(January 1, 2019 at 8:36 pm)Angelina Wrote: I agree with you that the energy of the universe has always existed, but in order for that energy to create anything, God is required. 

Saying god did it is not very satisfying because it does not explain:
What process did god use?
Where did got get the "stuff"
How did it do anything with no time/space to exist in?
Where is the evidence for all the above?

So you see just saying "magic man done it" in no way answers any questions and raises the stakes because it has to explain not only all the same stuff as a natural cause but has to explain something hyper unlikely like a gods existence.

(January 1, 2019 at 8:36 pm)Angelina Wrote:  I believe that that we are so complex, we require a creator, not just the universe itself. God is an eternal self existing being with no beginning or end. I understand nature perfectly well.

Well then you believe wrong.

(January 1, 2019 at 7:19 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 6:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Creationism doesn't attempt to explain anything.  It is a statement of belief, not an explanation.

There is no 'law of biogenesis'. What Pasteur et al did was to disprove a variety of creationism. There are, however, intriguing hypotheses concerning the transition from molecular evolution to the first protocells.

Boru

Sounds like you belong to some weirdo cult that denies science.  Biogenesis is well established.

From study.com

Where do kittens come from? What about baby birds? No, these aren't philosophical questions. Kittens come from cats, and baby birds come from bird eggs. Along the same lines, microorganisms, or living things that are too small to see with the naked eye, come from other microorganisms. That seems pretty obvious, right? Well, it hasn't always been that way.

In fact, the origin of microorganisms was a major debate following their discovery in the 1670s by Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. It wasn't until the 1850s to 1860s, nearly 200 years later, that scientists came up with the theory that all living organisms have to come from other living organisms. This theory is called biogenesis because bio means 'life' and genesis means 'beginning.' 

From Biology Online

The popular notion used to be was the spontaneous generation. People, including prominent scientific thinkers, such as Aristotle, believed that mice could arise from stored grain and in the absence of any biological parent. Aristotle wrote on his book, History of Animals, that some animals could spring from their parent animals and others could grow spontaneously and not from their same type. Accordingly, the animal could come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter. ¹

The principle of spontaneous generation states that inanimate objects could produce living things. This is sometimes referred to as abiogenesis. This theory is no longer widely supported to this day. With the advent of laboratory tools and microbial techniques, scientific experiments such as that of Louis Pasteur proved that living things could not be generated spontaneously from inanimate object. Only living things are capable of reproducing another life. Thus, the theory of spontaneous generation became obsolete and the theory of biogenesis became more widely accepted.

Well done!  You now know the difference between the non-existent 'Law of Biogenesis' and the well-established 'Theory of Biogenesis'.

Please consider this a personal growth moment.

Boru

Angelina,

Why do radioactive elements decay? Why one atom as opposed to another? Why also is the half life of a free neutron around 10 minutes?

Dawn

(January 2, 2019 at 6:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 7:19 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sounds like you belong to some weirdo cult that denies science.  Biogenesis is well established.

From study.com

Where do kittens come from? What about baby birds? No, these aren't philosophical questions. Kittens come from cats, and baby birds come from bird eggs. Along the same lines, microorganisms, or living things that are too small to see with the naked eye, come from other microorganisms. That seems pretty obvious, right? Well, it hasn't always been that way.

In fact, the origin of microorganisms was a major debate following their discovery in the 1670s by Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. It wasn't until the 1850s to 1860s, nearly 200 years later, that scientists came up with the theory that all living organisms have to come from other living organisms. This theory is called biogenesis because bio means 'life' and genesis means 'beginning.' 

From Biology Online

The popular notion used to be was the spontaneous generation. People, including prominent scientific thinkers, such as Aristotle, believed that mice could arise from stored grain and in the absence of any biological parent. Aristotle wrote on his book, History of Animals, that some animals could spring from their parent animals and others could grow spontaneously and not from their same type. Accordingly, the animal could come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter. ¹

The principle of spontaneous generation states that inanimate objects could produce living things. This is sometimes referred to as abiogenesis. This theory is no longer widely supported to this day. With the advent of laboratory tools and microbial techniques, scientific experiments such as that of Louis Pasteur proved that living things could not be generated spontaneously from inanimate object. Only living things are capable of reproducing another life. Thus, the theory of spontaneous generation became obsolete and the theory of biogenesis became more widely accepted.

Well done!  You now know the difference between the non-existent 'Law of Biogenesis' and the well-established 'Theory of Biogenesis'.

Please consider this a personal growth moment.

Boru

Is he honestly trying to compare Spontaneous generation to Abiogenisis

(January 2, 2019 at 8:35 am)Amarok Wrote: Is he honestly trying to compare Spontaneous generation to Abiogenisis

In short: Yes
Thats how intellectually dishonest he is, but too be honest he already did worse, so its no big deal anymore at this point.

I am wondering this troll still doesnt get banned after what...1000 pages of bullshit, while another new member was just banned because he fakes to be a christian as an introduction (which was strange but...also somewhat funny). He was banned after like 10 posts in total.

Anyhow, ill keep my stockpiled up and watch how the intellectual garbage keeps piling up.

(January 2, 2019 at 8:35 am)Amarok Wrote:

(January 2, 2019 at 6:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Well done!  You now know the difference between the non-existent 'Law of Biogenesis' and the well-established 'Theory of Biogenesis'.

Please consider this a personal growth moment.

Boru

Is he honestly trying to compare Spontaneous generation to Abiogenisis

Yes, he is.  Spontaneous generation is the discredited notion that living organisms arise from non-living matter. Abiogenesis is the non-discredited notion that inorganic compounds can produce protolife.

Boru

(January 2, 2019 at 1:31 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 8:36 pm)Angelina Wrote: Starvation is not really a problem among Christians. Christians feed the hungry amongst them, shelter the homeless, visit the imprisoned, clothe the needy. I guess you don't know much about us.

Hahahahahahah....no.

Yes, no matter where you live, you can search for which Christian churches in your area are feeding people and when. I just did it for a small remote town of only 5,000 people and found 4 Christian churches there that feed the hungry. Globally Christians are working to feed everyone who is starving in non Christian countries.

https://feedthehungry.org/about-us/our-mission/
https://www.sharefaith.com/blog/2013/06/...ld-hunger/
https://www.ifcj.ca/site/SPageNavigator/...4315C2A8EA
http://www.bpnews.net/44387/churches-fee...-of-christ
https://www.stjames.org/service/meal-programs/
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/u...111151.htm
http://shelbychristian.org/serve/love-the-hungry
http://www.ucc.org/justice_hunger
http://justice.crcna.org/global-poverty-...rch-speaks
https://www.livinglutheran.org/2017/09/5...inistries/
https://www.globalministries.org/global_...d_security

(January 2, 2019 at 6:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 7:19 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sounds like you belong to some weirdo cult that denies science.  Biogenesis is well established.

From study.com

Where do kittens come from? What about baby birds? No, these aren't philosophical questions. Kittens come from cats, and baby birds come from bird eggs. Along the same lines, microorganisms, or living things that are too small to see with the naked eye, come from other microorganisms. That seems pretty obvious, right? Well, it hasn't always been that way.

In fact, the origin of microorganisms was a major debate following their discovery in the 1670s by Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. It wasn't until the 1850s to 1860s, nearly 200 years later, that scientists came up with the theory that all living organisms have to come from other living organisms. This theory is called biogenesis because bio means 'life' and genesis means 'beginning.' 

From Biology Online

The popular notion used to be was the spontaneous generation. People, including prominent scientific thinkers, such as Aristotle, believed that mice could arise from stored grain and in the absence of any biological parent. Aristotle wrote on his book, History of Animals, that some animals could spring from their parent animals and others could grow spontaneously and not from their same type. Accordingly, the animal could come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter. ¹

The principle of spontaneous generation states that inanimate objects could produce living things. This is sometimes referred to as abiogenesis. This theory is no longer widely supported to this day. With the advent of laboratory tools and microbial techniques, scientific experiments such as that of Louis Pasteur proved that living things could not be generated spontaneously from inanimate object. Only living things are capable of reproducing another life. Thus, the theory of spontaneous generation became obsolete and the theory of biogenesis became more widely accepted.

Well done!  You now know the difference between the non-existent 'Law of Biogenesis' and the well-established 'Theory of Biogenesis'.

Please consider this a personal growth moment.

Boru

It used to be more common to say "Law of Biogenesis"  Regardless, we know it as being factual, so you we can just say "biogenesis" as far as that goes.  The concept stands on its own and can't logically be refuted.

(January 2, 2019 at 8:08 am)Jehanne Wrote: Angelina,

Why do radioactive elements decay?  Why one atom as opposed to another?  Why also is the half life of a free neutron around 10 minutes?

Dawn

May I ask what these questions have to do with Christianity or evidence of God? I can link you to the answers, but I am more interested in understanding what you think the importance of these things are?

(January 2, 2019 at 2:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 2, 2019 at 6:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Well done!  You now know the difference between the non-existent 'Law of Biogenesis' and the well-established 'Theory of Biogenesis'.

Please consider this a personal growth moment.

Boru

It used to be more common to say "Law of Biogenesis"  Regardless, we know it as being factual, so you we can just say "biogenesis" as far as that goes.  The concept stands on its own and can't logically be refuted.

You understand biogenesis about as much as you understand the conservation of mass.  Which is to say, not at all.  But the principle of biogenesis doesn't negate the possibility of abiogenesis.  Study up.

Boru