Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#309 May 7, 2013
bohart wrote:
and you call me a hypocrite?....Ha,Ha,Ha
I do. Because you are claiming that life came from non-life while complaining that Dude is claiming that life came from non-life.

Unless you have an alternate solution, the only difference between your claim and what you believe Dude is claiming is that your claim includes magic while Dude's is just about chemistry.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#310 May 7, 2013
bohart wrote:
No, I'm attacking your lie, the lie that spews from you that you have scientific evidence that life arose from natural means on its own. There isn't any which makes you a confirmed liar.
You see I believe that there is a creator of life
Your beliefs are irrrelevant.
bohart wrote:
you respond to that by saying, Goddidit with magic, but your answer to lifes beginning is the Goo did it!....
and you call me a hypocrite?....Ha,Ha,Ha
Yes. Because I have evidence. You don't. You run whenever it's presented. And the ENTIRE BASIS of your criticism of our position applies to you also - biogenesis being violated.

I notice you conveniently ignored that.

Again.

As usual.

.

Take your time, Bo.

You always do.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#311 May 7, 2013
Creatards hate evidence. They will go out of their way to avoid learning what even qualifies as evidence. Their reason seems to be one of plausible deniability. They know they have no evidence. They are afraid to learn other people's evidence since that might convince them. If they don't learn what is and what is not evidence they seem to think they won't get in trouble for denying it.
bohart

Newport, TN

#312 May 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Your beliefs are irrrelevant.
<quoted text>
Yes. Because I have evidence. You don't. You run whenever it's presented. And the ENTIRE BASIS of your criticism of our position applies to you also - biogenesis being violated.
I notice you conveniently ignored that.
Again.
As usual.
.
Take your time, Bo.
You always do.
You have evidence? let the world know about it because you are the only one who has it.
bohart

Newport, TN

#313 May 7, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I do. Because you are claiming that life came from non-life while complaining that Dude is claiming that life came from non-life.
Unless you have an alternate solution, the only difference between your claim and what you believe Dude is claiming is that your claim includes magic while Dude's is just about chemistry.
So my claim is magic ,but your claim that is totally unsupported by any scientific evidence isn't?
bohart

Newport, TN

#314 May 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Creatards hate evidence. They will go out of their way to avoid learning what even qualifies as evidence. Their reason seems to be one of plausible deniability. They know they have no evidence. They are afraid to learn other people's evidence since that might convince them. If they don't learn what is and what is not evidence they seem to think they won't get in trouble for denying it.
Go away sucking zone, you have the credibility of a senator

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#315 May 7, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Go away sucking zone, you have the credibility of a senator
Poor bohart. He got his heinie kicked so much at the evolution forum that he decided to come here and get even more.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#316 May 7, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
So my claim is magic ,but your claim that is totally unsupported by any scientific evidence isn't?
Quite literally, yes.

Chemistry is real. We can demonstrate it.
Jewish Sky Magic is not real. It can not be demostrated.

So, when faced with the following scenarios:
- All life arose from chemistry
vs
- All life arose from Jewish Magic

Chemistry comes out ahead.

Given that both the claims violate the "all life comes from life" rule, that's a draw.
bohart

Newport, TN

#317 May 7, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite literally, yes.
Chemistry is real. We can demonstrate it.
Jewish Sky Magic is not real. It can not be demostrated.
So, when faced with the following scenarios:
- All life arose from chemistry
vs
- All life arose from Jewish Magic
Chemistry comes out ahead.
Given that both the claims violate the "all life comes from life" rule, that's a draw.
Well, you are certainly not as deluded as the Dude. But chemistry has utterly failed in the origin of life scenario. Scientists at Arizona state examining have concluded as much, the theory was that life was like baking a cake all you need is the proper ingredients ,the right temperature and shazaam, life! But thats not what the evidence shows.I adhere to the theory that a creator who operates outside the universe , an eternal source of life , caused all the life you see. Now you can continue to believe that life came from chemicals with no evidence at all, or you can consider the alternative, what you can't do is call the first option scientific.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#318 May 7, 2013
bohart wrote:
I adhere to the theory that a creator who operates outside the universe , an eternal source of life , caused all the life you see.
You're rule is that all life must come from life.

- Life exists here on Earth, so you speculate that it came from a Creator.
- Since all life can only come from life, that Creator must be alive.
- Since all life can only come from life, that Creator must have been created by something alive.

Who created the Creator?

Got an answer for that?

Oh, and if your answer is: "There's an exception". Then I'll call exception on my claim and we're back to square one.

Except, as I pointed out before, all life is composed exclusively of chemicals and not Jew Magic.
bohart

Newport, TN

#319 May 7, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You're rule is that all life must come from life.
- Life exists here on Earth, so you speculate that it came from a Creator.
- Since all life can only come from life, that Creator must be alive.
- Since all life can only come from life, that Creator must have been created by something alive.
Who created the Creator?
Got an answer for that?
Oh, and if your answer is: "There's an exception". Then I'll call exception on my claim and we're back to square one.
Except, as I pointed out before, all life is composed exclusively of chemicals and not Jew Magic.
Ahh! evofundie, it's not my rule that life comes only from existing life, its the sciences! get it, not me but science says that. You say that life is chemicals, demonstrate it. You can't.Now as I said, you can berate be for believeing in magic , but you cannot escape the fact you believe in magic also, the primordial sludge coming to life, magic.
bohart

Newport, TN

#320 May 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor bohart. He got his heinie kicked so much at the evolution forum that he decided to come here and get even more.
Go ahead sucking zone, for old times sake , using reason, tell us again how something that was dead can spring to life, but, something that was alive then died, can't come back to life? Thrill me with your acumen!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#321 May 7, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You have evidence? let the world know about it because you are the only one who has it.
Not at all. Evidence demonstrates that life *is* chemistry. Evidence indicates the fossil record is precisely what one would expect if abiogenesis were correct.
bohart wrote:
Well, you are certainly not as deluded as the Dude. But chemistry has utterly failed in the origin of life scenario. Scientists at Arizona state examining have concluded as much, the theory was that life was like baking a cake all you need is the proper ingredients ,the right temperature and shazaam, life! But thats not what the evidence shows.I adhere to the theory that a creator who operates outside the universe , an eternal source of life , caused all the life you see. Now you can continue to believe that life came from chemicals with no evidence at all, or you can consider the alternative, what you can't do is call the first option scientific.
Actually we can. Because only ONE of those scenarios is currently under research. Only one of them is ABLE to be scientifically researched. Your demands that a few decades of research should have determined the specifics of an event that occurred 3 billion years ago or so are unfounded.
bohart wrote:
Ahh! evofundie, it's not my rule that life comes only from existing life, its the sciences! get it, not me but science says that.
But Bo, as a creationist you reject what science has to say anyway. You reject evolution for example but know that you can't address the evidence, which is why you take it back to abio and hope the whole thing collapses from there (which unfortunately it does not). Also keep in mind that some kind of abiogenesis event are the ONLY hypotheses being taken seriously at the moment. Also since Goddidit with magic is NOT scientific it still means you are a monumentally massive hypocrite every time you complain that something "isn't scientific".
bohart wrote:
You say that life is chemicals, demonstrate it. You can't.
If you mean that we can't physically perform scientific tests in front of your very eyes right now to show that life is chemistry then you are correct. But what we can do is CORRECTLY point out that everything that makes up your body right now is biochemical in nature. If you can point out the components that are NOT made up of one of the known chemical elements then point them out. You can't.
bohart wrote:
Now as I said, you can berate be for believeing in magic , but you cannot escape the fact you believe in magic also, the primordial sludge coming to life, magic.
Not at all. Chemistry is a natural phenomenon. We have evidence of chemistry. We have evidence that life is chemistry. We have evidence that some kind of abiogenesis event occurred on Earth. We DON'T have evidence that some kind of invisible magic wizard was responsible for that.

And as always, despite your best efforts (which don't amount to much), the theory of evolution remains unaffected.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#322 May 7, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh! evofundie, it's not my rule that life comes only from existing life, its the sciences! get it, not me but science says that. You say that life is chemicals, demonstrate it. You can't.Now as I said, you can berate be for believeing in magic , but you cannot escape the fact you believe in magic also, the primordial sludge coming to life, magic.
Every part of every living thing is made up entirely of chemicals. Every action. Every process. All of it chemical

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323 May 7, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm attacking your lie, the lie that spews from you that you have scientific evidence that life arose from natural means on its own. There isn't any which makes you a confirmed liar.
You see I believe that there is a creator of life , you respond to that by saying, Goddidit with magic, but your answer to lifes beginning is the Goo did it!....
and you call me a hypocrite?....Ha,Ha,Ha
If you believe in god, try tackling that lie first.

because you have no proof of evidence of this hallucination.

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#324 May 9, 2013
Two-Celled Life?

Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista).[See James F. Smothers et al.,“Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.

Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#325 May 9, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You're rule is that all life must come from life.
- Life exists here on Earth, so you speculate that it came from a Creator.
- Since all life can only come from life, that Creator must be alive.
- Since all life can only come from life, that Creator must have been created by something alive.
Who created the Creator?
Got an answer for that?
In logic, if you begin with an erroneous premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion, and vise versa.

We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”

Just as God created the universe and everything in it, God also created time. There was a beginning of everything, including space and time. Consequently, God is outside of space and time. This means that God is unchanging (I Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6, Heb 6:17, James 1:17). He had no beginning and has no ending.

Also, and more pertinent to the question, from God’s perspective an effect does not follow a cause. He sees the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13). Asking who made God before time began reflects a lack of understanding—even though most of us at one time have pondered the question. No one made God; He is infinite and outside of time, and He existed before time began.

Seeing things from God’s infinite perspective is probably as hard for us as it is for a dog or cat to understand what is on this printed page. If God is infinite and we are His finite creations, our limited understanding and perspective should not surprise us.

How else do we know that time began? The Bible is the most widely read book of all time. Within it, the most read page is probably the first page of Genesis. The first three words on that page

“In the beginning ...”

are probably the best-known group of three words of all time—the single, most widely proclaimed idea. By reading the fourth word, one sees that God was there at the beginning.

Another key insight comes from John 1:1.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Again, there was a beginning; we are also told Who was there when time began. Verses 1:2, 3, and 14 clarify these profound events even more.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ... ]
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#326 May 9, 2013
Pahu wrote:
In logic, if you begin with an erroneous premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion, and vise versa.
And your premise was demonstrated erroneous many many pages ago - reality isn't real because an invisible magic Jew wizard did it all differently cuz the Bible is true cuz teh Bible sez so.
Pahu wrote:
Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes.
"... except your God." Your position requires something to be uncaused, violating your own premise that everything "must" have a cause. So you allow yourself a special exemption which you will not allow for us, for the sake of an entity you have zero evidence that it exists. Because you are a big huge massive dishonest hypocrite.
Pahu wrote:
From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
A man who is still a non-scientist fundie liar for Jesus who has no clue what he's talking about. Since you have presented the linky to his site on BS apologetics already, the only reason to do so again would be to remind us that we haven't addressed your case. Since we have long ago (while you've ignored all rebuttals) then you are simply engaged in spamming.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#327 May 9, 2013
Really! Walt Brown the originator of the ludicrous hyrdroplate :theory." the man who uses a degree in mechanical engineering as a credential to contend with PhD research scientists in biology, geology, and astrophysics. That Walt Brown.

Surely you're joking.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#328 May 9, 2013
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
In logic, if you begin with an erroneous premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion, and vise versa.
We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”
Just as God created the universe and everything in it, God also created time. There was a beginning of everything, including space and time. Consequently, God is outside of space and time.
The irony is astonishing.

If all life only comes from life and God created life, then God must be alive and therefore must have been created by something alive.

If you propose an exception, then you must likewise accept an exception.

At that point Ocham's Razor steps in and slice off the magic Jewish Wizard

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 16 min Morse 232,011
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 37 min Liam R 1,047
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 5 hr Friend of all 14,455
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 10 hr thetruth 29
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow 10 hr thetruth 6
Why Christians should stick up for atheists 10 hr thetruth 8
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 21 hr QUITTNER Nov 27 2014 31

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE