Psalm 137:9

[Amarok]

1. Their is no law of biogenisis  only applies to Spontaneous generation . It does not apply to Abiogenisis .

Or as talk orgins puts it

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
   
   

2. No one believes in Atheism 

3. Abiogenisis is totally possible and several models exist explaining it .  

4. AIG is a quack site . 

5. Yup just apologetics

6. If god made living this out of none living matter then he did Abiogenisis 

7. No creating something from nothing (which in scientific terms is a near zero energy state) is really no less problematic then a universe emerging from nothing .

[The Grand Nudger]

The obvious problem being that the "more detailed account" is no less inaccurate.

That's not necessary true.

If you give me a more detailed account of macro-evolution that still doesn't change the fact that it hasn't been observed!!

It's absolutely true, I'm sorry, but your magic book is garbage.  As far as macroevolution., I take it that you mean speciation..an yes, it's been obvserved.  More than once, more than a dozen times.  In the field, and in the lab.    

If any of your beliefs hinge on the shit you;ve been shared with us here...you're going to be disappointed.

[JackRussell]

Speciation has been observed: in the lab, in nature, in the fossil record and via genetics to name some.

[Amarok]

Of course this is what he will demand . Too bad it's got nothing to do with macro evolution 

[Astreja]

So can i say the place of where to go to, then and we can pick up tommorow then, or whenever you have the chance?

It depends on what the place is.  There are some places I simply won't go.

[Minimalist]

If you give me a more detailed account of macro-evolution that still doesn't change the fact that it hasn't been observed!!

Which is still more evidence that you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. 

'SHOW ME YOUR CROCODUCK!'

'Why doesn't the fossil record contain a fronkey?' Well, of course, monkeys are not
descended from frogs. No sane evolutionist ever said they were, or that ducks are descended from
crocodiles or vice versa. Monkeys and frogs share an ancestor, which certainly looked nothing like
a frog and nothing like a monkey. Maybe it looked a bit like a salamander, and we do indeed have
salamander-like fossils dating from the right time. But that is not the point. Every one of the
millions of species of animals shares an ancestor with every other one. If your understanding of
evolution is so warped that you think we should expect to see a fronkey and a crocoduck, you
should also wax sarcastic about the absence of a doggypotamus and an elephanzee.

From, The Greatest Show On Earth, Richard Dawkins  pg. 73

The difference being, of course, that Professor Dawkins is a world renowned biologist whereas you are just some fucking lunatic with bible.

[Amarok]

I wish Dawkins would not use the word evolutionist it pisses me off.

[Godisgood]

So can i say the place of where to go to, then and we can pick up tommorow then, or whenever you have the chance?

It depends on what the place is.  There are some places I simply won't go.

Its called Quora. Have you heard of it?

---

That's not necessary true.

If you give me a more detailed account of macro-evolution that still doesn't change the fact that it hasn't been observed!!

It's absolutely true, I'm sorry, but your magic book is garbage.  As far as macroevolution., I take it that you mean speciation..an yes, it's been obvserved.  More than once, more than a dozen times.  In the field, and in the lab.    

If any of your beliefs hinge on the shit you;ve been shared with us here...you're going to be disappointed.

It's absolutely true, I'm sorry, but your magic book is garbage.  

Thats your opinion!

As far as macroevolution., I take it that you mean speciation..


No I mean one animal such as a dinosaur changing or evolving into a bird. That hasnt been observed.

---

1. Their is no law of biogenisis  only applies to Spontaneous generation . It does not apply to Abiogenisis .

Or as talk orgins puts it

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
   
   

2. No one believes in Atheism 

3. Abiogenisis is totally possible and several models exist explaining it .  

4. AIG is a quack site . 

5. Yup just apologetics

6. If god made living this out of none living matter then he did Abiogenisis 

7. No creating something from nothing (which in scientific terms is a near zero energy state) is really no less problematic then a universe emerging from nothing .

7. No creating something from nothing (which in scientific terms is a near zero energy state) is really no less problematic then a universe emerging from nothing .

God is not nothing. Therefore when He creates the universe from nothing which He can do given that He is all-powerful, it isnt illogical for Him to make the universe from nothing. However the other option is that the universe popped into existence from nothoing. This isnt reasonable.

---

1. Their is no law of biogenisis  only applies to Spontaneous generation . It does not apply to Abiogenisis .

Or as talk orgins puts it

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
   
   

2. No one believes in Atheism 

3. Abiogenisis is totally possible and several models exist explaining it .  

4. AIG is a quack site . 

5. Yup just apologetics

6. If god made living this out of none living matter then he did Abiogenisis 

7. No creating something from nothing (which in scientific terms is a near zero energy state) is really no less problematic then a universe emerging from nothing .

If you want to pretend that "The Law of Biogenesis"isnt scientific then you can go right ahead and live in pretend land. Thats fine with me.

---

It depends on what the place is.  There are some places I simply won't go.

Its called Quora. Have you heard of it?

---

It's absolutely true, I'm sorry, but your magic book is garbage.  As far as macroevolution., I take it that you mean speciation..an yes, it's been obvserved.  More than once, more than a dozen times.  In the field, and in the lab.    

If any of your beliefs hinge on the shit you;ve been shared with us here...you're going to be disappointed.

It's absolutely true, I'm sorry, but your magic book is garbage.  

Thats your opinion!

As far as macroevolution., I take it that you mean speciation..


No I mean one animal such as a dinosaur changing or evolving into a bird. That hasnt been observed.

---

1. Their is no law of biogenisis  only applies to Spontaneous generation . It does not apply to Abiogenisis .

Or as talk orgins puts it

2. No one believes in Atheism 

3. Abiogenisis is totally possible and several models exist explaining it .  

4. AIG is a quack site . 

5. Yup just apologetics

6. If god made living this out of none living matter then he did Abiogenisis 

7. No creating something from nothing (which in scientific terms is a near zero energy state) is really no less problematic then a universe emerging from nothing .

7. No creating something from nothing (which in scientific terms is a near zero energy state) is really no less problematic then a universe emerging from nothing .

God is not nothing. Therefore when He creates the universe from nothing which He can do given that He is all-powerful, it isnt illogical for Him to make the universe from nothing. However the other option is that the universe popped into existence from nothoing. This isnt reasonable.

---

1. Their is no law of biogenisis  only applies to Spontaneous generation . It does not apply to Abiogenisis .

Or as talk orgins puts it

2. No one believes in Atheism 

3. Abiogenisis is totally possible and several models exist explaining it .  

4. AIG is a quack site . 

5. Yup just apologetics

6. If god made living this out of none living matter then he did Abiogenisis 

7. No creating something from nothing (which in scientific terms is a near zero energy state) is really no less problematic then a universe emerging from nothing .

If you want to pretend that "The Law of Biogenesis"isnt scientific then you can go right ahead and live in pretend land. Thats fine with me.

4. AIG is a quack site .

This is called "giving your opinion".

[Cyberman]

That's just your opinion!

[Godisgood]

That's just your opinion!

Whats my opinion?  I have read a lot of other comments so what is it that I said that caused you to say "thats just your opinion"?