Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Because spelling is all you can fault his statement for?

Can you prove it's an accurate statement ?

You're the one who could only find fault in the spelling of his statement, not in the actual statement.

That was not I.

Like I asked and will ask again,can you back that comment up with facts or is it just more rhetoric ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ima we could come to the same conclusion of people that actually believe humans are related to apes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.

 

[ima]

Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.

But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.

But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?

The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.

I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism. I believe all miracles are the result of a life force. Chance does not pass the smell test.

 

[ima]

Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.

But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?

The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.

I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism. I believe all miracles are the result of a life force. Chance does not pass the smell test.

But you believe in miracles performed by some guy you can't see and don't know where he is?

So your designer designed gay people? Who designed your designer?

 

[LOki]

Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."

Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.

Because it can be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.

The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.

I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.

What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?

Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."

You can't prove that chemicals came together undirected and produced life can you ?

I don't have to.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

Science can only show these chemicals are needed for life.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?

The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.

I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism. I believe all miracles are the result of a life force. Chance does not pass the smell test.

But you believe in miracles performed by some guy you can't see and don't know where he is?

So your designer designed gay people? Who designed your designer?

They are miracles to man not God. Design is not accomplished with miracles it is done through knowledge.

Gay people are gay because they choose to be there is no science that can show it's a genetic effect. If it is a genetic effect perfection was lost with adam and eve.

No one, he has always existed.

 

[LOki]

Loki, this planet is literally covered with bacterium if what you are suggesting there should be new life forms popping all over this planet definitely things we have never laid eyes on.

If you mean new life spontaneously arising, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Peanutbutter-Jar.

If you are talking about changes in existing populations, then yeah, that's happening all the time.

Nonsense loki.

Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.

This statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."

Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.

Because it can be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.

I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.

What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?

Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."

You can't prove that chemicals came together undirected and produced life can you ?

I don't have to.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

Science can only show these chemicals are needed for life.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

Then I don't have to prove we were created. Show me evidence of amino acids forming naturally outside a living organism ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you mean new life spontaneously arising, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Peanutbutter-Jar.

If you are talking about changes in existing populations, then yeah, that's happening all the time.

Nonsense loki.

Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.

This statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.

Loki there is no evidence supporting the thought of abiogenesis, zero, none. The evidence is so weak abiogenesis should even be considered a theory.

If the evidence is overwhelming for abiogenesis then you should be able to provide some and explain it.

 

[UltimateReality]

The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages.

I do not dispute this. I think I was very clear that, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

WRONG!! ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.

Even though you refuse to acknowledge this verifiable fact of reality, it remains certainly true; does it not?

Of course it does.

If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator.

You'll just have to excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account.

You do recognize that such fundamentally flawed notions are impossible to accept as intellectually valid? You don't actually expect me to consider any of those self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts to be worth considering as accounts of a real thing, by any intellectually rigorous standard, do you?

No, not when you consider you've ignored the valid scientific arguments presented to you ad nauseum.

I wouldn't think so if you considered yourself a rational human being. If I am to assume that you are a rational human being, I cannot assume that you would accept such accounts so fundamentally flawed that they lack logical validity. So again, excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account, please share it.

Please repeat this again. Someone might not have got it the first 10 times.

Because I cannot imagine any reason consistent with integrity of intellectual honesty that you would refuse to do so.

Spoken like a true Hovindist.

Three things are thus far made apparent from your source:

1. "trong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" strongly refutes the notion that such position has any corresponding relationship with religion (in the belief in supernatural agencies, and "ritual observance of faith" sense).[*] That the notion "that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" is not quite a "just so story" in quite the manner of so many accounts of a "Creator" who created an existence that is "just so" precisely the way the believers of their "Creator" say it is.[*] There's nothing that would lead one to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

1. Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claims I made about evolutionary theories claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.

   I accept the possibility that your source might later support a different conclusion.

This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

Strawman.

Yes. This description appears to be a sensible conclusion drawn from the available data, but its not an implication that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

Strawman.

I don't think that anyone would dispute that Darwin is not presenting the Theory of Evolution as a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

Strawman.

"Metaphysical" is an awfully big word to be used by someone who struggled with difference between what constitutes a definition, what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.

The fact that I do not accept the dopey notions you assign to me; the fact that my metaphysical beliefs are entirely alien to your superstitious metaphysics; is no indication at all that I have any lack of understanding of the metaphysical beliefs on origins that I actually espouse.

Let me remind you that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Seriously? "Just so story"?

I'm not at all certain you know what you're talking about. I am pretty certain that you're misusing the term though.

Horizontal gene transfer cannot be a "Just-So story considering that the mechanisms for it seem pretty well understood--you know, in precisely the way the "Creator" of most typical accounts is not.

You're just making this shit up--just like a true Hovindist. Seriously. It's the precise made-up bullshit from you I have been exposing this whole time. The same made-up bullshit that you wish us all to believe is some kind of heady "sarcasm" that is lost on the "mental midgets" that surround you.

This is pot calling the kettle black.

Having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, SOLEY on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.

Having placed yourself on a pedestal with your absolute certainty, you simply refuse to accept that others refuse to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm; that others are capable of refusing to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm.

Strawman. I lost count. How many is that you've presented so far?

I will remind you again UltimateReality (CHRIST! Your nick is prima-facie evidence of your sanctimonious hubris), that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Whatever. You wouldn't know valid logic if it hit you in the face.

This is how you wish to go about this? You're just going to deny the verifiable reality of horizontal gene transfer, and then use that denial as a rationalization to assign to your opponents assertions that they simply do not make, and then you're going to accuse them of sumitting "Just-So" stories as evidence? Really?

Yes, really. By the way, you can quite wasting you time because I haven't clicked on a single link you've attached. You ruined that along time ago with your childish behavior linking to stupid pictures or other nonsense. You're a child.

Considering your brilliant and uncompromising track record, I really thought I could no longer be surprised by your intellectual dishonesty--HOLY **** WAS I WRONG!

Ad Hominem attack. And really it is you has proven time and again that you lack integrity, so you can stop projecting your behavior on me.

(FINALLY!) Please do!

I REFUSE to dispute this. Seriously. You CANNOT from this point forward EVER claim I "... presuppose Darwinism (you Hovindist retard) is true and force fit the evidence to the theory."

If the shoe fits...

Oh!

AWESOME! I can't wait! For you SURELY are about to present this evidence. Yes?

I have been hoping one of you guys would finally come through, and UltimateReality ... you're really going to do it! Right?

And considering your complaint regarding how "Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory", I can expect that the evidence you will shortly provide will no no way require me to presuppose this "intelligent agent" you posit is real in order for me to conclude that said "evidence" is actually "... evidence that [an] intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms."

Just for the record ... is there a secret number of times someone must ask? I just can't figure why you guys have been holding back for so long!

Whoa! WHOA WHOA! Pal!

First, there is NO ******* DOUBT that Intelligent Design identifies the "intelligent agent's" identity.

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."​

Who cares? Right? Because you're about to lay on us that evidence!

Except that you don't. :frownyface: WTF?

You just claim that ID ... WHAT? "... hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe."

Do you mean to tell me that all every time you asshats went on about how "there is evidence" to support your claims, you were just presenting some ******* HYPOTHESIS that there is such evidence? NOT that there IS evidence, but that you've got some really good reason to assert there is evidence; and perhaps you predict you're going to find some? REALLY?!?!?

And this differs from evolutionary theorizing how???

Aren't you just lucky then that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Please explain to me how my religious beliefs make me lucky??? The powerball is up to 80 million so I really want to know.

Why do you say that? Are you claiming your "God" thing is visible? Based on claims made about Him, I fail to understand why he can't make some time so He can be visible to me, and put this whole thing to rest.

Nope, it was just another comparison that you seem totally inept at understanding.

Also, I assert that the concept of your personal "God" thing is objectively real--just as the concept of leprechauns is also objectively real. Your task (which I am certain you will refuse to accept) is to demonstrate in what way leprechauns are verifiably less real than any "God" thing you might posit.

And it's effect is quantifiable. It's properties are describable in a meaningful, verifiable, and useful manner. It has so many things in common with other objectively real things.

And it's effect is quantifiable. It's properties are describable in a meaningful, verifiable, and useful manner. It has so many things in common with other objectively real things.

Please apply this same logic and explain the multiple universe theory to me. While you are at it, please help me understand the M-theory parameters required for reconciliation of Quantum mechanics and string theory with theoretical physics.

 

[ima]

Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?

 

[LOki]

Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.

You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have imposed upon yourself an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support your conclusions; you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe; you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.

You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the evidence that supports the theory.

 

[UltimateReality]

Agreed.

So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?

So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.

Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

What Crick doesn't tell you is the odds of carrying out 43 "might haves" in specific order with time constraints. Yeah, cause that doesn't take faith!!!

What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."

Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.

Why do you continually mix the religious beliefs presented with rigorous scientific method of ID?? Do you need to use trickery, i.e., intellectual dishonesty to validate your points? This is a strawman if there ever was one!!!

Because it can be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

This is great "just so" fairy tale for the origin of the DNA molecule. But can you please explain how the information got there? Can you please tell me how a magnetic tape with the encyclopedia Britannica stored on it PHYSICALLY varies from a blank magnetic tape?

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

Again, you fallaciously mix religion with science. I guess this is natural for you to do, since your TOE does it all the time. But ID theory stands on science alone, not religion.

Why do you knock someone who believes life was designed ?

Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.

The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.

I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.

What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?

the fact it easily reconciled with scientific observation and evidence.

Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."

[/QUOTE] I didn't quite understand the question. Can you repeat this?

 

[UltimateReality]

Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?

No.

 

[UltimateReality]

So, you admit that Creationism is religion, correct? And Intelligent-Design theory is demonstrably (and has been demonstrated both in this forum and in court of law) Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, correct? And you maintain that Intelligent-Design theory is science, correct?

Hence, ...

You are correct. Courts of law cannot be depended on to make declarations about science philosophy. To keep quoting Dover is REALY, REALLY pathetic on evo-fundies part.... REALLY PATHETIC. Why don't you and your Rugged buddy use that mush sloshing around in your head to come up with something better than "the court said so!"??? The court also says it is okay to murder unborn babies but this is a large part of the population that believes this is the worst type of genocide, and extremely EVIL.

"But people [who aren't totally blinded by their metaphysical materialism] understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power."

"First, the new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court order—as happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution—it can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."

"A judge could rule that Einstein is right and the faster-than-light neutrinos are wrong. Or that you can’t teach about them in school. Or whatever. That then becomes the official “truth.”"

When "Our Best Science" Is Not Good Enough

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)​

Is this clear enough? Not only is Intelligent Design just creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, it is really apparent that Intelligent Design is specifically Christian Creationism dressed up in the vocabulary of science.

Funny. I couldn't find a single source of this quote that wasn't Wiki or an atheist website.

 

[UltimateReality]

Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."

Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.

Because it can be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.

The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.

I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.

What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?

Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."

You can't prove that chemicals came together undirected and produced life can you ?

Science can only show these chemicals are needed for life.

Yeah, Loki, please show me where these experiments following the steps outlined produced a living cell. If they are so possible, shouldn't we be able to recreate all of them in order in a lab and come up with a fully functioning cell with all the micro-machines for DNA transcription and translation?

 

[UltimateReality]

But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?

The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.

I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism. I believe all miracles are the result of a life force. Chance does not pass the smell test.

But you believe in miracles performed by some guy you can't see and don't know where he is?

So your designer designed gay people? Who designed your designer?

Oh here we go!!! Why do gays always wind up finding their way to atheism and evolution so they can stomp on fundie's?? If they actually studied the Bible, they would find out that we all are sinners and that God still loves us in spite of our sin.

And yes, God designed your anus. I'm not sure why he didn't design an "exit only" sign to go with it though.

 

[UltimateReality]

If you mean new life spontaneously arising, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Peanutbutter-Jar.

If you are talking about changes in existing populations, then yeah, that's happening all the time.

Nonsense loki.

Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.

This statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.

I think you did that about 500 pages ago.