Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, like I said, you are leveraging the truth of abiogenesis on knowledge of the origin of the universe . That is utterly stupid, just as it would be to leverage the truth of the theory of star formation on knowing the origin of the universe. Get that through your skull. What you are saying is stupid.Proteins are not nothing, so nothing could not evolve into a protein
Actually the only place where proteins have something to do with the creation of the Universe is in your obviously compromised cranial cavity.So, like I said, you are leveraging the truth of abiogenesis on knowledge of the origin of the universe . That is utterly stupid, just as it would be to leverage the truth of the theory of star formation on knowing the origin of the universe. Get that through your skull. What you are saying is stupid.Proteins are not nothing, so nothing could not evolve into a protein
I am not going to to watch a video you never watched and then spoonfeed its contents back to you .
And Jonathan Wells is a discredited crank and is not, nor was he ever, a professor at any University, anywhere.
But both evolution. And both must occur, I evolution as rhe origin of all species.
And you deny this. So, you are also an evolution denier. Glad we are all clear on that, now.
And was never a professor at any University anywhere. As I said. Because no scientific society or University department on the planet teaches anything to the contrary that evolution is a fact. Boy, that must sting.
The simplest life form known is Carsonella ruddii, in order for abiogenesis to have occurred 159,662 base pairs of DNA grouped into 182 protein coding genes would have had to arrange themselves BY CHANCE into EXACTLY the right order. However before this could even happen all of the base pairs would have to exist in the same media at the same time. This is how life works, it's a chemical computer program, Darwin did not know of genes or of the tremendously intricate formula for DNA, if he had he never would have said that any of this could happen by chance. Every intelligent person agrees that the mathematical probabilities here make abiogenesis virtually impossible, but since the only remaining choice is that there is or was a chemical programmer that can easily and rightfully be termed God, they claim that massively intricate computer programs just pop up in ponds from nothing. It's pure nonsense, yet they claim this even as they edit, and write such programs and demand that we accept math which says 85 percent of the Universe is missing...………………So, like I said, you are leveraging the truth of abiogenesis on knowledge of the origin of the universe . That is utterly stupid, just as it would be to leverage the truth of the theory of star formation on knowing the origin of the universe. Get that through your skull. What you are saying is stupid.Proteins are not nothing, so nothing could not evolve into a protein
Can you rephrase that in English? My gibberish is rather poorBut both evolution. And both must occur, I evolution as rhe origin of all species.Evolution: When anti-religion folks use this term, they automatically include both "microevolution" and "macroevolution". They are in fact quite different:
And you deny this. So, you are also an evolution denier. Glad we are all clear on that, now.
Science is a search for the truth, but today's science ignores the spirit or that which it cannot understand.
Science is a search for the truth, but today's science ignores the spirit or that which it cannot understand.
That goes beyond the reliability scope of science. Today's science becomes the device for humans to deny the simple truth that we don't know everything.
The reliability scope of true science doesn't cover the following areas: future, past, outside our time-space (simply because we can't go into these areas to establish experiments to confirm anything). We can however explore into these areas using science but in the sacrifice of its accuracy and reliability.
Science's reliability only lies in one specific area: phenomena repeating themselves RIGHT NOW! Humans lack the ability to assure a future event. If we have a theory which can predict a repeatable pattern with no mistake, we know that the theory holds the truth. That's the nature of what true science is!
Today however we literally call everything a science simply because it's intolerable for humans to accept that they don't know something. A "science" will always provide an answer. There's nothing unknown in front of the omnipotent "science".
Science is a search for the truth, but today's science ignores the spirit or that which it cannot understand.
That goes beyond the reliability scope of science. Today's science becomes the device for humans to deny the simple truth that we don't know everything.
The reliability scope of true science doesn't cover the following areas: future, past, outside our time-space (simply because we can't go into these areas to establish experiments to confirm anything). We can however explore into these areas using science but in the sacrifice of its accuracy and reliability.
Science's reliability only lies in one specific area: phenomena repeating themselves RIGHT NOW! Humans lack the ability to assure a future event. If we have a theory which can predict a repeatable pattern with no mistake, we know that the theory holds the truth. That's the nature of what true science is!
Today however we literally call everything a science simply because it's intolerable for humans to accept that they don't know something. A "science" will always provide an answer. There's nothing unknown in front of the omnipotent "science".
Your post shows you do not understand science. Prior to the 1850s, secular scientists believed in God as creator. There is evidence for it as our universe and everything in exists today. We all have something in the back of our minds that this is true. It's why today's secular/atheist scientists get their undies in a bunch over creation science theories. ToE started from an atheist, James Hutton and Charles Lyell with uniformitarianism. What's funny is even they used catastrophism. Creation scientists do not use uniformitarianism unless it is in an argument.
We can predict the future using probabilities. We can check and verify the past using statistics. You talk about experiments and the evos do not have one. It's all historical (forensic) science.
So you are one ignorant doofus on science and probably a low brow internet atheist the LCD.
Science is a search for the truth, but today's science ignores the spirit or that which it cannot understand.
That goes beyond the reliability scope of science. Today's science becomes the device for humans to deny the simple truth that we don't know everything.
The reliability scope of true science doesn't cover the following areas: future, past, outside our time-space (simply because we can't go into these areas to establish experiments to confirm anything). We can however explore into these areas using science but in the sacrifice of its accuracy and reliability.
Science's reliability only lies in one specific area: phenomena repeating themselves RIGHT NOW! Humans lack the ability to assure a future event. If we have a theory which can predict a repeatable pattern with no mistake, we know that the theory holds the truth. That's the nature of what true science is!
Today however we literally call everything a science simply because it's intolerable for humans to accept that they don't know something. A "science" will always provide an answer. There's nothing unknown in front of the omnipotent "science".
Your post shows you do not understand science. Prior to the 1850s, secular scientists believed in God as creator. There is evidence for it as our universe and everything in exists today. We all have something in the back of our minds that this is true. It's why today's secular/atheist scientists get their undies in a bunch over creation science theories. ToE started from an atheist, James Hutton and Charles Lyell with uniformitarianism. What's funny is even they used catastrophism. Creation scientists do not use uniformitarianism unless it is in an argument.
We can predict the future using probabilities. We can check and verify the past using statistics. You talk about experiments and the evos do not have one. It's all historical (forensic) science.
So you are one ignorant doofus on science and probably a low brow internet atheist the LCD.
The fruit of the tree of knowledge has made us aware of our physical nature. But separated us from our spiritual nature. Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they weren't aware that they were naked. That day, we had died spiritually. It had made everyone to be spiritually disconnected from everything. But when we are asleep, we are disconnected from our physical nature so that we are able to see. That is why, during the time of the Hebrews God only communicated to the prophets while they were asleep, excepted for Moses. He was not ordinary.People spend a lot of their lives doing things, but there is a question that is in the back of their minds such as why did God create us? Or why are we here?
The answer to why God created us is for his pleasure. "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." Revelation 4:11
Even though we are here for "his pleasure," it does not mean that we are entertainers or we are beings to play with for his amusement. What it means is God is a creative being and creating us is part of being creative. If we create things, then it gives us pleasure and a feeling of accomplishment. God is also a personal being, so it gives him pleasure to have a relationship with his creation as we have pleasure in having a relationship with our relatives and friends.
The Bible says that we were made in the image and likeness of God so that we have the ability to know, love, worship, serve and have fellowship with him. What does this mean? God is spirit, so we, too, are spirit. However, we are a spirit that has a body. God created the human body out of dust and blew the breath of life into it. This spirit is us and it is that which is in the image and likeness of God. Our bodies are physical and because of sin may not be perfect. It doesn't matter as it is only temporary as we all know that it will return to being dust once more. Yet, the spirit will live on. Will it be spiritually perfect or will it be spiritually dead and perish in the fire?
Science is a search for the truth, but today's science ignores the spirit or that which it cannot understand. It tries to explain away the spirit or life force as something that exists because the physical body exists. It's only living because the body is made up of cells that are living. Everything can be explained with the physical body and brain. This is the weakness and folly of science today. It does not recognize the spirit and only acknowledges the body and material world. They cannot explain God and why he created us nor adequately explain why we are here?
The fruit of the tree of knowledge has made us aware of our physical nature. But separated us from our spiritual nature. Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they weren't aware that they were naked. That day, we had died spiritually. It had made everyone to be spiritually disconnected from everything. But when we are asleep, we are disconnected from our physical nature so that we are able to see. That is why, during the time of the Hebrews God only communicated to the prophets while they were asleep, excepted for Moses. He was not ordinary.People spend a lot of their lives doing things, but there is a question that is in the back of their minds such as why did God create us? Or why are we here?
The answer to why God created us is for his pleasure. "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." Revelation 4:11
Even though we are here for "his pleasure," it does not mean that we are entertainers or we are beings to play with for his amusement. What it means is God is a creative being and creating us is part of being creative. If we create things, then it gives us pleasure and a feeling of accomplishment. God is also a personal being, so it gives him pleasure to have a relationship with his creation as we have pleasure in having a relationship with our relatives and friends.
The Bible says that we were made in the image and likeness of God so that we have the ability to know, love, worship, serve and have fellowship with him. What does this mean? God is spirit, so we, too, are spirit. However, we are a spirit that has a body. God created the human body out of dust and blew the breath of life into it. This spirit is us and it is that which is in the image and likeness of God. Our bodies are physical and because of sin may not be perfect. It doesn't matter as it is only temporary as we all know that it will return to being dust once more. Yet, the spirit will live on. Will it be spiritually perfect or will it be spiritually dead and perish in the fire?
Science is a search for the truth, but today's science ignores the spirit or that which it cannot understand. It tries to explain away the spirit or life force as something that exists because the physical body exists. It's only living because the body is made up of cells that are living. Everything can be explained with the physical body and brain. This is the weakness and folly of science today. It does not recognize the spirit and only acknowledges the body and material world. They cannot explain God and why he created us nor adequately explain why we are here?
We are walking among a spiritual realm, but we cannot perceive it. I remembered someone that was taking care of their grandfather. Before he died. He used to see devil's imps, which that is what Christians calls little demons that looks like elves. The grandfather acted sane all day. But when he goes to bed, he sees them trying to poke fun at him. And he shoots at them. The family calls the police to come to take his gun away. But he don't tells the police what he was shooting at, but he tells the family when the police left. But he acted sane all of the time. But he tells the family that he really sees them. I noticed that many people had claimed to see elves while experimentally certain drugs. And the majority says that these elves be meddling with them. Everybody has their own mind. That there is no way that they'll have the same experiences while messing around with hallucinogens. .
