The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
72dew, what evidence are you looking for? You want physical evidence of our Creator? Well good luck with that, as the Bible states we would literally die if we were to see all of Gods glory while in these flesh bodies, He is that beautiful and powerful. Evidence of God? You are breathing, aren't you? You have a unique fingerprint, don't you? Evolution would NOT produce individual fingerprints.
Scientific evidence is what you want? God created "science", therefore all scientific evidence points to God, as He said, "these things are here for signs." If you want proof, I suggest reading the Bible, Ezekiel, Isaih. Or Jeremiah specifically, and notice how many events have come to pass or are still occurring as we sit here and type; nothing predicted in the Bible has ever failed to come true. Is that enough evidence? More than 300 prophecies came to pass by the crucifixion of Christ alone.
last I saw, this is a comments section not a place to debate Christianity or atheism. so if you do not agree with the views presented in the video, stop watching it.
@ApatheticOmniscience Yep, Jonathon Wells is a "religious scientist" from the Discovery Institute. Strobel also like to use "religous scientist" Michael Behe. All of their science has been proven wrong in court. If you havent watched it, watch "Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial". It is a shame that they keep selling science that they know is incorrect in books and dvds.
For the special birth of Jesus, each of those is told from a different perspective, so that is wrong or not wrong or however you want to look at it too.
An alter of doom, towers above the light. Behold the eclipse, pitiful sheep shall soon ignite. Satan's flames will burn the weak. Master of the shadows, you are so afraid. He reveals the knowledge you've tried to hide. Satan ascends through the sky as the landscape fades. The battle rages for the church of the frail. Prayers of fools fall into darkness. Victorious again, he shatters thy holy cross. The defeated and idle are cast into the sea. Perched upon a new throne is our dark immortal.
@megaead69 "Christians can believe evolution." Except that evolution contradicts Genesis. So either God forgot how he created the universe, or he never really existed in the first place. Those are your two choices if you believe in evolution.
@megaead69 Not a false dichotomy. Yeah, personally believing in both is absolutely possible(out of ignorance), but it doesn't mean one corroborates the other. In fact, like I already said, believing in both is a contradiction. Evolution says that man (and all living things) evolved from a primordial soup billions of years ago. Genesis says the earth is at most 10,000 years old and that all species of plants and animals were created at once. Meaning, man coexisted with dinosaurs. How ridiculous.
Just watched it. Here's my rebuttal to that BBC documentary: Starting with Philo's interpretation, it's easy to see that it's just another case of Christians realizing the faults and contradictions in their bible that supposedly is the infallible word of God, so they just change the interpretation to resolve the contradiction. Every time there's a contradiction, you can just blow it off as an allegory and change the meaning to make you feel comfortable as science further repudiates the bible.
@megaead69 To further illustrate my point that the BBC documentary just is another case of Christians changing the meaning of the bible to make them feel comfortable with what science has discovered; some time ago Christians once believed the earth was flat. They interpreted the word "circle" (which is a 1-D object) in the bible as a 2-D flat circular disc. Then science discovered it's actually spherical, so christians then interpreted the 1-D circle as a 3-D sphere. Classic christian move.
@GrowMasterGeneral The scriptures deal with how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. The Bible is not a science book-despite mistakes made, in this regard, by previous generations of Christians. One thing that is certain- the early Church did not hold to a literal understanding of Genesis (creation) even in the first centuries A.D.
If you're going to make a caricature of these topics, then go right ahead. In any case, evolution is tenable with the Christian faith.
@megaead69 What you're saying is only proving my point. "The Bible is not a science book"... because that's how YOU'VE interpreted it because it flies in the face of science. You are a little bit smarter than the average christian and realize there's mountains of evidence that support evolution. So you just resolve the contradictions between your religion and science by saying anything in the bible that contradicts science is just an allegory and not meant to be taken literally.
@megaead69 " the early Church did not hold to a literal understanding of Genesis (creation) even in the first centuries A.D."... Only continues to further prove my point. Just like Philo, the early church couldn't just ignore the self contradictions in the bible. After all, it's suppose to be the infallible word of God. They couldn't ignore it, nor could they abandon their religion because of it. So all on their own, they decided that whenever this happens, to just change the interpretation.
@GrowMasterGeneral Whether or not you are willing to accept it there are many words for the Hebrew word circle. An an example of this is "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth" Isaiah 40:22 The word used here is חוג which is Chuwg. The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chug, as described above and as used, in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth.
@JKPhillipians413 " in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth."... It doesn't teach a round earth either. The word "circle" is a 1-D object, and was interpreted as a 2-D FLAT circular disc (sitting atop a mountain, your horizon makes a perfect circle). When we discovered the earth is spherical, christians simply changed the interpretation to a 3-D sphere. But I guess the infallible word of God is left open to interpretation as you see fit.
@GrowMasterGeneral Haha you got me. I should have thought about it before I commented. I digress. Anyway, I think that you're arguing against this video so really we're on the same side.
@GrowMasterGeneral Most educated men knew the world wasn't flat starting around 300 B.C. Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the distance to within 2% of it's true circumference around 240 B.C. So Christian's reinterpreted nothing as this was obviously 240 years before Christ. Jewish scholars would have been well aware of Greek science and would probably looked upon this scripture and thought nothing of it. Btw "circle" doesn't exist in Hebrew which is my point.
Respond to this video... All this aside the point of the scripture in Isaiah is to give a word picture to the reader. It is not a statement of scientific fact, rather one of imagery. Average Joe working a field could probably care less that the earth is spherical and God was not concerned about explaining it to him because He knew we would figure it out. God was concerned about letting the reader know He is in control and this was to give Joe comfort.
@JKPhillipians413 You really ought to pay better attention. My point was never that the bible taught a flat earth, that was just an example of my point. Which was that christians change the interpretation of the bible whenever they see fit. Whenever self-contradictions or contradictions of science occur within the bible, christians on there own, change the interpretation to resolve the contradiction.
@GrowMasterGeneral Your point is to attack and undermine Christianity through whatever means you can find. Your argument that a change of doctrine was instituted in Christianity because we found out the earth was round was proven wrong. Come up with another argument where Christianity contradicts itself that has more validity. Btw you could do without the demeaning intro comments, it makes it at least seem like you are having a discussion rather than being judgmental.
@GrowMasterGeneral I looked over some of these verses, In Genesis it never says trees came after, it says that man will have dominion over all these things, also 2: 4-9 if you read it says a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole ground which means the plants would grow then he breathed life into adam after he created him from dust
@GrowMasterGeneral Genesis 1:11 said let the land produce vegetation. Genesis 2:4 "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed a man" ... L2 Read it said, god watered the plants so that they could grow... before he made adam.
Nowhere in genesis 2:1-7 does it suggest man was created before birds. In the short few paragraphs before genesis 19 it suggest adam had only just been moved to the garden of eden, not that he was created there. God put adam in the garden of eden. then it describes how god created these animals and brought them to adam to be named. it does not suggest adam was there first, it merely suggest a "re-creation" if you will, of the pre-existing creatures of the earth.
@GrowMasterGeneral as far as the matt/luke joseph thing. -- Because of the Jewish Levirite laws, both are correct, but in different ways. In Jewish law, if a man died childless, his brother was to marry the widow, and the first son born would legally be the dead man's heir.
@MrMinigunner If you'd listen to yourself, you'd realize you're only proving my point. The bible contains contradictions, and Christians invent excuses to resolve these contradictions (this should be clear evidence of something man-made and NOT the inerrant word of an infallible God). Even amongst Christians, you can't agree on if Genesis is a literal account of creation or just allegorical. Whenever the bible contradicts itself or science, Christians change the interpretation as they see fit.
@GrowMasterGeneral Of course Genesis contains a literal account, are you kidding me? The exact date of those events are accurately confirmed. There was no "apple" in the garden. The majority of Christians are more misinformed than you atheistt/neo-dumbasses.
@TheLastAaron " Of course Genesis contains a literal account." So then you're a young earth creationist? You believe the Earth is 10,000 years old? You believe man and dinosaur walked the Earth together? If you've answered yes to any of those questions, please move on. The problem is you've already closed yourself off to science. Which means you have very little knowledge about the world. There's no point in arguing with someone who refuses to accept fact just because is contradicts your belief.
@GrowMasterGeneral Wrong, wrong, wrong... all wrong. Genesis contains literal accounts of THIS. EARTH. AGE. All living creations, both man and beast, were created on the 6th day. "Eth Ahadam" aka Adam was created the 8th day, after God had rested. We ALL existed in the FIRST earth age, where we were all in our spiritual bodies, roaming Heaven and Earth alike. Satan's fall is what ushered in this current Earth age we are living within. I like how you assume my beliefs and act like you are the ...
@GrowMasterGeneral ... all-knowing. What I believe is spoken of in the Bible itself, which most people (including the majority of Christians) overlook, and shroud with false beliefs and doctrines such as the "apple" in the garden, the "rapture theory", and the like. The Word literally says DO NOT ADD TO MY WORD. The "apple" and the "rapture" are both additions to God's Word. No, we do not live on a "young earth", it is bonkers to believe such a thing. I see you've dealt with many "Christians".
@GrowMasterGeneral The fact is the Bible does not speak of how LONG the past Earth age existed before Satan's overthrow, a.k.a. The Katabole, so we do not know for sure how old the earth and the universe are, but it is apparent that the earth is obviously at least millions of years old. Nothing what I have been told by the Word contradicts what "scientists" discover whatsoever, on the contrary, everything scientists find further proves the Bible truer and truer with each discovery.
@GrowMasterGeneral As He has told us, all these are here for signs. Which is why we are the luckiest generation of all time; we get to see all these things revealed to us slowly but surely. You guys all need to be thanking God for all these incredible discoveries and advances we are able to uncover in this last and final generation. God bless.
@GrowMasterGeneral The problem is YOU have closed yourself off to God because of all the contradictions and hypocrisy that has displayed to you through all these so-called Christians, ones who believe that Jesus Christ completely overrules the Old Covenant of health laws and food laws and the like, which is a complete lie. These things have all been foretold to all of us, so when that time finally comes and Christ plants His feet upon the Mount of Olives, no one will have any excuse.
@TheLastAaron You're wasting you time. All i'm hearing from you is; God is real because the bible said so and science is crap. I'm not gonna waste my time with someone so spectacularly stupid.
@GrowMasterGeneral LOL and all I'm hearing from you is "there is no God no matter what you say" so that's fine, you go that route mate, no skin off my back. God is EASILY proven, trust me, you are just too blind and deaf to see the millions of signs placed around you. It could be the Spirit of Stupor has been placed upon you by God Himself as depicted in the Bible, disabling you from EVER understanding the True Word of God. I'd advise you to open your eyes, brother, the end is not far off.
@TheLastAaron im interested, please prove god to me supported by evidence (scientifically exceptable). i always tell everyone, if you can prove god is real using scientifically exceptable evidence, i would believe in god because i care about reality
@ 2:45 "here's how I know".... This is why you leave the science to the scientists. His conclusion is erroneous. WHY? Wouldn't it seem so logical that if all the pieces are already there, life should evolve if evolution was true? DON'T be so gullible people!!! The conditions for evolution must replicate the conditions of early earth. HOW IS THE STERILE TEST TUBE, IN ANY WAY, like the conditions of early earth?!!? CONCLUSION FAIL!!!!
@GrowMasterGeneral So according to your conclusion it would mean that it is absolutely impossible to replicate early earth via a laboratory experiment. You just invalidated the original experiment by Miller more than Strobel.
@JKPhillipians413 " according to your conclusion it would mean that it is absolutely impossible to replicate early earth via a laboratory experiment".... Are you retarded? I didn't say that or even elude to it. What made you think that? That retard in the video thinks a sterile test tube with a living cell in it should evolve. If that's what you think science concludes about evolution, then you have a tenuous knowledge of science, and you're not qualified to debate it in the first place.
@GrowMasterGeneral What I did was draw a conclusion that one cannot prove evolution from this experiment, nor can it be inferred that creationism is proven by it either. An early earth environment cannot be replicated in a test tube, to think one could is silly.
"The conditions for evolution must replicate the conditions of early earth." I couldn't agree more with you, not sure why you are upset? Perhaps I should have been clearer. Speaking of qualifications, I didn't catch yours?
@JKPhillipians413 "all the elements for a cell are ready for assembly in that test tube, yet they will not reassemble into a cell"... Nothing about evolution suggests this would happen. So to say this disproves evolution is erroneous and incredibly ignorant. Many chemical processes, still unknown, happened to create DNA. One newly discovered process came from meteorites that formed nucleobase and nucleobase analogs such as the molecules adenine and guanine.
Why not? The elements are there are they not? I will try to be clear again, he is arguing that the process of arranging into a cell from the provided theory's fall short in his academic opinion and he believes it to be unlikely. I would like to see this scientific source that you are citing btw and you didn't post your credentials? Going to bed, I'll catch this thread tomorrow, look forward to your response.
@JKPhillipians413 "What I did was draw a conclusion that one cannot prove evolution from this experiment"... There's no need to even do that because evolution is already proved through the fossil record.
@GrowMasterGeneral The fossil record only proves that there is a lack of intermediary forms. What is seen is a wide diversity of species. I'm sure you will cite examples such as archeopteryx. The problem is that it is impossible to determine if this is a transition from a previous species to a new one without thousands of specimens over many thousands of years. The fossil record doesn't provide these samples. So this is an assumption based on the evidence at hand, not concrete fact.
@JKPhillipians413 "fossil record only proves that there is a lack of intermediary forms."... Where do you get your information? From creationist sources? Of course they would like for you to believe this, but the truth is, there are MANY transitional fossils. Take whales for example. It was long known that whales were once terrestrial animals. And the fossil record proves it. Such intermediate forms include kutchicetus, ambulocetus, pakicetus, and indohyus just to name a few. Evolution is fact.
@GrowMasterGeneral Also, his argument is that all the elements for a cell are ready for assembly in that test tube, yet they will not reassemble into a cell. So his logic is that a soup of all the right material existing on the early earth coming together to form a fully functioning cell as we know it is improbable. Cells act based on the code within them. How would a bunch of molecules with no coding know what to do? I think this is the question at the root of his logic. Thoughts?
So he's basing his argument against evolution and the origin of life on data that's over 60 years old? Does he know science continues to evolve? If Strobel claims that if life can be produced from non-living substances it would be absolute proof against God, then he should check out Dr. Jack Szostak. And I encourage any theist who's basing their own argument on data over 60 years old to check him out as well. Sorry theists, science continues to prove you wrong.
gabbe7, I agree. No one explains where the very first atom of anything came from. No one has been able to take a vacuum with absolutely nothing in it and create an atom.
you got my meaning of element confused I dont mean the elements from the table but the natural elements that are used in the explanation of how life formed. a person will try and explain that things (we'll call them} came together and maid a chemical reaction to start an evolution that evetually became life. what I am saying wher is the explination of those (things) elements. what it boils down to is the same argument creationist are making-
@gabbe7 It's the exact opposite of the arguments creationists are making because we use actual testable mechanism to produce amino acids, purine bases etc. Science bare asserts nothing but endlessly scrutinizes everything, this is the polar opposite of creationist claims.
they are testable good job but the tests are proving nothing but the need for more evidence.all logic and reasoning in the rational world is saying that something needs something else to exist this is the evidence of "well thought out science" if you se a ball rolling on the ground (using your logic) you say oh the ball is rolling because its rolling. but a rational thinker says "oh this ball must be rolling bcause of a force that I didnt see but know is ther.
@gabbe7 Wrong, the tests have incorporated data and revealed mechanisms that that are only explicable via common descent.
Your ball analogy further shows the ineptness of asserting a creator, because we can actually form apples to apples hypotheses to test the origin of the ball rolling.
@TheScienceFoundation hypothosis only a guess- granted a very well educated guess, but a guess there is still no explination of any origin. what it all comes down to is faith for one side or the other- either you have faith that these "hypothesis and theories" are going to lead to some answers or you have faith that ther is a creator. now my belief is that it takes tons more faith on your part then mine. if I had that much faith I could move mountains.
@gabbe7 No, a hypothesis is a model for control of experimentation. If you were educated in how science actually works you would know my position takes zero faith.
I disagree, it all comes down to utility of knowledge. Feining knowledge which you do not have, nor could in principle have, & then asserting this knowledge explains physical reality is dangerous to humankind, misleading, & doesn't provide solutions to real problems. Science provides utility b/c it has efficacy, whereas religion/faith provide no solutions to issues in the real world b/c their answers aren't hinged to the real world.
I see where you come from here. what I understand from this post is that you are saying that science will one day come to a truth but does not yet have the facts of origin. I think that this leaves alot of what makes us human out ie hope, but you have to agree that you have faith that science is a truth. and that truth is defined by it meaning truth is generic and so your truth (reality) is also mine. I have personally witnessed solutions to real world issues
do you see the logic here?- (wher did elements come from? answer- stars wher did stars come from? answer- chemicals wher did chemicals come from?) it could go on and on but you ask a creationist the same but its a shorter answer - a creator. (wher did the creator come from? answer- he just was.)
it is illogical to believe that nothing created something. "creator" what ever it was is something that as humans we cannot and probably will not ever fathom.
@gabbe7 'but you ask a creationist the same but its a shorter answer - a creator.'
That's not an answer, that's a complete non-answer. It tells us absolutely nothing and only invokes magic to specially plead around the real questions.
Replace 'a creator' with 'pure invisible untestable magic' and tell me how the creationist answer is different.
@gabbe7 'ask a creationist the same but its a shorter answer - a creator. answer- he just was.)'
Evidence a creator caused X? If you can assert that X creator just was, then it can be equally asserting X universe just was. For your logic buffs out there, we have a higher certainty that the universe actually exists as w/ compared w/ something in some imagined area which we can not even in principle test or get evidence for.
it is an answer its just not the answer you want to hear if you look at your logic you will see that ther is no answer you will just keep looking. creation is all around us something comes from something else it is only logical. nothing (zero) cannot equal something (1). science relies on math and in your opinion math is wrong even though it seems to work that 1+1=2 and so on. 0=1,2=7 , 4=2 do you see that these dont = out ? but this is what you are trying to say-0+0=1
@gabbe7 ', but you have to agree that you have faith that science is a truth.'
I don't, the fruits, knowledge provided, & overall utility/accuracy of science at explaing reality is unmatched by any contemporary methodology. the mere fact you're using a devise created vie that method is more proof. do I need faith in the medicine I take, the plane I board? we know very much about gravity & biology to know the answer isn't by mere faith.
It just makes sense to me that a creator who understands the elements because he made them and knows their properties and functions can successfully create life, especially a vast variety of species. And it is beyond me how such strong forces such as selfless love, empathy, and inherent values of what is morally right and wrong, not to mention unexplained healing and moments of brilliant insight to help mankind, can exist by chance. All that brings order and harmony cannot come by chaos.
Stanley Miller's experiment and all other experiments scientists have used to show how life originated by evolution still rely on the scientists' prior understanding of how elements / chemicals function. One who knows how elements function and the laws by which they are governed manipulate them with a certain expected result, but it's interesting that scientists still cannot create life and species. How can all of the amazing complexity and diversity of life forms have become life spontaneously.
i always suspected that urey-miller experiment was a ton of BS that fed a ton of manure into the infected atheist brain. These idiots never learn as they run towards a burning forest . In any case they are sure to come up with alternative BS to excuse their desire for zero accountability. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
The Urey-Miller experiment demonstrated that amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, could easily be created using some basic chemicals. If you fail to understand the significance of this, please revisit high school science courses. Labeling this as "BS" makes you appear to be an ignorant fool.
@TheSeventhSon - see how atheism has deadened your comprehension and perception- I made the statement to back up the truth that the Urey-Miller experiment was a fallacy in its presupposition that the early earth was made up of those atmospheric components. I wonder who really is the ignorant fool. go soak up some more brainwashing at the atheist radio show.
First of all, your original comment said nothing about WHY you're were calling it BS, so perhaps it's YOUR comprehension that is suspect here. Second, atheism and the Urey-Miller experiment have nothing in common. Third, the experiment has been done for several different proposed conditions of the early earth, all of which are based on data. So, would you care to make anymore ignorant statements or do you feel that was enough?
@TheSeventhSon my goodness - u really are so far gone - I feel I am about to play chess with a clay pigeon. have you ever seen Carl sagan describe the Urey-Miller experiment. please don't bother to reply - your ignorance is alarming. If you want to have the last word ...go ahead ...be my guest. lol
You know, it's pretty easy to constantly call someone ignorant when you fail to point out why you're making that claim. You attacked me because I failed to accurately predict what your vague statements meant. You then further attack me because the claims you make are false. Your default response is to call someone ignorant and resort to other ad hominems because you can't possibly strain your mind to think for a minute. If you're going to post here, prepare some good material.
@kishbass Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. God values your faith in Him more than anything else because it's only in your faith in Him that he can accomplish anything in your life. If you have no faith at all neither desire to, should he seek you out along with everyone else that doesn't believe? When he's left the evidence of Him everywhere? Those that don't want to know him that choose not to LOOK for him.
There is little to no value in faith. All faith demonstrates is that you're willing to believe in something and accept it despite having no rational reason for that belief. Why is that an admirable trait? The religious have conveniently made faith admirable. The idea that your god cares for everyone in the world and could easily save everyone by demonstrating himself to us yet refuses to do so because he values irrational beliefs is absurd. Is your god irrational?
@TheSeventhSon You don't know that because you have none. God has chained me from within. That is probably of no value to most people because they don't or won't see the need for change within themselves. Most people believe everyone else is at fault. Faith is an amazing thing and all you have to do is inquire. Most people won't because they are arrogant and don't even believe God is higher then themselves. Sad state of affairs but God is about to set things right.
I did inquire. I asked you why faith is an admirable trait. It's not that people don't believe that god is higher than themselves. That's silly. It's that people don't believe in god. Let's not make false statements here.
where did the methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor come from?
They always try to explain where life came from but they always start with the building blocks of life. Where did those building blocks come from?
If people don't see a master creator behind everything they are completely blind. What I think blinds people is their unwillingness to be accountable and not realizing that there debt is paid if they will only believe.
@artsychic2000 but that doesn't explain where he came from. If he is able to build the infinitely complex universe, he must be more complex than the universe, and something even more complex must have created him. Why is it that God doesn't need a creator, but everything else does?
These charlatans are purveyors of PSEUDO science, why? - because there's a market for it of course! To assume they even believe what they say is a mistake
To believe something just popped in2 existence trillions of years ago &then evolved into the Life we have today isn't just harder to believe than Creationism, it's sadder. Why would we want to teach our children of an existence w/no greater purpose then just our daily life? Those lives are often nothing more than struggle and when those children put a gun to their head, or pills to their mouths, or a bridge's edge to their feet... What Belief then, could ever overcome their hopelessness?
DISPROVING OTHER PEOPLES SEARCH FOR CLUES OF OUR ORIGIN DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES ACTUALLY SEARCHING THROUGH REASONABLE RATIONAL MEANS. this video is lame.
Didi he really try to point out that eukaryotic cells were the first living things on this planet? Ouch. Why should amino acids form an eukaryotic cell??
The first appearance of euk. cells can be traced back to 2.4 billion years, while bacteria can be traced back to 3.8 billion years. There is also the Endosymbiotic theory, but what could be the reason that this information isn`t presented? Right, it doesn`t fit in the concept of denying evolution. Bad job, Mr. Strobel.
@IGotchaUMayne Sure. The oldest rocks on earth you can use for dating technics are 3.8 - 4 billion years old (the age of earth is measured with other components) . You can measure the age of these stones with different radiometric dating methods, i.e. Uranium-lead and Potassium-argon-dating method. Now some of the oldest rocks are Archaean rocks found in western Australia. They contain fossilized cyanobacteria in layers of stromatolite, which is produced by the activity of ancient cyanobacteria.
@IGotchaUMayne The layers were produced as calcium carbonate precipitated over the growing mat of bacterial filaments; photosynthesis in the bacteria depleted carbon dioxide in the surrounding water, initiating the precipitation. The minerals, along with grains of sediment precipitating from the water, were then trapped within the sticky layer of mucilage that surrounds the bacterial colonies, which then continued to grow upwards through the sediment to form a new layer.
@IGotchaUMayne As this process occured over and over again, the layers of sediment were created. In some cases, the stromatolites were infiltrated with a mineral-rich solution which fossilized the bacteria along with the layers, but more often only the layers are preserved. So the oldest fossilized bacteria you can find in these layers are 3.5 billion years old, while traces of carbon isotopes can be found in rocks 3.9 billion years old.
TheUnsentGuardian As I messaged you, I am not debating so this is last post. If Roman documentation is believable (they were meticulous). There were two soldiers guarding Jesus Christ's tomb, they were probably put to death after losing the dead body. The body was found live by his disciples. Most of said disciples were put to death because they would not stop proclaiming that fact.
Reporter is only discussing creation, or some random chance of all this happening by accident. Lets get to it.
Hey is not talking religion people. He is talking about a creator. Religion is man made and inferior. Jesus proclamed the "Church" as followers of him, not a building, or religion. The only thing this reporter is doing is trying to find out, how did life start, not what happened after man put his two cents into it.
What gets me, is you are trying to see how life started.....You are using God's Carbon Dioxide and God's water vapor.....Get your own ingrediants!
@Stuntmantoo Ah, a logical fallacy. Starting with your requirements and beliefs combined, one could say that nothing exists outside your god's creation. What I'm interested in is not what you claim to be creation, but what can be demonstrated to be creation. I wonder if anyone can demonstrate that a creator is necessary and/or does exist. Don't forget that without evidence, Muslims can claim that their god is the author of all life and the earth with exactly the same credibility as you can.
When Darwin proposed the tree of life there was certainly not sufficient evidence in his time that all life had evolved from the one life form and in THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES he refers to the possibility that there may have been more than one original life form that all modern life derived from. However we currently have no evidence that all life did not evolve from a single common ancestor. All Earth life does appear to be related to one another.
The first life form on Earth would not have been a cell because that is too complex. It would have been a bit of protein able to repkicate itself using energy from its surroundings. The modern cell would have evolved probably over hundreds of millions of years.
just because we dont have the technology to put back together a cell and create life doesnt prove that there is a creator. One day we will have the technology to do so. To try and disprove evolution with todays technology is just ignorant. We as humans are too proud and cannot accept that we did evolve from primates.
@Ajin616 i dont want to trash the islamic faith but some of the things they believe are pretty extreme i agree but that has nothing to do with christianity
@XxToHellAndBackxX in your previous post you didn't mention christianity. And as for christianity, the thing is the same, just people don't really care about religion, and what their holy book says or they are more intelligent and have developed morality better so they don't follow words of christian god that are contained in the bible. And christians did bad things and I think the will do it again when the pope says so. For example: crusades, inquisition, burning witches, etc
@Ajin616 those are all things that are wrong and shouldnt have been done i agree but that doesnt make christianity wrong. the pope stands for everything that is wrong with people in this word. power, greed, pride, all things done out of selfishness. but he is not head of the christan faith, god is. i dont answer to the pope.
@Ajin616 look at the things christan churches do today; we do all kinds of charities and things all over the world hati, africa, probably japan now, not because the pope says to but because its our duty to help other people because that is what wants us to do. we want to show gods love to those who need it. and everyone needs it. so if you honestly think one bad piece of human history makes christans evil people then the human race is doomed cause everyone has done terrible things
@XxToHellAndBackxX look at the comment you wrote. You say that you don't do good because of book or pope, you do good things because you are good. You see, you don't need a religion to be good if you're good. But if you're good and you have a religion you will eventually make horrible things just like crusaders in those times. And charities and all the good stuff you mentioned is made not only by churches, it's also made by other organizations that are not linked with any religion. FSM bless ya
@Ajin616 yeah i you dont need to be religious to be a good person but the sad fact is most people who dont follow the word of god arent good people. they make bad choices out of ignorance. just tell me what bad thing has the christan church done since the crusades and the inquisition? nothing and we never will. the fact that you assume that we will agian is nothing more than prejudice and that is just pathetic dude. you should be ashamed of yourself
@XxToHellAndBackxX Since you're broad labeling the 'christian church," i have a few examples. First of all, the church is trying to shanghai the education system in Texas to push out evolution in favor of "intelligent design." They are burning condoms in African countries, one of the areas most prominent with HIV in the world. Lets not forget the Vatican's public embrace of Adolph Hitler during ww2. I'll just start with these. There are plenty more available if you would like.
@XxToHellAndBackxX for example: pope banned condoms, christian church did nothing to stop the war in Iraq and Afganistan,pope helped child molesters, giving them protection and silencing families of children and he cannot be arrested because he has role similar to president or king. Don't get mi wrong, but you are don't seem to seek the truth. You got your believes that, if changed, would make too big difference and that is too much for you.
@Ajin616 I do seek the truth and the truth is you seem to think that every christan follows the pope as if he was some deity and that is not true. i couldnt give a damn what the pope does. and why should the pope try to stop the war in the middle east? you do know that we did that to 1: Stop the terrorist threat on our country and 2: Take an evil dictator from power. and dont forget the fact that they attacked us in the first place (similar to WW2)
just because we cant prove how life started doesnt mean it was supernatural. humans have a horrible habit of taking something unexplained and slapping an irrational answer on it.
apparently we as logical beings have came right back to the flat earth controversy except this time the scientists are the established authority and no one should dare challenge the lest they be chastised and ridiculed. Even banished and ruined.
Alas! The more things change the more they do indeed stay the same.
@jimijamesh because you are close minded and stubborn. you dont want to believe in god because that would mean you would have to start being a good person. maybe even going to church too! [gasp!]
People like Strobel and his “scientists” don’t post their work in scientific journals or put their work up for peer review. Therefore, they can say anything they want. This is part of the process by which science sorts good science from garbage. Strobel’s “scientists” are their own in-house people from an organization called the discovery institute. If you would like to see how Strobel’s “scientists” hold up in court watch “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”
@Information39 My friend, do you honestly think their work would be posted in scientific journals? If you can find a secular discovery magazine/journal that will accept information such as theirs, let me know. The fact that they do not work with secular scientists that influence the world the most does not shoot down their credibility whatsoever. The information they provide to Strobel is easily verifiable.
@Hick9898 Ok, I am calling you out. Verify what the discovery institute was trying to prove in Judgement Day. This crap is found all over Strobels dvds. Behe(discovery institute/strobel) with his PHD couldnt do it in court with a religious judge at the bench. But I am sure you are smarter than Behe and all the discovery Inst. resources at his disposal. I am calling you out again...YOU DIDNT WATCH THE VIDEO DID YOU? As in the dvd, Strobels work gets exposed as garbage.
Experiments with better atmosphere got MORE amino acids. Why is this guy lying? And the cell in the test-tube is just ridiculous. That's like saying "Look, I have hydrogen in a bottle and stars don't form!"
@roxef I have a land, I paid for it, and I will wait sometime to get a house made by the ground of my land, I dont want to pay anybody to build it, I have no money now, tell me how long I have to wait?
You have to wait until cave forms if you'd be satisfied with that, lol. But seriously, this is a strawman, because there are some crucial differences between houses and life. Houses don't reproduce with variation and houses don't die.
@roxef " Houses don't reproduce with variation and houses don't die." Ask a builder if he cannot reproduce a house, and about die, what do you call "die"? if you dont understand what life is, how dear you tu say houses dont "die"? if you think that making a house is easier than creating a life and it needs a designer, now a life that is imposible for me to understand and create doesnt need a DESIGNER? . I am not arguing with you we just have different view of everything, I see God everywhere.
If theists can put a mathematical probability on abiogenesis, can they also be fair and put a mathematical probability on the proposition of an all knowing, all powerful, and all present deity that also happens to exists outside of the limits of space and time. An absence of evidence for the beginning of life doesn’t prove intelligent design as the default conclusion.
@tex959 to answer that question objectively, according to what we can understand or grasp, we should understanding elemental concepts of maths, such as definition of zero, number, and infinite, elemental, but fundamental. try to to divide 1 by the smallest number you can, what do you get?, Meditate what is telling you the numbers, I have no space to explain, if you are intelligent you will see something. what would happen if you exceeded the limit? what would you get? What does that mean?
was miller-urey, done I think when miller was a student. It was quite successful and subsequent experiments with a better idea of the atmosphere have been better. Why not use an unbiased and published biologist instead of the guy who was tasked with destroying evolution by a christian sect leader. ?
The end is near!!! The fact is humans have been saying that for all of recorded history and it still hasn't happened.
thesjkexperience 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATHEISM
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
MAKES PERFECT SENSE
MrKatytiger 3 weeks ago
Perrrnt
BMWnut53 1 month ago
I highly suggest you read Psalms 22
TheLastAaron 1 month ago
72dew, what evidence are you looking for? You want physical evidence of our Creator? Well good luck with that, as the Bible states we would literally die if we were to see all of Gods glory while in these flesh bodies, He is that beautiful and powerful. Evidence of God? You are breathing, aren't you? You have a unique fingerprint, don't you? Evolution would NOT produce individual fingerprints.
TheLastAaron 1 month ago
Scientific evidence is what you want? God created "science", therefore all scientific evidence points to God, as He said, "these things are here for signs." If you want proof, I suggest reading the Bible, Ezekiel, Isaih. Or Jeremiah specifically, and notice how many events have come to pass or are still occurring as we sit here and type; nothing predicted in the Bible has ever failed to come true. Is that enough evidence? More than 300 prophecies came to pass by the crucifixion of Christ alone.
TheLastAaron 1 month ago
last I saw, this is a comments section not a place to debate Christianity or atheism. so if you do not agree with the views presented in the video, stop watching it.
aithar 2 months ago
@aithar rofl oh man. this video is too hilarious not to.
Massflavour 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
is this a joke? is this a retarded high school students science project?
Oh I get it "the discovery institute" haha haha it is a joke very funny.
Yes there is conclusive evidence for a common origin for all life. It is called DNA.....(facepalm)
kaben1979 4 months ago
Comment removed
kaben1979 4 months ago
Comment removed
kaben1979 4 months ago
Comment removed
kaben1979 4 months ago
Comment removed
kaben1979 4 months ago
Wow... Jonathan Wells? What a fraud... I'm sorry, but this guy's experament has been debunked countless of times...
ApatheticOmniscience 4 months ago
@ApatheticOmniscience Yep, Jonathon Wells is a "religious scientist" from the Discovery Institute. Strobel also like to use "religous scientist" Michael Behe. All of their science has been proven wrong in court. If you havent watched it, watch "Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial". It is a shame that they keep selling science that they know is incorrect in books and dvds.
Information39 3 months ago
For the special birth of Jesus, each of those is told from a different perspective, so that is wrong or not wrong or however you want to look at it too.
MrMinigunner 4 months ago
TheDarkLordLucifer 4 months ago
One post per day, I will tackle the other comments later. Loving the discussion guys.
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
Christians can believe evolution. This should not be the issue.
megaead69 5 months ago
@megaead69 "Christians can believe evolution." Except that evolution contradicts Genesis. So either God forgot how he created the universe, or he never really existed in the first place. Those are your two choices if you believe in evolution.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral False dichotomy, friend. You may find the BBC documentary "Did Darwin Kill God?" interesting. The link is on my page.
megaead69 5 months ago
@megaead69 Not a false dichotomy. Yeah, personally believing in both is absolutely possible(out of ignorance), but it doesn't mean one corroborates the other. In fact, like I already said, believing in both is a contradiction. Evolution says that man (and all living things) evolved from a primordial soup billions of years ago. Genesis says the earth is at most 10,000 years old and that all species of plants and animals were created at once. Meaning, man coexisted with dinosaurs. How ridiculous.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
Just watched it. Here's my rebuttal to that BBC documentary: Starting with Philo's interpretation, it's easy to see that it's just another case of Christians realizing the faults and contradictions in their bible that supposedly is the infallible word of God, so they just change the interpretation to resolve the contradiction. Every time there's a contradiction, you can just blow it off as an allegory and change the meaning to make you feel comfortable as science further repudiates the bible.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@megaead69 To further illustrate my point that the BBC documentary just is another case of Christians changing the meaning of the bible to make them feel comfortable with what science has discovered; some time ago Christians once believed the earth was flat. They interpreted the word "circle" (which is a 1-D object) in the bible as a 2-D flat circular disc. Then science discovered it's actually spherical, so christians then interpreted the 1-D circle as a 3-D sphere. Classic christian move.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral The scriptures deal with how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. The Bible is not a science book-despite mistakes made, in this regard, by previous generations of Christians. One thing that is certain- the early Church did not hold to a literal understanding of Genesis (creation) even in the first centuries A.D.
If you're going to make a caricature of these topics, then go right ahead. In any case, evolution is tenable with the Christian faith.
megaead69 5 months ago
@megaead69 What you're saying is only proving my point. "The Bible is not a science book"... because that's how YOU'VE interpreted it because it flies in the face of science. You are a little bit smarter than the average christian and realize there's mountains of evidence that support evolution. So you just resolve the contradictions between your religion and science by saying anything in the bible that contradicts science is just an allegory and not meant to be taken literally.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@megaead69 " the early Church did not hold to a literal understanding of Genesis (creation) even in the first centuries A.D."... Only continues to further prove my point. Just like Philo, the early church couldn't just ignore the self contradictions in the bible. After all, it's suppose to be the infallible word of God. They couldn't ignore it, nor could they abandon their religion because of it. So all on their own, they decided that whenever this happens, to just change the interpretation.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Whether or not you are willing to accept it there are many words for the Hebrew word circle. An an example of this is "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth" Isaiah 40:22 The word used here is חוג which is Chuwg. The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chug, as described above and as used, in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth.
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
@JKPhillipians413 " in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth."... It doesn't teach a round earth either. The word "circle" is a 1-D object, and was interpreted as a 2-D FLAT circular disc (sitting atop a mountain, your horizon makes a perfect circle). When we discovered the earth is spherical, christians simply changed the interpretation to a 3-D sphere. But I guess the infallible word of God is left open to interpretation as you see fit.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Lol a circle is 2-D... width and height. What did you think dimension meant?
khfsu1 5 months ago
@khfsu1 LOL, go back to school. A circle is a line connected at the ends. A line is one dimensional. You're thinking of a disk or ring.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Haha you got me. I should have thought about it before I commented. I digress. Anyway, I think that you're arguing against this video so really we're on the same side.
khfsu1 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Most educated men knew the world wasn't flat starting around 300 B.C. Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the distance to within 2% of it's true circumference around 240 B.C. So Christian's reinterpreted nothing as this was obviously 240 years before Christ. Jewish scholars would have been well aware of Greek science and would probably looked upon this scripture and thought nothing of it. Btw "circle" doesn't exist in Hebrew which is my point.
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
Respond to this video... All this aside the point of the scripture in Isaiah is to give a word picture to the reader. It is not a statement of scientific fact, rather one of imagery. Average Joe working a field could probably care less that the earth is spherical and God was not concerned about explaining it to him because He knew we would figure it out. God was concerned about letting the reader know He is in control and this was to give Joe comfort.
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
@JKPhillipians413 You really ought to pay better attention. My point was never that the bible taught a flat earth, that was just an example of my point. Which was that christians change the interpretation of the bible whenever they see fit. Whenever self-contradictions or contradictions of science occur within the bible, christians on there own, change the interpretation to resolve the contradiction.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Your point is to attack and undermine Christianity through whatever means you can find. Your argument that a change of doctrine was instituted in Christianity because we found out the earth was round was proven wrong. Come up with another argument where Christianity contradicts itself that has more validity. Btw you could do without the demeaning intro comments, it makes it at least seem like you are having a discussion rather than being judgmental.
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
Comment removed
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral I looked over some of these verses, In Genesis it never says trees came after, it says that man will have dominion over all these things, also 2: 4-9 if you read it says a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole ground which means the plants would grow then he breathed life into adam after he created him from dust
ColtonC85 4 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Genesis 1:11 said let the land produce vegetation. Genesis 2:4 "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed a man" ... L2 Read it said, god watered the plants so that they could grow... before he made adam.
MrMinigunner 4 months ago
Nowhere in genesis 2:1-7 does it suggest man was created before birds. In the short few paragraphs before genesis 19 it suggest adam had only just been moved to the garden of eden, not that he was created there. God put adam in the garden of eden. then it describes how god created these animals and brought them to adam to be named. it does not suggest adam was there first, it merely suggest a "re-creation" if you will, of the pre-existing creatures of the earth.
MrMinigunner 4 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral as far as the matt/luke joseph thing. -- Because of the Jewish Levirite laws, both are correct, but in different ways. In Jewish law, if a man died childless, his brother was to marry the widow, and the first son born would legally be the dead man's heir.
MrMinigunner 4 months ago
@MrMinigunner If you'd listen to yourself, you'd realize you're only proving my point. The bible contains contradictions, and Christians invent excuses to resolve these contradictions (this should be clear evidence of something man-made and NOT the inerrant word of an infallible God). Even amongst Christians, you can't agree on if Genesis is a literal account of creation or just allegorical. Whenever the bible contradicts itself or science, Christians change the interpretation as they see fit.
GrowMasterGeneral 3 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Of course Genesis contains a literal account, are you kidding me? The exact date of those events are accurately confirmed. There was no "apple" in the garden. The majority of Christians are more misinformed than you atheistt/neo-dumbasses.
TheLastAaron 2 months ago
@TheLastAaron " Of course Genesis contains a literal account." So then you're a young earth creationist? You believe the Earth is 10,000 years old? You believe man and dinosaur walked the Earth together? If you've answered yes to any of those questions, please move on. The problem is you've already closed yourself off to science. Which means you have very little knowledge about the world. There's no point in arguing with someone who refuses to accept fact just because is contradicts your belief.
GrowMasterGeneral 2 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Wrong, wrong, wrong... all wrong. Genesis contains literal accounts of THIS. EARTH. AGE. All living creations, both man and beast, were created on the 6th day. "Eth Ahadam" aka Adam was created the 8th day, after God had rested. We ALL existed in the FIRST earth age, where we were all in our spiritual bodies, roaming Heaven and Earth alike. Satan's fall is what ushered in this current Earth age we are living within. I like how you assume my beliefs and act like you are the ...
TheLastAaron 2 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral ... all-knowing. What I believe is spoken of in the Bible itself, which most people (including the majority of Christians) overlook, and shroud with false beliefs and doctrines such as the "apple" in the garden, the "rapture theory", and the like. The Word literally says DO NOT ADD TO MY WORD. The "apple" and the "rapture" are both additions to God's Word. No, we do not live on a "young earth", it is bonkers to believe such a thing. I see you've dealt with many "Christians".
TheLastAaron 2 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral The fact is the Bible does not speak of how LONG the past Earth age existed before Satan's overthrow, a.k.a. The Katabole, so we do not know for sure how old the earth and the universe are, but it is apparent that the earth is obviously at least millions of years old. Nothing what I have been told by the Word contradicts what "scientists" discover whatsoever, on the contrary, everything scientists find further proves the Bible truer and truer with each discovery.
TheLastAaron 2 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral As He has told us, all these are here for signs. Which is why we are the luckiest generation of all time; we get to see all these things revealed to us slowly but surely. You guys all need to be thanking God for all these incredible discoveries and advances we are able to uncover in this last and final generation. God bless.
TheLastAaron 2 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral The problem is YOU have closed yourself off to God because of all the contradictions and hypocrisy that has displayed to you through all these so-called Christians, ones who believe that Jesus Christ completely overrules the Old Covenant of health laws and food laws and the like, which is a complete lie. These things have all been foretold to all of us, so when that time finally comes and Christ plants His feet upon the Mount of Olives, no one will have any excuse.
TheLastAaron 2 months ago
@TheLastAaron You're wasting you time. All i'm hearing from you is; God is real because the bible said so and science is crap. I'm not gonna waste my time with someone so spectacularly stupid.
GrowMasterGeneral 2 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral LOL and all I'm hearing from you is "there is no God no matter what you say" so that's fine, you go that route mate, no skin off my back. God is EASILY proven, trust me, you are just too blind and deaf to see the millions of signs placed around you. It could be the Spirit of Stupor has been placed upon you by God Himself as depicted in the Bible, disabling you from EVER understanding the True Word of God. I'd advise you to open your eyes, brother, the end is not far off.
TheLastAaron 2 months ago
@TheLastAaron yeah sure.
GrowMasterGeneral 2 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Owned.
TheLastAaron 2 months ago
@TheLastAaron Nobody knows when the end is. Not even Jesus knows. Only God the Father knows when Jesus will return to Earth.
TheMrSONIC4 1 month ago
@TheMrSONIC4 I know that, Mr Sonic, did I say otherwise? God bless.
TheLastAaron 1 month ago
@TheLastAaron im interested, please prove god to me supported by evidence (scientifically exceptable). i always tell everyone, if you can prove god is real using scientifically exceptable evidence, i would believe in god because i care about reality
72dew 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrMinigunner 4 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Another perfect example is the Hebrew word for a sphere like a ball is Dur (דור). Duwr is not exclusively a word for sphere.
Is. 29:3 And I will encamp against you all around, and will besiege you with towers and I will raise siegeworks against you.
Obviously the soldier would not camp around a sphere but encircle the city. The words are used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament.
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
@ 5:06 "there's no conclusive evidence for the origin of life"... So strobel is basically saying "I don't understand science so... God."
GrowMasterGeneral 6 months ago
@ 2:45 "here's how I know".... This is why you leave the science to the scientists. His conclusion is erroneous. WHY? Wouldn't it seem so logical that if all the pieces are already there, life should evolve if evolution was true? DON'T be so gullible people!!! The conditions for evolution must replicate the conditions of early earth. HOW IS THE STERILE TEST TUBE, IN ANY WAY, like the conditions of early earth?!!? CONCLUSION FAIL!!!!
GrowMasterGeneral 6 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral So according to your conclusion it would mean that it is absolutely impossible to replicate early earth via a laboratory experiment. You just invalidated the original experiment by Miller more than Strobel.
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
@JKPhillipians413 " according to your conclusion it would mean that it is absolutely impossible to replicate early earth via a laboratory experiment".... Are you retarded? I didn't say that or even elude to it. What made you think that? That retard in the video thinks a sterile test tube with a living cell in it should evolve. If that's what you think science concludes about evolution, then you have a tenuous knowledge of science, and you're not qualified to debate it in the first place.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral What I did was draw a conclusion that one cannot prove evolution from this experiment, nor can it be inferred that creationism is proven by it either. An early earth environment cannot be replicated in a test tube, to think one could is silly.
"The conditions for evolution must replicate the conditions of early earth." I couldn't agree more with you, not sure why you are upset? Perhaps I should have been clearer. Speaking of qualifications, I didn't catch yours?
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
@JKPhillipians413 "all the elements for a cell are ready for assembly in that test tube, yet they will not reassemble into a cell"... Nothing about evolution suggests this would happen. So to say this disproves evolution is erroneous and incredibly ignorant. Many chemical processes, still unknown, happened to create DNA. One newly discovered process came from meteorites that formed nucleobase and nucleobase analogs such as the molecules adenine and guanine.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
Why not? The elements are there are they not? I will try to be clear again, he is arguing that the process of arranging into a cell from the provided theory's fall short in his academic opinion and he believes it to be unlikely. I would like to see this scientific source that you are citing btw and you didn't post your credentials? Going to bed, I'll catch this thread tomorrow, look forward to your response.
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
@JKPhillipians413 "What I did was draw a conclusion that one cannot prove evolution from this experiment"... There's no need to even do that because evolution is already proved through the fossil record.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral The fossil record only proves that there is a lack of intermediary forms. What is seen is a wide diversity of species. I'm sure you will cite examples such as archeopteryx. The problem is that it is impossible to determine if this is a transition from a previous species to a new one without thousands of specimens over many thousands of years. The fossil record doesn't provide these samples. So this is an assumption based on the evidence at hand, not concrete fact.
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
@JKPhillipians413 "fossil record only proves that there is a lack of intermediary forms."... Where do you get your information? From creationist sources? Of course they would like for you to believe this, but the truth is, there are MANY transitional fossils. Take whales for example. It was long known that whales were once terrestrial animals. And the fossil record proves it. Such intermediate forms include kutchicetus, ambulocetus, pakicetus, and indohyus just to name a few. Evolution is fact.
GrowMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@GrowMasterGeneral Also, his argument is that all the elements for a cell are ready for assembly in that test tube, yet they will not reassemble into a cell. So his logic is that a soup of all the right material existing on the early earth coming together to form a fully functioning cell as we know it is improbable. Cells act based on the code within them. How would a bunch of molecules with no coding know what to do? I think this is the question at the root of his logic. Thoughts?
JKPhillipians413 5 months ago
So he's basing his argument against evolution and the origin of life on data that's over 60 years old? Does he know science continues to evolve? If Strobel claims that if life can be produced from non-living substances it would be absolute proof against God, then he should check out Dr. Jack Szostak. And I encourage any theist who's basing their own argument on data over 60 years old to check him out as well. Sorry theists, science continues to prove you wrong.
GrowMasterGeneral 6 months ago
gabbe7, I agree. No one explains where the very first atom of anything came from. No one has been able to take a vacuum with absolutely nothing in it and create an atom.
GILC122 6 months ago
whats funny is that ther is still no explination of where the elements came from
gabbe7 6 months ago
@gabbe7 elements are the result of nuclear fusion in the cores of collapsed stars.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
you got my meaning of element confused I dont mean the elements from the table but the natural elements that are used in the explanation of how life formed. a person will try and explain that things (we'll call them} came together and maid a chemical reaction to start an evolution that evetually became life. what I am saying wher is the explination of those (things) elements. what it boils down to is the same argument creationist are making-
gabbe7 6 months ago
@gabbe7 It's the exact opposite of the arguments creationists are making because we use actual testable mechanism to produce amino acids, purine bases etc. Science bare asserts nothing but endlessly scrutinizes everything, this is the polar opposite of creationist claims.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
they are testable good job but the tests are proving nothing but the need for more evidence.all logic and reasoning in the rational world is saying that something needs something else to exist this is the evidence of "well thought out science" if you se a ball rolling on the ground (using your logic) you say oh the ball is rolling because its rolling. but a rational thinker says "oh this ball must be rolling bcause of a force that I didnt see but know is ther.
gabbe7 6 months ago
@gabbe7 Wrong, the tests have incorporated data and revealed mechanisms that that are only explicable via common descent.
Your ball analogy further shows the ineptness of asserting a creator, because we can actually form apples to apples hypotheses to test the origin of the ball rolling.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation hypothosis only a guess- granted a very well educated guess, but a guess there is still no explination of any origin. what it all comes down to is faith for one side or the other- either you have faith that these "hypothesis and theories" are going to lead to some answers or you have faith that ther is a creator. now my belief is that it takes tons more faith on your part then mine. if I had that much faith I could move mountains.
gabbe7 6 months ago
@gabbe7 No, a hypothesis is a model for control of experimentation. If you were educated in how science actually works you would know my position takes zero faith.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@gabbe7 'what it all comes down to is faith'
I disagree, it all comes down to utility of knowledge. Feining knowledge which you do not have, nor could in principle have, & then asserting this knowledge explains physical reality is dangerous to humankind, misleading, & doesn't provide solutions to real problems. Science provides utility b/c it has efficacy, whereas religion/faith provide no solutions to issues in the real world b/c their answers aren't hinged to the real world.
agentorange20 6 months ago
@agentorange20
I see where you come from here. what I understand from this post is that you are saying that science will one day come to a truth but does not yet have the facts of origin. I think that this leaves alot of what makes us human out ie hope, but you have to agree that you have faith that science is a truth. and that truth is defined by it meaning truth is generic and so your truth (reality) is also mine. I have personally witnessed solutions to real world issues
gabbe7 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
do you see the logic here?- (wher did elements come from? answer- stars wher did stars come from? answer- chemicals wher did chemicals come from?) it could go on and on but you ask a creationist the same but its a shorter answer - a creator. (wher did the creator come from? answer- he just was.)
it is illogical to believe that nothing created something. "creator" what ever it was is something that as humans we cannot and probably will not ever fathom.
gabbe7 6 months ago
@gabbe7 'but you ask a creationist the same but its a shorter answer - a creator.'
That's not an answer, that's a complete non-answer. It tells us absolutely nothing and only invokes magic to specially plead around the real questions.
Replace 'a creator' with 'pure invisible untestable magic' and tell me how the creationist answer is different.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@gabbe7 'ask a creationist the same but its a shorter answer - a creator. answer- he just was.)'
Evidence a creator caused X? If you can assert that X creator just was, then it can be equally asserting X universe just was. For your logic buffs out there, we have a higher certainty that the universe actually exists as w/ compared w/ something in some imagined area which we can not even in principle test or get evidence for.
agentorange20 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
it is an answer its just not the answer you want to hear if you look at your logic you will see that ther is no answer you will just keep looking. creation is all around us something comes from something else it is only logical. nothing (zero) cannot equal something (1). science relies on math and in your opinion math is wrong even though it seems to work that 1+1=2 and so on. 0=1,2=7 , 4=2 do you see that these dont = out ? but this is what you are trying to say-0+0=1
gabbe7 6 months ago
@gabbe7 I don't care if god ends up being the logical conclusion or not. But thus far it's not
'something comes from something else it is only logical'
What do you have to indicate that the 'something else' is god? And where are you getting that I said math is wrong?
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@gabbe7 'something comes from something'
So what/where is the something that the (god) something came from?
agentorange20 6 months ago
@gabbe7 'personally witnessed solutions to real world issues'
Such as?
agentorange20 6 months ago
so that being said you are saying that science is wrong and that you really dont know what you can believe.
gabbe7 6 months ago
@gabbe7 No I'm saying you're wrong which given the current evidence you are.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@gabbe7 ', but you have to agree that you have faith that science is a truth.'
I don't, the fruits, knowledge provided, & overall utility/accuracy of science at explaing reality is unmatched by any contemporary methodology. the mere fact you're using a devise created vie that method is more proof. do I need faith in the medicine I take, the plane I board? we know very much about gravity & biology to know the answer isn't by mere faith.
agentorange20 6 months ago
It just makes sense to me that a creator who understands the elements because he made them and knows their properties and functions can successfully create life, especially a vast variety of species. And it is beyond me how such strong forces such as selfless love, empathy, and inherent values of what is morally right and wrong, not to mention unexplained healing and moments of brilliant insight to help mankind, can exist by chance. All that brings order and harmony cannot come by chaos.
flutterby0605 7 months ago
Stanley Miller's experiment and all other experiments scientists have used to show how life originated by evolution still rely on the scientists' prior understanding of how elements / chemicals function. One who knows how elements function and the laws by which they are governed manipulate them with a certain expected result, but it's interesting that scientists still cannot create life and species. How can all of the amazing complexity and diversity of life forms have become life spontaneously.
flutterby0605 7 months ago
i always suspected that urey-miller experiment was a ton of BS that fed a ton of manure into the infected atheist brain. These idiots never learn as they run towards a burning forest . In any case they are sure to come up with alternative BS to excuse their desire for zero accountability. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
whiteliketar 7 months ago
@whiteliketar
The Urey-Miller experiment demonstrated that amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, could easily be created using some basic chemicals. If you fail to understand the significance of this, please revisit high school science courses. Labeling this as "BS" makes you appear to be an ignorant fool.
TheSeventhSon 7 months ago
@TheSeventhSon - see how atheism has deadened your comprehension and perception- I made the statement to back up the truth that the Urey-Miller experiment was a fallacy in its presupposition that the early earth was made up of those atmospheric components. I wonder who really is the ignorant fool. go soak up some more brainwashing at the atheist radio show.
whiteliketar 7 months ago
@whiteliketar
First of all, your original comment said nothing about WHY you're were calling it BS, so perhaps it's YOUR comprehension that is suspect here. Second, atheism and the Urey-Miller experiment have nothing in common. Third, the experiment has been done for several different proposed conditions of the early earth, all of which are based on data. So, would you care to make anymore ignorant statements or do you feel that was enough?
TheSeventhSon 7 months ago
@TheSeventhSon my goodness - u really are so far gone - I feel I am about to play chess with a clay pigeon. have you ever seen Carl sagan describe the Urey-Miller experiment. please don't bother to reply - your ignorance is alarming. If you want to have the last word ...go ahead ...be my guest. lol
whiteliketar 7 months ago
@whiteliketar
You know, it's pretty easy to constantly call someone ignorant when you fail to point out why you're making that claim. You attacked me because I failed to accurately predict what your vague statements meant. You then further attack me because the claims you make are false. Your default response is to call someone ignorant and resort to other ad hominems because you can't possibly strain your mind to think for a minute. If you're going to post here, prepare some good material.
TheSeventhSon 7 months ago
@kishbass I already told you what to do if you really want to know Him and know that he's real. Ask HIM! If you don't want to know him you won't.
artsychic2000 7 months ago
@artsychic2000 I used to think I knew him, before I realized that I was talking to myself.
kishbass 7 months ago
@kishbass Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. God values your faith in Him more than anything else because it's only in your faith in Him that he can accomplish anything in your life. If you have no faith at all neither desire to, should he seek you out along with everyone else that doesn't believe? When he's left the evidence of Him everywhere? Those that don't want to know him that choose not to LOOK for him.
artsychic2000 7 months ago
@artsychic2000
There is little to no value in faith. All faith demonstrates is that you're willing to believe in something and accept it despite having no rational reason for that belief. Why is that an admirable trait? The religious have conveniently made faith admirable. The idea that your god cares for everyone in the world and could easily save everyone by demonstrating himself to us yet refuses to do so because he values irrational beliefs is absurd. Is your god irrational?
TheSeventhSon 7 months ago
@TheSeventhSon You don't know that because you have none. God has chained me from within. That is probably of no value to most people because they don't or won't see the need for change within themselves. Most people believe everyone else is at fault. Faith is an amazing thing and all you have to do is inquire. Most people won't because they are arrogant and don't even believe God is higher then themselves. Sad state of affairs but God is about to set things right.
artsychic2000 7 months ago
@artsychic2000
I did inquire. I asked you why faith is an admirable trait. It's not that people don't believe that god is higher than themselves. That's silly. It's that people don't believe in god. Let's not make false statements here.
TheSeventhSon 7 months ago
where did the methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor come from?
They always try to explain where life came from but they always start with the building blocks of life. Where did those building blocks come from?
If people don't see a master creator behind everything they are completely blind. What I think blinds people is their unwillingness to be accountable and not realizing that there debt is paid if they will only believe.
artsychic2000 8 months ago
@artsychic2000 where did the creator come from?
kishbass 7 months ago
@kishbassn He says... I am that I am
He is Spirit
Take a look at the complexity of the human cell.
Here on youtube and tell me you don't see a creator in that.
Ask Him if he's real. If you really want to know he'll show you. If you don't, if you prefer not to know him and change he won't.
artsychic2000 7 months ago
@artsychic2000 but that doesn't explain where he came from. If he is able to build the infinitely complex universe, he must be more complex than the universe, and something even more complex must have created him. Why is it that God doesn't need a creator, but everything else does?
kishbass 7 months ago
These charlatans are purveyors of PSEUDO science, why? - because there's a market for it of course! To assume they even believe what they say is a mistake
mutbutyt 8 months ago
To believe something just popped in2 existence trillions of years ago &then evolved into the Life we have today isn't just harder to believe than Creationism, it's sadder. Why would we want to teach our children of an existence w/no greater purpose then just our daily life? Those lives are often nothing more than struggle and when those children put a gun to their head, or pills to their mouths, or a bridge's edge to their feet... What Belief then, could ever overcome their hopelessness?
mattyboy200 8 months ago
DISPROVING OTHER PEOPLES SEARCH FOR CLUES OF OUR ORIGIN DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES ACTUALLY SEARCHING THROUGH REASONABLE RATIONAL MEANS. this video is lame.
evelauds 9 months ago
I was hoping this guy would bring something new to the table, but obviously he doesn't.
killrazer1 9 months ago
Didi he really try to point out that eukaryotic cells were the first living things on this planet? Ouch. Why should amino acids form an eukaryotic cell??
The first appearance of euk. cells can be traced back to 2.4 billion years, while bacteria can be traced back to 3.8 billion years. There is also the Endosymbiotic theory, but what could be the reason that this information isn`t presented? Right, it doesn`t fit in the concept of denying evolution. Bad job, Mr. Strobel.
Visualiser33 10 months ago 2
@Visualiser33 can you tell me how they go about about the process to trace somethng back so far?
IGotchaUMayne 9 months ago
@IGotchaUMayne Sure. The oldest rocks on earth you can use for dating technics are 3.8 - 4 billion years old (the age of earth is measured with other components) . You can measure the age of these stones with different radiometric dating methods, i.e. Uranium-lead and Potassium-argon-dating method. Now some of the oldest rocks are Archaean rocks found in western Australia. They contain fossilized cyanobacteria in layers of stromatolite, which is produced by the activity of ancient cyanobacteria.
Visualiser33 9 months ago
@IGotchaUMayne The layers were produced as calcium carbonate precipitated over the growing mat of bacterial filaments; photosynthesis in the bacteria depleted carbon dioxide in the surrounding water, initiating the precipitation. The minerals, along with grains of sediment precipitating from the water, were then trapped within the sticky layer of mucilage that surrounds the bacterial colonies, which then continued to grow upwards through the sediment to form a new layer.
Visualiser33 9 months ago
@IGotchaUMayne As this process occured over and over again, the layers of sediment were created. In some cases, the stromatolites were infiltrated with a mineral-rich solution which fossilized the bacteria along with the layers, but more often only the layers are preserved. So the oldest fossilized bacteria you can find in these layers are 3.5 billion years old, while traces of carbon isotopes can be found in rocks 3.9 billion years old.
Visualiser33 9 months ago
Comment removed
Visualiser33 10 months ago
TheUnsentGuardian As I messaged you, I am not debating so this is last post. If Roman documentation is believable (they were meticulous). There were two soldiers guarding Jesus Christ's tomb, they were probably put to death after losing the dead body. The body was found live by his disciples. Most of said disciples were put to death because they would not stop proclaiming that fact.
Reporter is only discussing creation, or some random chance of all this happening by accident. Lets get to it.
Stuntmantoo 10 months ago
Hey is not talking religion people. He is talking about a creator. Religion is man made and inferior. Jesus proclamed the "Church" as followers of him, not a building, or religion. The only thing this reporter is doing is trying to find out, how did life start, not what happened after man put his two cents into it.
What gets me, is you are trying to see how life started.....You are using God's Carbon Dioxide and God's water vapor.....Get your own ingrediants!
Stuntmantoo 10 months ago
@Stuntmantoo Ah, a logical fallacy. Starting with your requirements and beliefs combined, one could say that nothing exists outside your god's creation. What I'm interested in is not what you claim to be creation, but what can be demonstrated to be creation. I wonder if anyone can demonstrate that a creator is necessary and/or does exist. Don't forget that without evidence, Muslims can claim that their god is the author of all life and the earth with exactly the same credibility as you can.
TheUnsentGuardian 10 months ago
God is love
xxchara 11 months ago
@xxchara Amen to that!
titan1478 11 months ago
@xxchara Tell that to the Tsunami survivors who lost everything.
bryceguy72 11 months ago
@bryceguy72 Hahah yeah for real!
Dennissays 10 months ago
When Darwin proposed the tree of life there was certainly not sufficient evidence in his time that all life had evolved from the one life form and in THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES he refers to the possibility that there may have been more than one original life form that all modern life derived from. However we currently have no evidence that all life did not evolve from a single common ancestor. All Earth life does appear to be related to one another.
geniusrepairman1 11 months ago
The first life form on Earth would not have been a cell because that is too complex. It would have been a bit of protein able to repkicate itself using energy from its surroundings. The modern cell would have evolved probably over hundreds of millions of years.
geniusrepairman1 11 months ago
just because we dont have the technology to put back together a cell and create life doesnt prove that there is a creator. One day we will have the technology to do so. To try and disprove evolution with todays technology is just ignorant. We as humans are too proud and cannot accept that we did evolve from primates.
mrdevdog92 11 months ago
@mrdevdog92 or could it be that we as humans are to proud to accept that God is.
IleanonYT 10 months ago
@XxToHellAndBackxX are you a tween? Your thought process doesn't seem to be fully developed yet.
jimijamesh 11 months ago
@jimijamesh and if that's your brilliant comeback i should think you the same.
lemonsnickers1 11 months ago
@jimijamesh why? because im not an atheist that means im not intelligent? youre an idiot
XxToHellAndBackxX 11 months ago
@XxToHellAndBackxX look for example at islam that tell to kill people, just like the old testament. This is just sick.
Ajin616 11 months ago
@Ajin616 i dont want to trash the islamic faith but some of the things they believe are pretty extreme i agree but that has nothing to do with christianity
XxToHellAndBackxX 11 months ago
@XxToHellAndBackxX in your previous post you didn't mention christianity. And as for christianity, the thing is the same, just people don't really care about religion, and what their holy book says or they are more intelligent and have developed morality better so they don't follow words of christian god that are contained in the bible. And christians did bad things and I think the will do it again when the pope says so. For example: crusades, inquisition, burning witches, etc
Ajin616 11 months ago
@Ajin616 those are all things that are wrong and shouldnt have been done i agree but that doesnt make christianity wrong. the pope stands for everything that is wrong with people in this word. power, greed, pride, all things done out of selfishness. but he is not head of the christan faith, god is. i dont answer to the pope.
XxToHellAndBackxX 11 months ago
@Ajin616 look at the things christan churches do today; we do all kinds of charities and things all over the world hati, africa, probably japan now, not because the pope says to but because its our duty to help other people because that is what wants us to do. we want to show gods love to those who need it. and everyone needs it. so if you honestly think one bad piece of human history makes christans evil people then the human race is doomed cause everyone has done terrible things
XxToHellAndBackxX 11 months ago
@XxToHellAndBackxX look at the comment you wrote. You say that you don't do good because of book or pope, you do good things because you are good. You see, you don't need a religion to be good if you're good. But if you're good and you have a religion you will eventually make horrible things just like crusaders in those times. And charities and all the good stuff you mentioned is made not only by churches, it's also made by other organizations that are not linked with any religion. FSM bless ya
Ajin616 11 months ago
@Ajin616 yeah i you dont need to be religious to be a good person but the sad fact is most people who dont follow the word of god arent good people. they make bad choices out of ignorance. just tell me what bad thing has the christan church done since the crusades and the inquisition? nothing and we never will. the fact that you assume that we will agian is nothing more than prejudice and that is just pathetic dude. you should be ashamed of yourself
XxToHellAndBackxX 11 months ago
@XxToHellAndBackxX Since you're broad labeling the 'christian church," i have a few examples. First of all, the church is trying to shanghai the education system in Texas to push out evolution in favor of "intelligent design." They are burning condoms in African countries, one of the areas most prominent with HIV in the world. Lets not forget the Vatican's public embrace of Adolph Hitler during ww2. I'll just start with these. There are plenty more available if you would like.
Poeticnuisance 11 months ago
@XxToHellAndBackxX for example: pope banned condoms, christian church did nothing to stop the war in Iraq and Afganistan,pope helped child molesters, giving them protection and silencing families of children and he cannot be arrested because he has role similar to president or king. Don't get mi wrong, but you are don't seem to seek the truth. You got your believes that, if changed, would make too big difference and that is too much for you.
Ajin616 11 months ago
@Ajin616 I do seek the truth and the truth is you seem to think that every christan follows the pope as if he was some deity and that is not true. i couldnt give a damn what the pope does. and why should the pope try to stop the war in the middle east? you do know that we did that to 1: Stop the terrorist threat on our country and 2: Take an evil dictator from power. and dont forget the fact that they attacked us in the first place (similar to WW2)
XxToHellAndBackxX 11 months ago
just because we cant prove how life started doesnt mean it was supernatural. humans have a horrible habit of taking something unexplained and slapping an irrational answer on it.
KamikazeProd 11 months ago
apparently we as logical beings have came right back to the flat earth controversy except this time the scientists are the established authority and no one should dare challenge the lest they be chastised and ridiculed. Even banished and ruined.
Alas! The more things change the more they do indeed stay the same.
uptoherewith 1 year ago
i just rented this dvd through netflix, now i'm more of an atheist than before.
jimijamesh 1 year ago
@jimijamesh .. did you do the proper research you needed to come up with that conclusion ??
Boricua4Christ 11 months ago
@jimijamesh because you are close minded and stubborn. you dont want to believe in god because that would mean you would have to start being a good person. maybe even going to church too! [gasp!]
XxToHellAndBackxX 11 months ago
theories don't debunk theories. This is a failure to apply reason.
Hereticofreason 1 year ago
People like Strobel and his “scientists” don’t post their work in scientific journals or put their work up for peer review. Therefore, they can say anything they want. This is part of the process by which science sorts good science from garbage. Strobel’s “scientists” are their own in-house people from an organization called the discovery institute. If you would like to see how Strobel’s “scientists” hold up in court watch “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”
Information39 1 year ago
@Information39 My friend, do you honestly think their work would be posted in scientific journals? If you can find a secular discovery magazine/journal that will accept information such as theirs, let me know. The fact that they do not work with secular scientists that influence the world the most does not shoot down their credibility whatsoever. The information they provide to Strobel is easily verifiable.
Hick9898 1 year ago
@Hick9898 Ok, I am calling you out. Verify what the discovery institute was trying to prove in Judgement Day. This crap is found all over Strobels dvds. Behe(discovery institute/strobel) with his PHD couldnt do it in court with a religious judge at the bench. But I am sure you are smarter than Behe and all the discovery Inst. resources at his disposal. I am calling you out again...YOU DIDNT WATCH THE VIDEO DID YOU? As in the dvd, Strobels work gets exposed as garbage.
Information39 1 year ago
Experiments with better atmosphere got MORE amino acids. Why is this guy lying? And the cell in the test-tube is just ridiculous. That's like saying "Look, I have hydrogen in a bottle and stars don't form!"
roxef 1 year ago
@roxef I have a land, I paid for it, and I will wait sometime to get a house made by the ground of my land, I dont want to pay anybody to build it, I have no money now, tell me how long I have to wait?
xchris1800 1 year ago
@xchris1800
You have to wait until cave forms if you'd be satisfied with that, lol. But seriously, this is a strawman, because there are some crucial differences between houses and life. Houses don't reproduce with variation and houses don't die.
roxef 1 year ago
@roxef " Houses don't reproduce with variation and houses don't die." Ask a builder if he cannot reproduce a house, and about die, what do you call "die"? if you dont understand what life is, how dear you tu say houses dont "die"? if you think that making a house is easier than creating a life and it needs a designer, now a life that is imposible for me to understand and create doesnt need a DESIGNER? . I am not arguing with you we just have different view of everything, I see God everywhere.
xchris1800 1 year ago
@roxef You’re right, subsequent tests produced even better results. This guy is lying to sell books.
tex959 1 year ago
If theists can put a mathematical probability on abiogenesis, can they also be fair and put a mathematical probability on the proposition of an all knowing, all powerful, and all present deity that also happens to exists outside of the limits of space and time. An absence of evidence for the beginning of life doesn’t prove intelligent design as the default conclusion.
tex959 1 year ago
@tex959 to answer that question objectively, according to what we can understand or grasp, we should understanding elemental concepts of maths, such as definition of zero, number, and infinite, elemental, but fundamental. try to to divide 1 by the smallest number you can, what do you get?, Meditate what is telling you the numbers, I have no space to explain, if you are intelligent you will see something. what would happen if you exceeded the limit? what would you get? What does that mean?
xchris1800 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xchris1800 I have no clue what your point is.
tex959 1 year ago
was miller-urey, done I think when miller was a student. It was quite successful and subsequent experiments with a better idea of the atmosphere have been better. Why not use an unbiased and published biologist instead of the guy who was tasked with destroying evolution by a christian sect leader. ?
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
Don't you