creationists want fairness

[Asclepias]

So why are liberals in denial about HIV and who gets it the most? They are at the point they are going to allow the highest risk group, by far, to donate blood. Will letting creationists on a TV show kill people like liberal policy demands will result in?

Interestingly, the folks who are all about "science" and "survival of the fittest" can't see that "nature" (AIDS/HIV) is telling them that homosexuality must be exterminated. Why else would the "gay" community be the front runner for acquiring AIDS in the first place? Their science "god" is turning on them it would seem.

Funny how you interpret that. If you nut cases were right wouldnt it be more realistic and inline with your beliefs if God just struck all gay people dead?

 

[edthecynic]

Gosh darn it in the same post I provide scientist saying that for the RNA molecule to form by random CHANCE is incredibly improbable. What are you having a problem with the definition of improbable?

Funny how when scientist own words are provided all of a sudden science isn't really all that smart to you guys.

That's not exactly what he said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro_(chemist)

Robert Shapiro (28 November 1935 – 15 June 2011[1]) was professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University. He is best known for his work on the origin of life, having written two books on the topic: Origins, a Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (1986) and Planetary Dreams (2001). He opposed the RNA world hypothesis, and held that the spontaneous emergence of a molecule as complicated as RNA is highly unlikely. Instead, he proposed that life arose from some self-sustaining and compartmentalized reaction of simple molecules: "metabolism first" instead of "RNA first". This reaction would have to be able to reproduce and evolve, eventually leading to RNA. He claimed that in this view life is a normal consequence of the laws of nature and potentially quite common in the universe.[2]

So in the case he says RNA creation is improbable then goes on to say that it is not. Which is it? And do we see these processes today? Certainly if they happened in the past they certainly should be happening today.

Learn to read!

 

[Freewill]

Only Creationists believe elements combine into molecules by accident. Those who have studied science know that only specific molecules are formed due to the valence electrons in their outer shell. No external manipulation needed.

Gosh darn it in the same post I provide scientist saying that for the RNA molecule to form by random CHANCE is incredibly improbable. What are you having a problem with the definition of improbable?

Funny how when scientist own words are provided all of a sudden science isn't really all that smart to you guys.

Science does not say RNA formed by random chance, Creationists say it was formed by a random chance accident or by a creator implying that if science rejects a creator they support random chance. You fool no one but yourself.

The scientific position is that the valence electrons in the outer shell determine the composition and structure of complex molecules.

there are two ways thing happen. By intelligence or chance. Chance not meaning that the physical laws are violated only that there was no intelligent input. In other words breeding dogs does not show evolution because their is intelligence directing the process. So what we have is the DNA molecule which is VERY complex and it formation came either by intelligence or chance. The chance of it happening is astronomically large against. What science is saying, in my opinion, is like building a computer, turning it on and then waiting for it to program itself. Or more to the point the computer fell together by itself then waited for programing.

 

[DriftingSand]

That anyone can look at the fossil record, and not see evolution, is a damning indication of their level of intellect. Throw in what genetics has taught us in the last 60 years, and only the very stupid and blind deny evolution.

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

No one is saying that evolution explains the origin of life on this planet. As for missing links, the notion that there has to be transitional fossils or else evolution is untrue is a false one. Why? Because ALL species are transitional.

If species have been evolving for millions or billions of years then there should be so many fossils available that there would be no question whatsoever. Unfortunately, horse fossils are horse fossils and shark fossils are shark fossils. There's no indication that sharks were anything other than sharks and no indication that horses were anything other than horses. There are no fossils available that are part shark and part horse (using this as a rough example).

 

[Freewill]

That's not exactly what he said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro_(chemist)

So in the case he says RNA creation is improbable then goes on to say that it is not. Which is it? And do we see these processes today? Certainly if they happened in the past they certainly should be happening today.

Learn to read!

First: He opposed the RNA world hypothesis, and held that the spontaneous emergence of a molecule as complicated as RNA is highly unlikely.

Second: This reaction would have to be able to reproduce and evolve, eventually leading to RNA. He claimed that in this view life is a normal consequence of the laws of nature and potentially quite common in the universe.[2]

 

[Asclepias]

The simplest and most plausible explanation is that some power created life and the conditions under which it then further evolved. You can call that power God or anything else you want to call it but it does exist and affects our life daily. Religion is a construct of man. In the right hands it can be great and uplift people. In the wrong hands it kills.

 

[edthecynic]

Gosh darn it in the same post I provide scientist saying that for the RNA molecule to form by random CHANCE is incredibly improbable. What are you having a problem with the definition of improbable?

Funny how when scientist own words are provided all of a sudden science isn't really all that smart to you guys.

Science does not say RNA formed by random chance, Creationists say it was formed by a random chance accident or by a creator implying that if science rejects a creator they support random chance. You fool no one but yourself.

The scientific position is that the valence electrons in the outer shell determine the composition and structure of complex molecules.

there are two ways thing happen. By intelligence or chance. Chance not meaning that the physical laws are violated only that there was no intelligent input. In other words breeding dogs does not show evolution because their is intelligence directing the process. So what we have is the DNA molecule which is VERY complex and it formation came either by intelligence or chance. The chance of it happening is astronomically large against. What science is saying, in my opinion, is like building a computer, turning it on and then waiting for it to program itself. Or more to the point the computer fell together by itself then waited for programing.

That is the Creationist position, but not the scientific position.

If only random chance was involved, mixing random amounts of the elements O2, Oxygen, and H2, Hydrogen, would produce several random molecules like H2O2, hydrogen peroxide, HO, the hydroxyl ion (Draino), or H2O, water. In reality, only water is produced until all the H2 or O2 is used up and what remains is the unused H2 or O2. The valence electrons in the outer shells of Hydrogen and Oxygen and no creator or random chance determined the molecule that was formed.

 

[jknowgood]

So why are liberals in denial about HIV and who gets it the most? They are at the point they are going to allow the highest risk group, by far, to donate blood. Will letting creationists on a TV show kill people like liberal policy demands will result in?

Interestingly, the folks who are all about "science" and "survival of the fittest" can't see that "nature" (AIDS/HIV) is telling them that homosexuality must be exterminated. Why else would the "gay" community be the front runner for acquiring AIDS in the first place? Their science "god" is turning on them it would seem.

Funny how you interpret that. If you nut cases were right wouldnt it be more realistic and inline with your beliefs if God just struck all gay people dead?

In the end a gay person is struck down dead, because he will be sent to hell. There is no worse outcome than that.

 

[orogenicman]

Interestingly, the folks who are all about "science" and "survival of the fittest" can't see that "nature" (AIDS/HIV) is telling them that homosexuality must be exterminated. Why else would the "gay" community be the front runner for acquiring AIDS in the first place? Their science "god" is turning on them it would seem.

Funny how you interpret that. If you nut cases were right wouldnt it be more realistic and inline with your beliefs if God just struck all gay people dead?

In the end a gay person is struck down dead, because he will be sent to hell. There is no worse outcome than that.

Wow, the hatred in that statement just takes my breath away.

 

[MisterBeale]

It's funny, to an independent observer this thread might see two sides debating an issue. To one who is enlightened, it is two sides of the same coin.

To the cosmic consciousness, there really is, only one side. Love, truth and beauty. One day, all of humanity, hopefully will be enlightened and aware of its connection to the source. Until then, carry on children.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D0BeLz5blM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D0BeLz5blM[/ame]

 

[jknowgood]

Funny how you interpret that. If you nut cases were right wouldnt it be more realistic and inline with your beliefs if God just struck all gay people dead?

In the end a gay person is struck down dead, because he will be sent to hell. There is no worse outcome than that.

Wow, the hatred in that statement just takes my breath away.

No hate, God forbids homosexuality. I'm just stating the truth. Why do you care you don't believe it anyway.

 

[orogenicman]

In the end a gay person is struck down dead, because he will be sent to hell. There is no worse outcome than that.

Wow, the hatred in that statement just takes my breath away.

No hate, God forbids homosexuality. I'm just stating the truth. Why do you care you don't believe it anyway.

Justifying your hatred in the name of your god is about as bad as it gets. No doubt, you and the folks at Westboro Baptist Church are close friends.

 

[jknowgood]

Wow, the hatred in that statement just takes my breath away.

No hate, God forbids homosexuality. I'm just stating the truth. Why do you care you don't believe it anyway.

Justifying your hatred in the name of your god is about as bad as it gets. No doubt, you and the folks at Westboro Baptist Church are close friends.

I could care less if a person is gay. I've never done anything against them. They are throwing their lifestyle in my face. If a gay person repents and quits the lifestyle, he can go to heaven and i hope all do. I'm not hating one anyone, it's their choice.

 

[BlindBoo]

No hate, God forbids homosexuality. I'm just stating the truth. Why do you care you don't believe it anyway.

Justifying your hatred in the name of your god is about as bad as it gets. No doubt, you and the folks at Westboro Baptist Church are close friends.

I could care less if a person is gay. I've never done anything against them. They are throwing their lifestyle in my face. If a gay person repents and quits the lifestyle, he can go to heaven and i hope all do. I'm not hating one anyone, it's their choice.

Boy have you got it all wrong. All gays go to "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Heaven". It's just down the block from Gods' Heaven.

 

[Plasmaball]

here is an article on what science knows and it isn't much. Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth? | LiveScience

What you are really saying is that one, science, doesn't have an answer, the other side does. You just refuse to open you mind to anything other then what you already believe. You are just as bad as those you accuse of being religious fanatics.

Well no science knows a lot of things. I dont go pretending im an expert unlike people like you.
Ah the I know you better than yourself argument.the true sign im debating someone with a massive ego.
The fact is you dont know what I believe.so you have two choices. Stop assuming my opinions on things and we can continue, or continue assuming and the conversation stops here.

Your whole argument boils down to science knows. You base that on, the scientific method. Which both are not true in regards to creation. Do you know hat the DNA contains 4 times the information then does your binary computer/ And you wish to believe that happened by accident. Here is a quote from the very scientific, not religious, site I provided.

Talking about RNA

"The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot," said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. "To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky"

Now, you don't have to believe in a God that created life but you certainly can not believe in the unscientific concept that life came from non-life. Spontaneous life just does not happen. Time and the universe had a beginning that can not be argued. Life started, to that there is no argument. For both to have happened there has to be a cause. It is up to you to decide what you believe that cause to be.

But science doesnt know everything and they they dont claim to know everything.

Here:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpsVSVRsZk#t=53]Carl Sagan - COSMOS - Evolution - YouTube[/ame]

^^Dna

seems rather to the point on how DNA arose. I dont need to have luck or believe in it.

You havent asked me what i believe, you have just argued and assumed my opinions. You look like a fool.

 

[Plasmaball]

That anyone can look at the fossil record, and not see evolution, is a damning indication of their level of intellect. Throw in what genetics has taught us in the last 60 years, and only the very stupid and blind deny evolution.

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

no the link isnt missing.

 

[Plasmaball]

Gosh darn it in the same post I provide scientist saying that for the RNA molecule to form by random CHANCE is incredibly improbable. What are you having a problem with the definition of improbable?

Funny how when scientist own words are provided all of a sudden science isn't really all that smart to you guys.

Science does not say RNA formed by random chance, Creationists say it was formed by a random chance accident or by a creator implying that if science rejects a creator they support random chance. You fool no one but yourself.

The scientific position is that the valence electrons in the outer shell determine the composition and structure of complex molecules.

there are two ways thing happen. By intelligence or chance. C.

no

 

[Asclepias]

In the end a gay person is struck down dead, because he will be sent to hell. There is no worse outcome than that.

Wow, the hatred in that statement just takes my breath away.

No hate, God forbids homosexuality. I'm just stating the truth. Why do you care you don't believe it anyway.

Who told you that? i would like to question them to get their source.

 

[hazlnut]

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”

― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark​

“Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?”

― Carl Sagan​

​

 

[Truthmatters]

will churches let the scientists in to explain their side of things?