Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.
You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life.
Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
. What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."
So you are posting an artic;e that life can arise in a chemical bang.. abiogenesis.. without god.
You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life
Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin
I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.
Yet, no appeals to any gawds.
God is not supernatural, nor is God spirit God was and likely still is more advanced than we are. Humans do things today that in Jesus time would be equated as being God.You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life
Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin
I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.
You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life
Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin
I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.
Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life
Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin
I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.
Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life
Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin
I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.
Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life
Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin
I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.
Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.
This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life
Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin
I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.
Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.
This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.
It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?
If god was so smart how come he totally forgot about adam needing eve in the first placeYour claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life
Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin
I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.
Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.
This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.
It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?
You're not getting this at all. God created Adam first and then Eve. Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world. One can't do it with asexual reproduction. We're all adults here. Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism. The queen. With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection. Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world. That can happen. What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.
It's a radical theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.
You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.
It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.
This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life
Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.
Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.
Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin
I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.
Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.
More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.
Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.
It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.
This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.
This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.
Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.
It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?
You're not getting this at all. God created Adam first and then Eve. Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world. One can't do it with asexual reproduction. We're all adults here. Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism. The queen. With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection. Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world. That can happen. What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.
It's a radical theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.
