@broadblues

Quote:

Your reading comprehension skills need a little work there I think!

That is open to debate. What is not so clear is how it's considered plausible that a beatle with a sophisticated defensive system that could not come about by trial and error (the proto-beatles would have exploded if the mix of chemicals had been slightly off or the injectors not formed correctly) was evolved rather than designed? How can a better eyeball come from a worse one when modern humans' eyesight is rather deteriorating not improving! Maybe you're just putting your fingers in your ears and watching super hero films pretending that everything in the natural world is evolving!? In the real would everything can be seen to be devolving and decaying due to the fall hence why people have mitochondrial diseases in the first place!

Last edited by BigD on 29-Mar-2017 at 08:54 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 29-Mar-2017 at 07:50 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

Maybe you're just putting your fingers in your ears and watching super hero films pretending that everything in the natural world is evolving!?

That's a bit rich considering that you draw your conclusions from a fairy story.

@BigD

Quote:

What is not so clear is how it's considered plausible that a beatle with a sophisticated defensive system that could not come about by trial and error

Which Beatle were you on about? John, Paul, George or Ringo? Maybe the explosions of the "proto-Beatles" explains why Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best didn't become household names in the sixties.
The evolution of the defences of the bombardier beetle is no more "irreducibly complex" than that of the bacterial flagellum, the primary argument used by Michael Behe in the Kitzmiller trial that demostrated beyond all possible doubt that the creationist cause was built on a foundation of lies, deceit, and dishonesty.

Furthermore the human eye is probably the worst example you could cite on "intelligent design. If any engineer tried to design a camera as badly as the human eye is built he would be sacked instantly, if not quicker. The light sensiive parts of the rods and cones are at the back of the retina, pointing away from the lens. the nerves and blood supply are between the light sensing cells and the lens meaning that not only do they interfere with good image detection, there has to be a "hole" in the sensing surface that the blood and nerve connections can pass. The infamous "blind spot". If the human eye is made in the image of your god, then your god is far from perfect. The octopus has a far superior "design" for its eye which evolved separately from the evolutionary development of the earliest aquatic ancestors of mammals.

The cephalopod eye and the vertebrate eye, while strikingly similar, evolved completely independently of one another. Nature “invented” the camera-like eye at least twice, once in vertebrates and once in cephalopods. (Insects, arachnids, and crustaceans have an entirely different type of eye.) During the evolution of the cephalopod eye, the retina took shape in a more logical way, with the photoreceptors facing outward toward the light. Vertebrates were not so lucky.


Other examples of poor design include the recurrent laryngeal nerve which runs from the brain to the larynx via the heart In early vertebrates (fish) this is a straight line, which becomes a detour of 4.6 metres in giraffes and in the now extinct sauropod dinosaurs it extended up to 28 metres in length. tthe fact that humans breathe and drink through the same hole, leading to a choking hazard. Last but not least there is the whole "entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage farm thing about using the same parts for removal of waste products as for reproduction. Include in that the prostate gland wrapping around the urethra so that when it becomes irritated and swells it inhibits/stops the flow of urine and even worse for your god finding male homosexuality abhorrent is the fact that the human male has an erogenous zone in the rectum that can best be reached by inserting an erect male penis.
If your god designed humans, then she designed men to enjoy taking it up the (never mind).

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Rob

Quote:

That's a bit rich considering that you draw your conclusions from a fairy story.

Looks like you need to go on a fact checking mission too! Check the required reading in the previous posts and take a break from the X-Men comics!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Nimrod

Quote:

The octopus has a far superior "design" for its eye which evolved separately from the evolutionary development of the earliest aquatic ancestors of mammals.

You're quoting evolution theory conjecture as fact again! Were you there paddling around so many (choose an order of magnitude that makes you feel warm inside) millions of years ago watching said octopus evolve? Why did the shark swimming next to that octopus not change for 420 million years (give or take a few decades for good measure )? We're supposed to assume trial and error did a perfect job on sharks are we? Just because we are designed in God's image doesn't mean we are perfect! We live in a fallen world with decaying bodies, and devolving genetics and we are only promised perfect bodies in heaven not here on Earth.

Last edited by BigD on 30-Mar-2017 at 02:21 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Rob Quote: That's a bit rich considering that you draw your conclusions from a fairy story. Looks like you need to go on a fact checking mission too! Check the required reading in the previous posts and take a break from the X-Men comics!

LOL. I don't think I've ever seen an X-Men comic in my hands let alone read one. I much prefer real life or educational. I don't think there's anything of value to be gained by reading your recommended texts. I'd be surprised if they contained more facts than an episode of Ancient Aliens.

Quote:

We live in a fallen world with decaying bodies, and devolving genetics and we are only promised perfect bodies in heaven not here on Earth.

Is there a written contract to that effect? if the sky fairy has a perfect world ready made why do we have to suffer this one? Please don't insult my intelligence by spouting some righteous bull turd about having to learn to appreciate things in order to become worthy enough to earn the right to an afterlife in this promised but never proven, elite world of yours.

@Rob

Quote:

Please don't insult my intelligence by spouting some righteous bull turd about having to learn to appreciate things in order to become worthy enough to earn the right to an afterlife in this promised but never proven, elite world of yours.

I dont see where I said that. Believe in Jesus and go to heaven or don't and do not go to heaven (and face worse decay and suffering than we can imagine). There's no way to be 'worthy' in your own strength. That's why a faith in Jesus is not a religion; we are justified by Jesus' life of perfection not ours.

And yes it's far more probable and backed up by history to believe in a creator than believing the world around us is progressing genetically with amazing new improved species wandering out of the jungle through a process of chaotic trial and error and the fact you think humans came from amoeba

Last edited by BigD on 30-Mar-2017 at 07:18 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Thread

Just watched the BBC's programme, Galapagos. If you can get past the ridiculous biased pushing of the theory of evolution as fact (the editor should be reprimanded IMHO), it features a range of marvels of creation!

For instance, the Marine Iguana is the ONLY lizard that gets it food from the sea. It has been created with the ability to remove excess salt from its body by squirting salt water from its nose! What an amazing world we live in (despite its fallen state following the events in the Garden of Eden). Don't tell me that these amazing creatures are the result of a cosmic game of genetic poker that is not proved in nature as there are no observations of these fictitious processes ACUALLY playing out in reality! The pseudo science seems to centre around conjecture over fossils, feathered birds' skeletons that have structural similarities to lizards and DNA chromosome breaks!

The 'millions of years' excuse doesn't explain the unrepeatable ordered life being produced out of genetic chaos that evolutionists accept with ridiculous naivety and unbending 'religious' acceptance! A complex amazing creature must be created by a structured process such as a creator designing and making such a creature. To think these beautiful creatures are just the result of random chemical interactions (that we can't reproduce ourselves), biological mistakes, genetic mutations and random acts is quite ridiculous!

Last edited by BigD on 31-Mar-2017 at 01:11 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 30-Mar-2017 at 11:22 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 30-Mar-2017 at 11:20 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD
Quote:

You're quoting evolution theory conjecture as fact again

No, I am quoting evidence based fact as fact. Did you know that in the 150 years since Darwin first published, biological science has continued to make huge advances while theofascists have remained entrenched in ideologies that were already outdated at the end of the bronze age. Modern biologists can read the genomes of vertebrates and cephalopods, apparently with greater understanding that you have of your own "Wholly Babble"
As for why the shark didn't change for 420 million years, you are wrong in that sharks havechanged since the cladoselache of 370 mya. But since their environment hasn't changed by all that much in the lastseveral millions of years and the original proto-sharks were basically "good enough" then they didn't need to change much, and those that did change were mostly less competitive therefore died out. However some like the hammerhead which evolved some 20 million years ago have an advantage over their more streamlined cousins in murky waters and consequently have remained dominant in that niche environment despite being less competitive elsewhere. They also do better in clear waters if food is scarce as the wider separation of their eyes and electroreceptors gives them a more accurate 3-D perspective enabling them to find and catch prey that the more streamlined and energy efficient forms such as the mako shark would miss.

As for the charge of accepting allegations as fact, I suggest that you read Matthew 7:3-5 and apply the lesson.
You have asserted that your deity considers homosexuality to be an abomination, yet the bible also explains that Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the principal boy in your pathetic pantomime was the product of homosexual activities. In Matthew1:16 it states that Jacob (a man) begat Joseph, meaning that it was he that had sex with the person who became pregnant and gave birth to Joseph. In Luke 3:23 we are told who it was that Jacob had sex with. The bible tells us that Joseph was the son of Heli, another man, meaning that Jacob had sex with Heli and little baby Joseph was the outcome. Now THAT is a miracle that you missed!

Quote:

We're supposed to assume trial and error did a perfect job on sharks are we?

No. Evolution never does a perfect job as the length of the recurrent laryngeal nerve demonstrates so well. What it does is bodge up a variant that is "good enough to get away with it"
Evolutionary pressures are like two men walking barefoot across the African plain who realise that they are being stalked by a hungry lion. They stop and turn to face the lion which leaves the lion confused as this is not normal prey behaviour. While the lion is trying to work out what to do next one of the men notices that his companion has reached into his backpack and retrieved his pair of Nike's and is putting them on. "You don't think you can outrun a lion" he says, and receives the reply "I don't have to run faster than the lion, I only need to run faster than you"
Evolution doesn't seek to meet some external concept of "perfection" it merely allows certain forms to adapt to fit a niche within the environment of the time.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BigD
Quote:

It has been created with the ability to remove excess salt from its body by squirting salt water from its nose

I agree with you in that it has a very clever trick, but what EVIDENCE do you have that it was created? Add to that what evidence can you show me that it was your preferred invisible magic skyfairy that did the creating and not one of the creator deities from any one of the more than 1100 different and disparate religions that exist and are practised today, or even from any of the religions that are now classed as mythology such as the Roman, Greek, and Norse pantheons or Druids.

Quote:

The pseudo science seems to centre around conjecture over fossils, feathered birds' skeletons that have structural similarities to lizards and DNA chromosome breaks!

The science is based on observable evidence. The early evidence came in the form of fossils, and the later evidence came in the form of repeatable experiments on reading DNA sequences. So what evidence does the Christian bible have that can corroborate its assertions. What contemporary Roman or Jewish writers in Jerusalem reported an earthquake that damaged the newly completed Temple of Herod? What Astronomer or Astrologer recorded an eclipse, or any other explanation for a three hour period of darkness that supposedly occurred at a time of the month when solar eclipses simply cannot happen. And finally what records does anybody have of a zombie invasion of Jerusalem over a Passover weekend? What with Jairus' daughter, Lazarus, and all the "saints", resurrection was no longer anything to brag about. Had I been in Jerusalem on a Friday and a zombie invasion had begun I would have left the city at the run, and still been running on the Monday, yet the bible has people going about their business as though nothing had happened. because nothing had happened

Quote:

The 'millions of years' excuse doesn't explain the unrepeatable ordered life being produced out of genetic chaos

If you really want to see unrepeatable ordered life arising from genetic chaos, just take a look in a mirror. Every one of us fits that description. I will use myself as an example so that my comments cannot be misconstrued as an attempt to insult. At the moment of my conception the sperm cell that fertilised my mothers egg was one of over 40 million (and up to 1.2 billion) that a healthy male will release in a single ejaculation. The egg was released from one of 2 million egg follicles that my mother was born with. Had my mother fallen pregnant the previous month, no egg would have been released. Had she been impregnated the previous night the sperm that led to me would not have been able to penetrate the ovum. Since my parents were a young couple it was inevitable that somebody was going to be born, but the odds against it being me were astronomical. Yet here I am, telling you that you are wrong to assume that some bronze age middle eastern goatherd knows more about the world than modern scientists. The authors of the bible didn't even know as much as many of their contemporaries elsewhere in the world. The early Hebrews were semi-nomadic people living in a wasteland between two civilisations that had bureaucrats codifying written laws while the Hebrews were passing myths and legends down by word of mouth. Every one of the stries in the books of Genesis and Exodus is plagiarised from the mythologies of older and more advanced civilisations. The bible's flood story is a copy of the story of Utnapishtim from the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" which was itself derived from the legend of Atrahasis, a retelling of the myth of Zuisudra, which academics have reason to believe was not an original tale. So the bibles story of Noah is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. And if you have ever seen a fourth or fifth generation pirate copy of a VHS film you will know exactly how crappy the bible stories have become.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Guys, why bother?

@Nimrod

Quote:

If you really want to see unrepeatable ordered life arising from genetic chaos, just take a look in a mirror. Every one of us fits that description. I will use myself as an example so that my comments cannot be misconstrued as an attempt to insult. At the moment of my conception the sperm cell that fertilised my mothers egg was one of over 40 million (and up to 1.2 billion) that a healthy male will release in a single ejaculation.

That again is evidence of natural selection but not evolution. You don't seem to be able to seperate the two! Just because we can OBSERVE that healthy sperm is more likely to fertilise the egg first, doesn't correlate with mutated genetic material a) making humanity genetically better (rather than varied) 2) giving rise to a new species!

I really don't know what your aim is really. You spout a lot of knowledge about flawed pseudo-science but that doesn't make it anything other than conjecture based on a world view that the world is millions of years old and that we MUST have evolved from lesser organisms. It only works that way round! If you take away your assumptions and faith position all your pseudo science is balanced on a castle made of balanced playing cards. Retrain your mind, have a look about you at the real world and you'll see that evolution is both a ridiculous THEORY and is NOT the hard and true FACT that you keep peddling it as!

The point of this thread rather than to give you a platform to peddle your world view and anti-God agenda is to point out the hypocracy that now exists between the anti-GM sentiment that exists amongst the general public regarding GM crops and yet we are frivolously EXPERIMENTING ON HUMAN EMBRYOS LIKE THEY ARE BACTERIA IN A PETRI DISH.

The real question is whether you think that is ...
a) Sensible
b) Ethical
c) Economical
... to experiment on, genetically alter and allow implantation or incineration at the whim of the 'experts'?

I would argue that we don't need genetically modified humans, it's completely unethical to incinerate ANY human embryo or to abort ANY human fetuses. It is sickening to experiment on humans at ANY stage in an man or woman's life cycle post fertilisation. It is also economical suicide to abort healthy human beings while investing in making gentically damaged parents conceive via a more expensive version of IVF rather than adopting the 'unwanted' babies born to healthy parents.

All this should have no bearing on your naive views on human evolution and yet somehow it is intrinsically linked. People devalue human life because people foolishly believe man isn't made in the image of God and foolishly beieve knowledge and 'progress' should progress in all directions irrespective of the damage its doing or the humans killed or the risk to the human genome (which is now artificaily altered by these scientists).

At a very basic level the same arguments used for GM crops should be scaled up to analyse what's happening with GM babies. At an even more basic level you could look at the genetic experimentation warnings from literature and popular culture and immedietly see this is not the direction our society should be going. We don't NEED to do this, IT'S WRONG to do it and IT MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE to do it.

Last edited by BigD on 03-Apr-2017 at 04:10 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

That again is evidence of natural selection but not evolution. You don't seem to be able to seperate the two!

Are you really as ignorant as you are portraying yourself o be? Darwins scientific theory goes by the full title of "The theory of evolution by means of NATURAL SELECTION meaning that you do not separate the natural selection aspect of evolution by natural selection, any more than you would expect to remove the "combustion" of fuel from an internal combustion engine.
Evolution by natural selection does not have any inbuilt definition of "better" it merely enables biodiversity (evolution) and the diverse life-forms either fail or thrive in differing environments.

My aim is simple. This is a COMPUTER forum where people who have an interest in one particular niche computer and its evolved "offspring, MorphOS, AROS and OS4. Unfortunately every so often a theofascist comes along and demands that we join in his crusades, don't you. Take your ignorant fuckwittery and your primitive superstitious twaddle and shove them firmly where the sun doesn't shine. Clowns like you have held back human progress for the last two millennia, but the resistance that started with the "Age of Reason" has robbed you of the power and authority to have people burned at the stake for the crime of thinking for themselves. You decry modern science just as your predecessors decried the efforts of anatomists who sought to use cadavers as a way of learning how the human body works claiming that they "defied god's will." Later theists decried the work of people like Edward Jenner for his use of cowpox to cure Smallpox simply because it bypassed the need for prayer.

The theory of evolution is not based on simple conjecture, it is based on evidence. If you want to see baseless conjecture you need to read the book which says that because animals exist they must have been created by an invisible, intangible skyfairy called יהוה (JHWH) who picked up a handful of dirt and then performed a Golem spell. Where is the EVIDENCE for the claims made in the bible?
Every claim in the bible is contradicted by physical evidence, by independent contemporary documentary evidence, and by other claims in the bible.
Your book can't even get the ancestry of Joseph, husband of Mary straight. Unless of course Jacob begat Joseph, son of Heli.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

You're being the ignorant one here. Can you not see how two birds of the same species can be NATURALLY SELECTED in the fact that one has an intolerance for a widely available food source and the other one doesn't? One dies the other one lives. The genetic code is passed to the alive bird's offspring and NO NEW SPECIES IS CREATED!! By simple COMMON SENSE NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOT EQUAL EVOLUTION!!!

This thread is about the flippant experimentation on and MURDER of human embryos being legalised by the UK government. Whether you worship Darwin or not should have no bearing on your view of pointless GM-baby experimentation. However, in reality it DOES and you're becoming obnoxious about it. Well done, I'm sorry you're unable to win the argument, it must really hurt your self esteem

Last edited by BigD on 05-Apr-2017 at 11:27 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 05-Apr-2017 at 09:27 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

You remind me of some kind of colonial anthropologist, unshakeable in his views despite repeatedly being presented with evidence to the contrary.

Welcome to the utter madness called religion.

@Rob

Quote:

You remind me of some kind of colonial anthropologist, unshakeable in his views despite repeatedly being presented with evidence to the contrary.

I still waiting for any semblance of debate beyond, "this guy said this probably happended and there is this bit of chromosome that COULD have fused in humans so since my world view says there is no God that is probably what happened - who's with me?" dumb unquestioning celebrity atheist scientist worship. Your statement works well to describe Darwin 'worshippers'. You cannot get past the fact that believing in evolution is just as much a faith position than believing the Bible is! Also, I don't see the title of this thread reading...

"Let's peddle the same old evolutionary theory clap trap at BigD until he rejects common sense and scientific questioning and accepts unprovable and non-scientific method pseudo-science instead!" You basically have no problem blindly accepting that an highly ordered universe was created entirely by chance and randomness but have a problem accepting the Bible What's the most probable? Have you ever managed to create a lego model by randomly throwing the lego pieces out of the box over and over for millions of seconds? Have you read up on either the irrefutable truths of Jesus' life and resurrection? Hey, it's Easter time so grap yourself a copy of Frank Morrison's Who Moved the Stone and have a great time unpacking it all

Get a clue that meddling with genetics just because we can is insane. The UK is a rogue state on this issue. American scientists negate their own protective legislation by travelling to Mexico to do anything similar. We are out of line globally on GM-babies and we are out of line ethically irrespective of whether you bother to properly research the truths of Bible or not!

Last edited by BigD on 06-Apr-2017 at 01:09 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

"Let's peddle the same old evolutionary theory clap trap at BigD until he rejects common sense and scientific questioning and accepts unprovable and non-scientific method pseudo-science instead!"

That line of yours has to contain the most pure unadulterated bovine excrement I have seen for ages. Not since you decided to try to enforce your theofascist ideologies on this computer forum before on the matter of giving gays an equal right to having the marital partner of of their own choosing have I seen such self-righteous twaddle. You don't even seem to know what the word "Theory" means in a scientific context. A scientific theory is THE BEST EXPLANATION of an aspect of the natural world, that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
On the matter of Human chromosome 23, are you aware of how many base pairs there are in Chromosome 2? There are over 252 million, and the sequence exactly matches those of Simian Chromosomes 2p and 2q, with not only the telomere-eremolet sequence in exactly the right place, but also the deactivated centromere. That is more unlikely than me buying two lottery tickets, one for the UK national lottery and one for the Euro-millions on the same week and winning first prize on both tickets.

Quote:

Have you ever managed to create a lego model by randomly throwing the lego pieces out of the box over and over for millions of seconds?

No, but neither have I seen a pair of Lego bricks f*cking. When you show me plastic toys exchanging genetic information in meiosis, or reproducing by the simple division of mitosis then, and only then, will I start looking for them to build themselves into new and interesting models. Even then only after around 3.5billion years, or were you unaware that for the first three billion years of the observable record of life on this planet the only life was single-celled organisms, as is shown from the fossil record.

The reason I have difficulty in accepting the claims made in the bible is that not only is there no evidence that corroborates the claims made but to make matters worse for you, there is a huge repository of evidence that the bible is wrong about just about everything.
There is NO evidence to support the existence of any deity whatsoever.
There is NO evidence to support the existence יהוה.
There is NO evidence to support the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth"
There is NO evidence to support the existence of "Nazareth" during the first century AD.
There IS evidence that the creation myth in Genesis1 directly contradicts the creation myth in Genesis 2.
There IS evidence that the genealogy given in Matthew 1 directly contradicts the genealogy in Luke 3
There IS evidence that the timeframe for the birth of the principal boy in your pathetic little pantomime given in Matthew2 is ten years before the one in Luke 2.
Any scientist who put forward a hypothesis so devoid of corroborative evidence, and riddled with so many inconsistencies, errors and internal conflicts would have it thrown out during the first few seconds of peer review. Peer review is a process in science where people wo do not believe in a particular hypothesis try to prove it wrong, and fail. Imagine if you will a collection of religious leaders examining each others religions until they all come to a consensus about which one is the "One true faith™". When religion does that, then, and only then will there be parity between religion and science, but until then your puerile attempts to create a false equivalence between your made up superstitions and falsifiable tested science are doomed to fail.

Last edited by Nimrod on 06-Apr-2017 at 08:28 PM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

No, but neither have I seen a pair of Lego bricks f*cking.

Surely by your logic IT MUST BE POSSIBLE GIVEN MILLIONS OF YEARS!!! If life can come from protein soup, may be mutated lego bricks in the next evolutionary brick in the wall

Seriously though, the lego brick example is a demonstration that order and creation do not come from disorder, chance and chaos and it doesn't matter how much time you throw at it! Can scientists create life from protein or simple organic molecules? Have they seen life generated from these basic building blocks in a test tube? Have they seen it on other planets? Would you expect to if it was possible? Yes, you would expect to be able to observe this jump from no life to life more than once if it was a feasible NORMAL process. Since the creation of life from simple organic chemical strings isn't repeatable by scientists (or even in nature) you can't PROVE that it ever happened other than by the intervention of the CREATOR!!! It is a FAITH POSITION TO THINK OTHERWISE!!!

Back on topic: Science and progress is good (and inspired by a faith in Yaweh and a wonder and interest in creation in the case of countless scientists). In this case however, it's being used as dangerous tool by complacent aetheist scientists with a god-complex that think it's fine to mess with the human genome depsite the forseeable permanent damage that could be done to our gene pool!

Last edited by BigD on 06-Apr-2017 at 08:29 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 06-Apr-2017 at 08:26 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 06-Apr-2017 at 08:23 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

Can scientist create life from protein?

Give them time and they will, they have only been at this for a very few years since the first Miller-Urey experiment and have already made more progress than theists have made in the last two millennia.
Quote:

Have they seen life generated from protein in a test tube?

Give them time and they will, they have only been at this for a very few years since the first Miller-Urey experiment and have already made more progress than theists have made in the last two millennia.
But of course you don't want them to do these experiments because that would be interfering with your imaginary friend's prerogatives, wouldn't it? Why else are you so desperate to block genetic studies and indeed ALL science.

Quote:

Since the creation of life from simple organic chemical strings isn't repeatable by scientists (or even in nature) you can't PROVE that it ever happened!!! It is a FAITH POSITION!!!

For many years people kept trying to make heavier than air flying machines, with no success. Does that mean that jet airliners are a faith position? You are pushing the "god of the gaps" argument, and every day some scientist somewhere in the world squeezes your pathetic and puny god out of another gap.

Did you know that 93% of the American Academy of science members are Atheist/Agnostic, and that in the Royal society, Britains leading scientific establishment that rises to 97% The only time that the majority of scientists were also religious, not being of the approved religion was a capital crime, so no intelligent person would admit to being an Atheist anyway. Knowing this simple fact explains something about why Isaac Newton persuaded king Charles to waive the requirement that any Oxford Dn was required to be ordained as a priest.

Now when are you going to answer my set of simple bible questions to prove that your religion is in any way more valid than belief in Odin or Zeus.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.