Creationists

[newpolitics]

It is when it tells you what to expect and the expectations are correct.
There was one John. He told us what to look for before the return of Christ and for the first time in history, you can open your Bible and the newspaper and read the same thing in both.

Ultimate, those two prophets are another prediction used for a sign in the end times. The Bible states it is for every man to die once. 2 humans did not. Enoch and Elijah. I think they will be those two to come back. Some think Moses may be one of the two. That prophesy could not be filled until satellites were developed. It precedes the final battle between God and his followers and Satan and his followers.

well, according to modern biblical scholars, there were three johns. Also, Matt, Mark, John, and Luke are not the names of the authors of the texts. This was added later. We don't know the names of the authors of these texts, as there were no signatures, and we have no original copies.

 

[Hollie]

It is when it tells you what to expect and the expectations are correct.
There was one John. He told us what to look for before the return of Christ and for the first time in history, you can open your Bible and the newspaper and read the same thing in both.

Ultimate, those two prophets are another prediction used for a sign in the end times. The Bible states it is for every man to die once. 2 humans did not. Enoch and Elijah. I think they will be those two to come back. Some think Moses may be one of the two. That prophesy could not be filled until satellites were developed. It precedes the final battle between God and his followers and Satan and his followers.

I can find many instances of religious figures claiming to have “revelations”. Joseph Smith, for example, had “revelations”. His revelations, (while they clearly are an imaginative rendering of someone’s fantasies), are no different that the revelations heralded by people with names such as Mohammed, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite and a host of others too long to list. It’s disturbing that you might dismiss Marshall Applewhite as not believable but the stories of a man who was thought to have risen from the dead and whose life was not chronicled until decades after the events and which were re-written by others, you worship as truth.

Does the requirement for truth need to step back and not make any conclusions about the clichéd lunatic who believes he is Napoleon, and that Kaiser Wilhelm is stealing his socks on a nightly basis? Do we have to sit back and not come to conclusions about the possibility that Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm reincarnate (and the Kaiser has a sock fetish) or do we make judgments about specious claims?

 

[Hollie]

27% of the Bible is SkyGod predictions. No necessity to interpret and certainly not ambiguous. eg:
When Israel was captive in Babylon, they pack up and were freed in the seventieth year to the day. Every time Israel was out of the Promised Land, God predicted the duration of their exile, and nailed it. Add them up and you get May 15, 1948. Israel's rebirth. Ezekiel prophesied it 25 centuries before it happened.
Foresee me somethin 2000 yrs. from now.....

You've made this claim of the bible being 27% skygod predictions but that doesn't make sense.

The supermagical skygods didn't write the bible. I think what you really mean is that the many men who wrote the many bibles made predictions of their own.

But even then, its quite obvious that the predictions you allege are overwhelmingly false. If one makes enough predictions, a very few may appear to come true. So what?

Nope, I meant exactly what I said. I am nothing if not consistent.
God authored the Bible, while scribes wrote it down. The proof of that IS God predictions. Man can't see into the future. All we can do is guess.
I keep asking you mortals, to predict something for me just a couple hundred years into the future, but you keep changing the subject.
As for his accuracy? His bar was, if my prophets say, "so says the Lord", and it fails to happen, take my prophet out back and stone him to death. No coincidences allowed.
Even opposing Kings of Israel, called on God's prophets because of their accuracy.
So, on second thought, instead of predicting me something, do it consistently, and if your wrong one time let me hit you with a rock.

I think you're relying on the "becuse I say so" claim as legitimate support for those claims.

The fact is, we have no reason to believe that the gods authored any bibles. You put yourself in a difficult position by making such a claim. The gods would have had to been complete boobs to have authored a book so rife with errors and mis-statements.

Why not simply be clear and not allow for such errors? Why is it that the religious perspective offers gods who confound us, but the materialist perspective offers one that makes sense-- a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here. Simple. Explainable. Understandable. No need to assert mysterious beings using mysterious ways we can never know, precluding us from ever finding out.

Why are the gods so prone to getting things wrong?

 

[UltimateReality]

No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.

Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.

Did you happen to notice that your second argument negates the first? The Bible teaches God has eternally existed in the past. You used the same flawed logic Hollie used. Causality arguments require a beginning. If something has always been, it doesn't need a cause.

My first second argument does not negate my first argument. There aren't even two arguments that I made. There is only one, so this isn't even possible. Nor am I the one putting forth a causality argument, I am saying causality is NOT needed. The other part of my post was a refutation about biological complexity, so you're assertion about my arguments negating eachother is really out of left field. Nice try though.

Argument 1: God doesn't solve anything in terms of the Big Bang Cosmology. Basis of your argument: If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? [This argument infers that cause is needed]

Argument 2: Secondly, the idea there needs to be cause is unfounded. Basis of your second argument: Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality. [in fact, this sounds an awful lot like a Causality argument!!!]

I'm not sure what English classes you took as a kid, but that my friend right there is two arguments. Call them two points... whatever. You even say "Secondly".

 

[UltimateReality]

You've made this claim of the bible being 27% skygod predictions but that doesn't make sense.

The supermagical skygods didn't write the bible. I think what you really mean is that the many men who wrote the many bibles made predictions of their own.

But even then, its quite obvious that the predictions you allege are overwhelmingly false. If one makes enough predictions, a very few may appear to come true. So what?

Nope, I meant exactly what I said. I am nothing if not consistent.
God authored the Bible, while scribes wrote it down. The proof of that IS God predictions. Man can't see into the future. All we can do is guess.
I keep asking you mortals, to predict something for me just a couple hundred years into the future, but you keep changing the subject.
As for his accuracy? His bar was, if my prophets say, "so says the Lord", and it fails to happen, take my prophet out back and stone him to death. No coincidences allowed.
Even opposing Kings of Israel, called on God's prophets because of their accuracy.
So, on second thought, instead of predicting me something, do it consistently, and if your wrong one time let me hit you with a rock.

I think you're relying on the "becuse I say so" claim as legitimate support for those claims.

The fact is, we have no reason to believe that the gods authored any bibles.

Now this is an intelligent statement!!! Since the Bible is a specific document with a capitol 'B', I'm not sure what other "bibles" you are referring to. Since the authors of the 66 different books in the historical collection known as "The Bible" all refer to a monotheistic God, your reference to gods shows an utter and complete ignorance for the work you are referring to.

So in your response to your statement, I would agree. I, too, have no reason to believe little 'g' gods authored little 'b' bibles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Q0JmWjj0

 

[newpolitics]

Did you happen to notice that your second argument negates the first? The Bible teaches God has eternally existed in the past. You used the same flawed logic Hollie used. Causality arguments require a beginning. If something has always been, it doesn't need a cause.

My first second argument does not negate my first argument. There aren't even two arguments that I made. There is only one, so this isn't even possible. Nor am I the one putting forth a causality argument, I am saying causality is NOT needed. The other part of my post was a refutation about biological complexity, so you're assertion about my arguments negating eachother is really out of left field. Nice try though.

Argument 1: God doesn't solve anything in terms of the Big Bang Cosmology. If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? [This argument infers that cause is needed]

Argument 2: Secondly, the idea there needs to be cause is unfounded.

I'm not sure what English classes you took as a kid, but that my friend right there is two arguments. Call them two points... whatever. You even say "Secondly".

Wow. You're being kind of an asshole. Let me set you straight...

In my first paragraph, I was responding to assertions made by someone else about there being a first cause. I wasn't asserting that a first cause was necessary. Someone else did. I was going with the assumption that there exists a first cause for the sake of the argument and discourse. I then go onto to challenge that underlying assumption entirely, by asserting that no cause is in fact necessary, which makes any argument about a first cause, unsound. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trying to sound philosophically smart. You're an idiot, and what you just did was really dishonest, or really stupid.

Let me just say, that a point or assertion, is not synonymous with an argument. Don't get the two confused. The only argument I made was that no cause was needed. The rest was me responding to claims about there being a first cause. Asshole!

 

[UltimateReality]

My first second argument does not negate my first argument. There aren't even two arguments that I made. There is only one, so this isn't even possible. Nor am I the one putting forth a causality argument, I am saying causality is NOT needed. The other part of my post was a refutation about biological complexity, so you're assertion about my arguments negating eachother is really out of left field. Nice try though.

Argument 1: God doesn't solve anything in terms of the Big Bang Cosmology. If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? [This argument infers that cause is needed]

Argument 2: Secondly, the idea there needs to be cause is unfounded.

I'm not sure what English classes you took as a kid, but that my friend right there is two arguments. Call them two points... whatever. You even say "Secondly".

Wow. You're being kind of an asshole. Let me set you straight...

In my first paragraph, I was responding to assertions made by someone else about there being a first cause. I wasn't asserting that a first cause was necessary. Someone else did. I was going with the assumption that there exists a first cause for the sake of the argument and discourse. I then go onto to challenge that underlying assumption entirely, by asserting that no cause is in fact necessary, which makes any argument about a first cause, unsound. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trying to sound philosophically smart. You're an idiot, and what you just did was really dishonest, or really stupid.

Let me just say, that a point or assertion, is not synonymous with an argument. Don't get the two confused. The only argument I made was that no cause was needed. The rest was me responding to claims about there being a first cause. Asshole!

Real mature.

Please clarify then what question you are referring to when you said "the big cosmological question".

 

[newpolitics]

Argument 1: God doesn't solve anything in terms of the Big Bang Cosmology. If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? [This argument infers that cause is needed]

Argument 2: Secondly, the idea there needs to be cause is unfounded.

I'm not sure what English classes you took as a kid, but that my friend right there is two arguments. Call them two points... whatever. You even say "Secondly".

Wow. You're being kind of an asshole. Let me set you straight...

In my first paragraph, I was responding to assertions made by someone else about there being a first cause. I wasn't asserting that a first cause was necessary. Someone else did. I was going with the assumption that there exists a first cause for the sake of the argument and discourse. I then go onto to challenge that underlying assumption entirely, by asserting that no cause is in fact necessary, which makes any argument about a first cause, unsound. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trying to sound philosophically smart. You're an idiot, and what you just did was really dishonest, or really stupid.

Let me just say, that a point or assertion, is not synonymous with an argument. Don't get the two confused. The only argument I made was that no cause was needed. The rest was me responding to claims about there being a first cause. Asshole!

Real mature.

Alright, sorry. But, I felt like you were really nitpicking in a fashion that was really dishonest, and its annoying to have to deal with in the course of a debate. You know I wasn't making two separate arguments, which leads me to conclude that you are simply trying to embarrass me or make me look bad, hoping I wouldn't catch your logical trickery. That's offensive!

But hey, all is fair in love and war, but don't be surprised if someone calls bullshit!

 

[UltimateReality]

Wow. You're being kind of an asshole. Let me set you straight...

In my first paragraph, I was responding to assertions made by someone else about there being a first cause. I wasn't asserting that a first cause was necessary. Someone else did. I was going with the assumption that there exists a first cause for the sake of the argument and discourse. I then go onto to challenge that underlying assumption entirely, by asserting that no cause is in fact necessary, which makes any argument about a first cause, unsound. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trying to sound philosophically smart. You're an idiot, and what you just did was really dishonest, or really stupid.

Let me just say, that a point or assertion, is not synonymous with an argument. Don't get the two confused. The only argument I made was that no cause was needed. The rest was me responding to claims about there being a first cause. Asshole!

Real mature.

Alright, sorry. But, I felt like you were really nitpicking in a fashion that was really dishonest, and its annoying to have to deal with in the course of a debate. You know I wasn't making two separate arguments, which leads me to conclude that you are simply trying to embarrass me or make me look bad, hoping I wouldn't catch your logical trickery. That's offensive!

But hey, all is fair in love and war, but don't be surprised if someone calls bullshit!

My point was it appears first that you are inferring a cause but stating reasons why it can't be God and then you seem to make an argument that cause is not needed. What I really should have said is, which one is it? Cause or no cause?

 

[newpolitics]

Real mature.

Alright, sorry. But, I felt like you were really nitpicking in a fashion that was really dishonest, and its annoying to have to deal with in the course of a debate. You know I wasn't making two separate arguments, which leads me to conclude that you are simply trying to embarrass me or make me look bad, hoping I wouldn't catch your logical trickery. That's offensive!

But hey, all is fair in love and war, but don't be surprised if someone calls bullshit!

My point was it appears first that you are inferring a cause but stating reasons why it can't be God and then you seem to make an argument that cause is not needed. What I really should have said is, which one is it? Cause or no cause?

First, I would like to say that debating is dynamic. I don't need to have a static position with regards to everything. If someone puts forth assumptions that I don't feel like rebutting, or simply going with for whatever reason, I am entitled to do that. Why can't I, in the course of a debate, and for the reasons of discourse, follow assumptions? For instance, I can follow the assumption that there exists a first cause, because this allows me to debate on the same grounds as people who actually believe this to be true. It is useful to do this. That is all I was doing. I honestly don't know whether there was a first cause. My second point was then making the assertion that a first cause is not necessary. I wouldn't call this an argument, because I haven't concluded anything. Also, I wasn't try to assert positively, that no first cause exists, but when people are trying to use first cause arguments as a basis for god, I can use "no first cause needed" as a rebuttal of that assertion.

You are perhaps right, that my use of "secondly" may have indicated a second argument or premise. it may have simply been incorrect of me to use this word. I should not have used it here.

 

[UltimateReality]

When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."

This hymn was written after several traumatic events in Spafford’s life. The first was the death of his only son in 1871 at the age of four, shortly followed by the great Chicago Fire which ruined him financially (he had been a successful lawyer). Then in 1873, he had planned to travel to Europe with his family on the SS Ville du Havre, but sent the family ahead while he was delayed on business concerning zoning problems following the Great Chicago Fire. While crossing the Atlantic, the ship sank rapidly after a collision with a sea vessel, the Loch Earn, and all four of Spafford's daughters died. His wife Anna survived and sent him the now famous telegram, "Saved alone . . .". Shortly afterwards, as Spafford traveled to meet his grieving wife, he was inspired to write these words as his ship passed near where his daughters had died.

A few of the lyrics:

When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

I was thinking about my mom today too. Her birthday would have been two days ago. She struggled with Alzheimers for 10 years to the point she was bed ridden and couldn't even feed herself. She passed away 3 years ago and I was able to spend the last few days with her by her bed until Friday morning at 5 am when she took her last breath and finally rested.

Her death sent me into a year long mid life crisis. I will define a mid life crisis as the full HEART realization that life isn't forever. You see, we all have the HEAD knowledge that life is finite, but most of us can spend our entire life without the FULL HEART realization that there will be an end. As a cop for 10-years I had seen many people die, young and old. I'd seen the aftermath of a young man who ended the desparation with a 30/30 rifle inserted into his mouth. What a mess. I had seen the drug addict, who out of consideration of the people who would find her, had slit her wrist in the bath tub of a flea bag hotel on Apache Blvd. These were tragedies, but they weren't real to me. They were just strangers, unfortunate casualties of the desperate times we live in. With my mother's death, death became really real, and I began to question some aspects of my faith. Then I wound up going through a 12-week series called the Truth Project. I wound up becoming very interested in the ID movement, and on that path, had my faith restored. I look at world around me in a whole new light.

I relate this little story because after my mother's death, I really questioned what was really the point of this whole mess. My mother had a very hard child hood, belonging to a very poor family of farmers in Boaz, Alabama. Her mom and dad were alcoholics. Somehow she and my straight laced "Bible-thumping" dad fell in love and got married. I know she enjoyed her adult life, raised three kids, and had many very close friends in our church, only to be SLOWLY robbed of all her life and memories which started at age 63 by a very cruel disease.

I remember one night close to the end when I was getting ready to come back to Phoenix after visiting her in the hospital. It was late and I had taken my dad home to get some rest and stopped back into the hospital before making the 100 mile drive home. There was a male nurse trying to clean her up after she had a messed herself. The disease had progressed to where she no longer had control of her bowels. She was so scared and really didn't know what was happening to her. She was trembling and didn't understand what this strange man was doing to her. I could just see the terror in her eyes and all I could do was just hold her hand and tell her it was going to be okay. I hope she found comfort in my voice, even though consciously she no longer even knew who I was.

For some of you, during times of suffering, the question becomes "How could God let this happen?" For me it was just the opposite. I questioned, "How can I make sense of all this in the absence of God?" If God isn't real, what a cruel joke life is. What cruel chance is our presence here.

What a joy it is to have my faith in Christ restored. I know that I am just a pilgrim on a journey through this life but this isn't all there is. My hope remains in Christ, even in death. I know deep in my heart I will see my mother again, with her memories fully restored. You may think I believe in a fairy tell. But for me that confidence is unwavering.

I just can't even imagine how hopeless life would be without that hope. Natural Selection is cruel. Why do some get to live to 100 but others die before the age of two months. Why are some lives even ended before their tiny lungs ever even fill with air?

And what of your loved ones who have died? They were just here a little while and now done forever. Only their memory remains in you and with your demise, those too will be gone and it will be like their life never even happened.

But for me, no matter what comes my way, it is well with my soul.

 

[Hollie]

When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."

How really sleazy that you would invent some sappy story for the purpose of evangelizing.

 

[UltimateReality]

When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."

How really sleazy that you would invent some sappy story for the purpose of evangelizing.

You are just as cruel as the atheism you defend. This post shows your utter and complete denial of the truth about your life and what it means. You know deep in your heart what the truth is. I know I hit close to home when I said that you are angry with God for something that happened in your past.

 

[Hollie]

When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."

How really sleazy that you would invent some sappy story for the purpose of evangelizing.

You are just as cruel as the atheism you defend. This post shows your utter and complete denial of the truth about your life and what it means. You know deep in your heart what the truth is. I know I hit close to home when I said that you are angry with God for something that happened in your past.

There’s no need for you to project your emotional and intellectual weaknesses on others.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
The difference is with the Big Bang you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.

No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.

Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.

You have no proof complexity gradually evolved.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
The difference is with the Big Bang you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.

No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.

Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.

You have no proof complexity gradually evolved.

A function of biological evolution is fitness for survival and adaption via specilization. That process spurs a gradual process of greater complexity.

So obviously you are wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.

Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.

You have no proof complexity gradually evolved.

A function of biological evolution is fitness for survival and adaption via specilization. That process spurs a gradual process of greater complexity.

So obviously you are wrong.

Then you should be able to explain how a non intelligent natural process could evolve molecular machines that were a necessity for life to develop.These molecular machines had to be designed by this natural process and exist in the first cell. Molecular machines keep cells alive and or can kill the cell.

They didn't have time to evolve,don't have a clue what you are thinking.

 

[Hollie]

You have no proof complexity gradually evolved.

A function of biological evolution is fitness for survival and adaption via specilization. That process spurs a gradual process of greater complexity.

So obviously you are wrong.

I you should be able to explain how a non intelligent natural process could evolve molecular machines that were a necessity for life to develop.These molecular machines had to be designed by this natural process and exist in the first cell. Molecular machines keep cells alive and or can kill the cell.

They didn't have time to evolve,don't have a clue what you are thinking.

There's no need to introduce meaningless terms such as "molecular machines" when describing the process of evolution. I've seen that term seized upon by the fundie creationist crowd because a machine implies design. It's another of the deceptive and dishonest tactics employed by the religious cabal.

Examination of the process of evolution and the increasing complexity of life is available to you. You won't find the science of that process on the Harun Yahya website but there are vast sources of science fact available to you.

Becoming angry and assaulting people with your religious views makes you look quite desperate.

 

[UltimateReality]

You have no proof complexity gradually evolved.

A function of biological evolution is fitness for survival and adaption via specilization. That process spurs a gradual process of greater complexity.

So obviously you are wrong.

Then you should be able to explain how a non intelligent natural process could evolve molecular machines that were a necessity for life to develop.These molecular machines had to be designed by this natural process and exist in the first cell. Molecular machines keep cells alive and or can kill the cell.

They didn't have time to evolve,don't have a clue what you are thinking.

Not to mention the fact that there is no self-replicating molecule. The cell handles the process of copying dna like a tiny factory.

And Hollie, of course when humans see a machine they intuitively know it was designed. What else could you call the amazing processes going on in the cell? This is the part where I laugh hysterically. How much faith does it take to believe the cell happened by random, chance processes? An infinite amount!!! Since there isn't a shred of modern evidence to support any natural process that could be responsible, nor is there any evidence for a prehistoric method. You truly are a woman of great faith!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Becoming angry and assaulting people with your religious views makes you look quite desperate.

Projecting...again.