to force the conclusion, new natural laws must be theorized. As we are coming to find out, science is forcing the conclusion, despite the fact that Design is the obvious answer.

Well I guess I'm just talking to a brick wall. I repeated 3 times that evolution is not the cause of life, and he still pretends that never happened and goes on claiming that evolution suggests it. Stop it. You are a typical scientific illiterate pretending that he knows what he's talking about. Stop trying to deceive people with this evolution nonsense. Every time I ask you about misplaced concreteness, its ignored. Pick up a science book. Learn something.

No. It claims to be the origin of life itself from inert matter devoid of previous life.

Prove this statement with scientific studies, please. Don't quote a 3rd grade science book or youtube video. Show where evolutionary theory suggests that it created life.

Otherwise, science would leave the creation aspect open for debate. Not the case. They deny a Creator as a biased opinion and not a rational outcome from the observation.

Wrong again. There are plenty of scientists that believe in god. Science doesn't deny a creator. There just hasn't been any evidence found of one, so the idea is treated as a pure hypothetical as it should.

This thread should be called, "The lies of design, from a non credible layman"

*Awaits next post where he repeats the same argument again and ignores everything said*

reply to post by Barcs

Well I guess I'm just talking to a brick wall. I repeated 3 times that evolution is not the cause of life, and he still pretends that never happened and goes on claiming that evolution suggests it. Stop it. You are a typical scientific illiterate pretending that he knows what he's talking about. Stop trying to deceive people with this evolution nonsense. Every time I ask you about misplaced concreteness, its ignored. Pick up a science book. Learn something.

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Where is you context, evidence or proof? I gave you an example from Richard Dawkins where he says that evolution is the answer to our origin. Are you arguing with Richard? Of course, he offers no origin and just says "We don't know." This is not a rational answer to say that we don't know and then exclude the best choice. The evidence points to design. I have demonstrated by context and evidence. Where's yours? You said that I should pick up a text. Been there and done that many times. Quote me something and I'll give a reply. Again, where is your context?

Wrong again. There are plenty of scientists that believe in god. Science doesn't deny a creator. There just hasn't been any evidence found of one, so the idea is treated as a pure hypothetical as it should.

This thread should be called, "The lies of design, from a non credible layman"

*Awaits next post where he repeats the same argument again and ignores everything said*

The Bible is filled with enigmatic evidence. It's right there in my posts above. This is evidence. It is an out-of-place artifact. My context compares the two. Your context is insult against me with no backing whatsoever. I would be more inclined to see your side if you presented something of value.