(January 20, 2014 at 9:00 pm)snowtracks Wrote: that's why both books are needed. but even having the one book, God is clearly revealed. there are non-scientific reasons why people don't acknowledge that.

The most common reason why people don't acknowledge it is because it's not true.

Quote:no naturalistic model exist that demonstrates a origin-of-life scenario that involves assembly of dna, rna, proteins, and membrane structures (which has the capacity to control fluids that enter and exit) in such a way to yield a viable cell. in fact, it not even being pursued any longer because the complexity is too overwhelming.

The inane dishonesty of the last sentence aside, Christian creationism has a model for the creation of life, but it's of no value to the discussion because it's obviously not even close to accurate. We may not know the correct answer, but one of the ways we get closer to it is by discarding the ones that are obviously wrong.

(January 20, 2014 at 9:00 pm)snowtracks Wrote: that's why both books are needed. but even having the one book, God is clearly revealed. there are non-scientific reasons why people don't acknowledge that.

Only if the one book you have is the bible, which I think is the only book you've ever read.

Quote:no naturalistic model exist that demonstrates a origin-of-life scenario that involves assembly of dna, rna, proteins, and membrane structures (which has the capacity to control fluids that enter and exit) in such a way to yield a viable cell. in fact, it not even being pursued any longer because the complexity is too overwhelming.

Let's assume what you've just said wasn't a horrendous lie: how does everyone else being wrong make you right?

You're not even hiding your arguments from ignorance anymore.

Lol. This is just one more "You don't have all the answers yet so my answer is correct" affair.

Oh the folly of creationism. Genetics is still in its infancy as a science, we've only really been cracking shit for a few decades, but look how much has become clear already. Part of me wishes that I was born in the future when EVEN MORE AWESOME SHIT will have been discovered, not that it would ever make a young-earth, young-universe quack even consider changing their position.

(January 21, 2014 at 12:18 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 20, 2014 at 9:00 pm)snowtracks Wrote: that's why both books are needed. but even having the one book, God is clearly revealed. there are non-scientific reasons why people don't acknowledge that.

Only if the one book you have is the bible, which I think is the only book you've ever read.

Quote:no naturalistic model exist that demonstrates a origin-of-life scenario that involves assembly of dna, rna, proteins, and membrane structures (which has the capacity to control fluids that enter and exit) in such a way to yield a viable cell. in fact, it not even being pursued any longer because the complexity is too overwhelming.

Let's assume what you've just said wasn't a horrendous lie: how does everyone else being wrong make you right?

You're not even hiding your arguments from ignorance anymore.

so put what you have on the table.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:35 pm)snowtracks Wrote: that's why both books are needed. but even having the one book, God is clearly revealed. there are non-scientific reasons why people don't acknowledge that.

Do you think that the qu'ran clearly reveals Allah? Do you think that the vedas clearly reveal the Hindu god/semi gods? What is it about your compendium of desert fairy tales that makes it true, and that makes the others not true?

Quote:no naturalistic model exist that demonstrates a origin-of-life scenario that involves assembly of dna, rna, proteins, and membrane structures (which has the capacity to control fluids that enter and exit) in such a way to yield a viable cell. in fact, it not even being pursued any longer because the complexity is too overwhelming.

The cells that are alive today are the likely product of many millions of years of evolution. A primitive cell would have likely looked very different and would not necessarily have been all that complex. There has been much research in to molecular replication in various atmospheric conditions, and in space. In addition, the sort of ultra small-scale life that likely developed first would have initially had no predator organisms, that is, if molecular replication of a comparable sort did take place in the here and now, it may be consumed by larger organisms almost instantly. This research is still in its infancy, but there are many ideas to test, which makes it more scientific than the religious ramblings of some blokes in the desert, whose ridiculous (read ignorant) ideas and undeclared variables cannot be defined, limited, tested or replicated under any conditions in any place at any time. Any explanation that attempts to explain absolutely everything about the universe whilst detailing no mechanism of effect is essentially useless.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:35 pm)snowtracks Wrote: so put what you have on the table.

It wouldn't matter if I had nothing! That's the point: your bullshit is not correct by default, and we don't need to disprove it for you to let go of it.

(January 21, 2014 at 11:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 21, 2014 at 3:35 pm)snowtracks Wrote: so put what you have on the table.

It wouldn't matter if I had nothing! That's the point: your bullshit is not correct by default, and we don't need to disprove it for you to let go of it.

You don't owe this asswipe any more of your time, Esq. He keeps coming back with the same song and dance every time he posts here. What a waste of Internet server space.

(January 21, 2014 at 11:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 21, 2014 at 3:35 pm)snowtracks Wrote: so put what you have on the table.

It wouldn't matter if I had nothing! That's the point: your bullshit is not correct by default, and we don't need to disprove it for you to let go of it.

that okay, my guess is you probably wanted to save it for the big announcement at the atheist world convention in st lake city, ut in april.

---

(January 22, 2014 at 12:03 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(January 21, 2014 at 11:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It wouldn't matter if I had nothing! That's the point: your bullshit is not correct by default, and we don't need to disprove it for you to let go of it.

You don't owe this asswipe any more of your time, Esq. He keeps coming back with the same song and dance every time he posts here. What a waste of Internet server space.

first we have krause with 'nothing' and now you with nothing. ok.

(January 22, 2014 at 1:14 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(January 21, 2014 at 11:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It wouldn't matter if I had nothing! That's the point: your bullshit is not correct by default, and we don't need to disprove it for you to let go of it.

that okay, my guess is you probably wanted to save it for the big announcement at the atheist world convention in st lake city, ut in april.

---

(January 22, 2014 at 12:03 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: You don't owe this asswipe any more of your time, Esq. He keeps coming back with the same song and dance every time he posts here. What a waste of Internet server space.

first we have krause with 'nothing' and now you with nothing. ok.

Strawmen. Strawmen whenever you post. Now, are you going to say something of value or are you going to get jiggy with more ad homs?

(January 22, 2014 at 1:14 am)snowtracks Wrote: that okay, my guess is you probably wanted to save it for the big announcement at the atheist world convention in st lake city, ut in april.

Please tell us more about the storybook filled with magic that you believe in.

Quote:first we have krause with 'nothing' and now you with nothing. ok.

At least we aren't lying by pretending to have all the answers, you arrogant little sod.