DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[no one]

I rest my case.

[Everena]

I'm right aren't I? If so, this is your song cuz your always at work 

 

Though t'is very sad about the affair that happened to the band after their international success with the tune.

Still... Flogging the Yanks in their stupid, bloody boat race was an awesome thing to watch.

Now-a-days my 'Fluffy music of choice' is more Thrash, Grunge, Goth, Industrial, Metal or any combination of the lot.

Not at work.

But did you watch the video and get the point they were making?

---

I rest my case.

How do you think a God should be, if it were up to you to decide.

[Gwaithmir]

Here's an article on the probability of abiogenesis. There are dozens of links and references to follow. If you are an intellectually honest person, you will follow the evidence to a rational conclusion without preconceived biases. In other words, you will read the articles with the idea of understanding them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

I've already read all about A Bio Genesis. An intelligent creator would stlll definitely be required, because their only theory of how life came to be is that it "just all happened naturally dude" That is vague and it means nothing. Also, abiogenesis has been criticisized and refuted by numerous scientists, just so you know.

No, you haven't. If you had actually read the above article and followed the links you would have discovered a plethora of information debunking every one of the objections you listed. The trouble here is that you are bound by preconceived biases and a closed mind. You lack the ability to admit that you might be wrong. Rather than challenging us to provide you with evidence you to fairly examine, you are challenging us to make you believe, which is neither our responsibility or honest on your part.

1. They did not re-create the correct environment for the time period this would have happened in the Miller-Urey research experiments.

Really? And what was the "correct" environment for that time period? How many possible environments were subjected to the Miller-Urey experiment since the 1950's and what were the results? Citations needed.

2. Proteins don't bind under water, in fact they do just the opposite.

Prove it. How is this relevant? Why would it be necessary? Citations needed.

3. Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiment is widely seen as having settled the question of spontaneous generation and disproved abiogenesis. He boiled a meat broth in a flask that had a long neck that curved downward, like that of a goose or swan.

Wrong! His experiment disproved the notion of spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis is an entirely different hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

And there is a lot more reading you should do about this unproven hypothesis you are so convinced by, because no one in the science community really seems convinced.

I'm willing to read any articles on the subject. I am convinced that abiogenesis occurred because it is supported by a preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence. Contrary to your claim, however, abiogenesis has much credibility in the scientific community. There are presently several viable hypotheses on how abiogenesis occurred. See the Wiki article above.

---

Explain how Adam and Eve could have been at fault if they didn't understand the concepts of good and evil beforehand? If God truly loved his creations, why did he make them imperfect and then punish them for behaving exactly the way he designed them to behave? If he was a truly loving father, why didn't he intervene when his children were being tempted? And while we're on the subject of Adam and Eve, kindly explain how a snake could talk when snakes lack the necessary vocal apparatus.

They knew what was good and at risk.  They probably saw animals die so they knew what death was.  It was a miracle regarding the snake.  The devil was able to speak through it.

---

Wrong! The Bible clearly states that they did not become aware of the concepts of good or evil until AFTER they ate the forbidden fruit.

The Bible clearly states that there was no death before the fall.

If God truly loved his creations, why did he make them imperfect and then punish them for behaving exactly the way he designed them to behave?

If he was a truly loving father, why didn't he intervene when his children were being tempted?

Prove that this miracle actually occurred. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[CDF47]

I've already read all about A Bio Genesis. An intelligent creator would stlll definitely be required, because their only theory of how life came to be is that it "just all happened naturally dude" That is vague and it means nothing. Also, abiogenesis has been criticisized and refuted by numerous scientists, just so you know.


1. They did not re-create the correct environment for the time period this would have happened in the Miller-Urey research experiments.


2. Proteins don't bind under water, in fact they do just the opposite.


3. Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiment is widely seen as having settled the question of spontaneous generation and disproved abiogenesis. He boiled a meat broth in a flask that had a long neck that curved downward, like that of a goose or swan.


And there is a lot more reading you should do about this unproven hypothesis you are so convinced by, because no one in the science community really seems convinced.

I'm willing to read any articles on the subject. I am convinced that abiogenesis occurred because it is supported by a preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence. Contrary to your claim, however, abiogenesis has much credibility in the scientific community. There are presently several viable hypotheses on how abiogenesis occurred. See the Wiki article above.

---

They knew what was good and at risk.  They probably saw animals die so they knew what death was.  It was a miracle regarding the snake.  The devil was able to speak through it.

---

Through their rebellion sin entered the world.  I believe the devil was already here prior to man.  Since he was in the garden and I believe this happened after the devil was cast out of heaven.

---

I've already read all about A Bio Genesis. An intelligent creator would stlll definitely be required, because their only theory of how life came to be is that it "just all happened naturally dude" That is vague and it means nothing. Also, abiogenesis has been criticisized and refuted by numerous scientists, just so you know.


1. They did not re-create the correct environment for the time period this would have happened in the Miller-Urey research experiments.


2. Proteins don't bind under water, in fact they do just the opposite.


3. Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiment is widely seen as having settled the question of spontaneous generation and disproved abiogenesis. He boiled a meat broth in a flask that had a long neck that curved downward, like that of a goose or swan.


And there is a lot more reading you should do about this unproven hypothesis you are so convinced by, because no one in the science community really seems convinced.

I'm willing to read any articles on the subject. I am convinced that abiogenesis occurred because it is supported by a preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence. Contrary to your claim, however, abiogenesis has much credibility in the scientific community. There are presently several viable hypotheses on how abiogenesis occurred. See the Wiki article above.

---

They knew what was good and at risk.  They probably saw animals die so they knew what death was.  It was a miracle regarding the snake.  The devil was able to speak through it.

---

Do you love Marx, Freud, and Darwin?

[Gwaithmir]

---

Do you love Marx, Freud, and Darwin?

Kindly address the comments I made in my previous post to you before going off on a tangent.

[Cod]

Magic!

It's a met awhor, I mean metaphor and one you should probably spend a lot of time thinking about.

Why would I want to waste my time? Why does it matter? What do you think is going to happen to me if I don't?

---

Explain how Adam and Eve could have been at fault if they didn't understand the concepts of good and evil beforehand? If God truly loved his creations, why did he make them imperfect and then punish them for behaving exactly the way he designed them to behave? If he was a truly loving father, why didn't he intervene when his children were being tempted? And while we're on the subject of Adam and Eve, kindly explain how a snake could talk when snakes lack the necessary vocal apparatus.

They knew what was good and at risk.  They probably saw animals die so they knew what death was.  It was a miracle regarding the snake.  The devil was able to speak through it.

---

Magic!

No...Miracle!

Correct! No miracle.

[Everena]

Here's an article on the probability of abiogenesis. There are dozens of links and references to follow. If you are an intellectually honest person, you will follow the evidence to a rational conclusion without preconceived biases. In other words, you will read the articles with the idea of understanding them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

I've already read all about A Bio Genesis. An intelligent creator would stlll definitely be required, because their only theory of how life came to be is that it "just all happened naturally dude" That is vague and it means nothing. 

First and foremost, before we discuss all the reasons other scientists have given for why it is not even possible, this is the part that matters to me and addresses my question. And don't try to pretend it is not their conclusion about how life came to be, because it absolutely is and that in no way eliminates the need for an intelligent creator.

---

It's a met awhor, I mean metaphor and one you should probably spend a lot of time thinking about.

Why would I want to waste my time? Why does it matter? What do you think is going to happen to me if I don't?

Don't waste your time. Maybe nothing willl happen to you ever and you'll just fade off into nothing when you die.

[Cod]

Don't waste your time. Maybe nothing willl happen to you ever and you'll just fade off into nothing when you die.

That sounds wonderful to me... Much more appealing than pointless eternal boredom.

[Gwaithmir]

First and foremost, before we discuss all the reasons other scientists have given for why it is not even possible, this is the part that matters to me and addresses my question. And don't try to pretend it is not their conclusion about how life came to be, because it absolutely is and that in no way eliminates the need for an intelligent creator.

---

If you wish to postulate the existence of an intelligent creator, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. It is not the responsibility for evolutionists to eliminate the alleged necessity of an intelligent creator.

[CDF47]

---

Do you love Marx, Freud, and Darwin?

Kindly address the comments I made in my previous post to you before going off on a tangent.

I addressed all your comments didn't I?

---

It's a met awhor, I mean metaphor and one you should probably spend a lot of time thinking about.

Why would I want to waste my time? Why does it matter? What do you think is going to happen to me if I don't?

---

They knew what was good and at risk.  They probably saw animals die so they knew what death was.  It was a miracle regarding the snake.  The devil was able to speak through it.

---

No...Miracle!

Correct! No miracle.

You know what I meant.