The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

Wow Rapture man they are really coming out in force against what you posted. I am a YEC as well, I also believe the bible to be without error in regards to the originals. But I also believe the copies of the bible we have today are trustworthy copies of the original. As far as the YEC view we seem to share, I would say that they have avoided your initial inquiry as to biogenesis (Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction. That is, life does not spontaneously arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation...taken from GOOGLE) and my request for them to show what laws of science show how information can be increased, not rearranged as they try to show...sounds like a Lawrence Krauss redefinition of nothing. Entropy is science, and that is what is observable.

from GOOGLE
1. Physics
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

• 2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Then you should try to learn why we know that Genesis cannot be taken literally. Perhaps you should work on the flood myth. Perhaps you can understand the evidence that tells us that there was no flood.

 

[ecco]

I would say that they have avoided your initial inquiry as to biogenesis (Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction.

Unlike religion, science does learn and does progress. If you choose thousands year old traditions over the accumulated knowledge of mankind that is your prerogative.


Do you believe there is a clear cut line separating living things (bees and humans) from non-living things (rocks and sand)?

 

[Rapture Era]

Why is that required? We did not need to know how planets formed before investigating the dynamics of their orbits. We did not need to know how stars are formed to investigate their properties. So why would we need to know what the first life was like to understand how later life changed over time?

How do you know life changed over time, from abiogenesis evolution? Who told you that? I thought science is supposed to adhere to the "Scientific Method" to find truth no matter where it leads. If something is deemed false by this method it should be thrown out right?

let me ask you this: do earthworms have a 'mature body type'? How about planaria? how about clams? Sponges? Jellyfish?

Yes. When I mentioned "Body Type" earlier, I was referring to the vast and various types of life forms, (invertebrates etc.) found in the Cambrian rocks. They are fully formed with absolutely NO intermediate evolutionary pathways to any of these life forms. This is what our scientists (both creationist and atheists) have discovered.

What we actually see int he fossil record is *simpler*, but fully functional 'body types' that increase in complexity over time. For example, we don't see any vertebrates in pre-Cambrian rocks. We don't see any actual fish. We *do* see various types of bilaterally symmetric, but relatively simple body types. And, as we go back further, the types of bodies we see get simpler.

Ok, your first sentence I agree with, up until you say, " that increase in complexity over time." This is impossible. The reason is because life forms cannot increase in complexity unless they have the genetic information to do so. This is why we do not see any pathways for any of the life forms found in the earliest times life has been found. It's called the Cambrian Explosion because all of a sudden an incredible vast array of fully formed animals appeared. I know you know this. This type of event is in full accord with the creation narrative in biblical scripture. Now, I understand you don't want God and you don't want the Bible, for whatever your reasons are and that's fine. But as we discuss origins of life from what we have found, I think the the results favor the creation account. God has told us that he created all of the sea creatures in Genesis 1:21 " Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.”
So, on one hand you have a hypothesis or supposition of abiogenesis from a natural standpoint and then we have the same from a creation view. None of us where there, so the question is, which of these two fit the evidence and the data more reasonably? I submit that the Biblical account in Genesis better explains our origins.

But, again, this is NOT when abiogenesis is supposed to have occurred. The late pre-Cambrian was about 750 million years ago and the first life was closer to 3.8 billion years ago. That is a difference of over 3 billion years! That's four times as much time as the duration since the pre-Cambrian!

In this quote, you don't really know for a fact that those numbers are true or not. Again, by what means do you actually believe this to be true? My authority is Jesus Christ the creator of heaven and earth. With the historical genealogies and time lines in the Bible, it is believed by these written historical facts, that the earth and our universes is actually only about 7,000 years old. I know you must gag when I say that, but with all of the ancient historical evidences from the major sciences including: Archaeology, Ecology, Oceanography, Geology, Meteorology, Zoology, Human biology and Botany are all in accord with Biblical creation. As I have said in the past, either you believe the authority of a massive intelligent and powerful being beyond our comprehension outside of our universe who used the method of fiat creation meaning he spoke it into existence, exactly as he described in the Genesis account or you don't. Your choice to put your faith in God as the ultimate authority or a college professor/scientist is certainly your right. But if you don't believe in a creator, I have to tell you, you have no hope, no hope in learning the truth about our origins. You're not going to discover it, non-believing scientists aren't going to discover it. They haven't yet and they never will because it's extremely hard to try and prove something that never happened.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know life changed over time, from abiogenesis evolution? Who told you that? I thought science is supposed to adhere to the "Scientific Method" to find truth no matter where it leads. If something is deemed false by this method it should be thrown out right?

Once again, abiogenesis isn't a part of evolution. We learned that life has changed over time by looking at the fossils left over from different time periods. Those show that the types of life alive has changed over time.

Yes. When I mentioned "Body Type" earlier, I was referring to the vast and various types of life forms, (invertebrates etc.) found in the Cambrian rocks. They are fully formed with absolutely NO intermediate evolutionary pathways to any of these life forms. This is what our scientists (both creationist and atheists) have discovered.

I'd suggest you look at a more modern source. For example, the Burgess shale has given us a lot of information about how life changed in the pre-Cambrian.

Ok, your first sentence I agree with, up until you say, " that increase in complexity over time." This is impossible. The reason is because life forms cannot increase in complexity unless they have the genetic information to do so. This is why we do not see any pathways for any of the life forms found in the earliest times life has been found. It's called the Cambrian Explosion because all of a sudden an incredible vast array of fully formed animals appeared. I know you know this.

You realize that the 'Cambrian explosion' took place over tens of millions of years, right? And the reason we see so many fossils from the Cambrian is that animals started producing hard parts, like shells and skeletons, making the fossils easier to preserve, right?

And yes, genetic information *does* increase in complexity over time: gene duplication and subsequent mutation provides one of the main sources for that increased complexity.

This type of event is in full accord with the creation narrative in biblical scripture. Now, I understand you don't want God and you don't want the Bible, for whatever your reasons are and that's fine. But as we discuss origins of life from what we have found, I think the the results favor the creation account. God has told us that he created all of the sea creatures in Genesis 1:21 " Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.”

We can worry about the Biblical myths later. Let's talk about the science. Then we can see if the Biblical account corresponds with reality (hint: it doesn't).

So, on one hand you have a hypothesis or supposition of abiogenesis from a natural standpoint and then we have the same from a creation view. None of us where there, so the question is, which of these two fit the evidence and the data more reasonably? I submit that the Biblical account in Genesis better explains our origins.

And that is simply false. We do have fossils going back nearly 3.8 billion years. Earlier life was single celled and rather simple. We got more complex cells around 2 billion years ago. Multi-cellular organisms happened around 800 million years ago. We know of many soft-bodied animals from the pre-Cambrian now because we have found their fossils. maybe you should look into what has been discovered? Even mentioning a 'Cambrian explosion' is showing your source isn't very up to date.

In this quote, you don't really know for a fact that those numbers are true or not.

Um, yes, we do. That is what has been discovered by extensive dating and testing of the geological record.

Again, by what means do you actually believe this to be true? My authority is Jesus Christ the creator of heaven and earth. With the historical genealogies and time lines in the Bible, it is believed by these written historical facts, that the earth and our universes is actually only about 7,000 years old.

Sorry, but we have actual cities from before that. Whatever authority you are using is wrong. Even Jerico is older than that.

I know you must gag when I say that, but with all of the ancient historical evidences from the major sciences including: Archaeology, Ecology, Oceanography, Geology, Meteorology, Zoology, Human biology and Botany are all in accord with Biblical creation. As I have said in the past, either you believe the authority of a massive intelligent and powerful being beyond our comprehension outside of our universe who used the method of fiat creation meaning he spoke it into existence, exactly as he described in the Genesis account or you don't. Your choice to put your faith in God as the ultimate authority or a college professor/human scientist certainly your right. But if you don't, I have to tell you, you have no hope, no hope in learning the truth about our origins. You're not going to discover it, non-believing scientists aren't going to discover it. They haven't yet and they never will because it's extremely hard to try and prove something that never happened.

Well, I don't know of any direct information from such a source. The Bible was written by men to popularize their particular religion and gain power for the priests. it was a 'best guess' for that time period, but has been shown to be miserably wrong in the details (especially the early stuff). In fact, it can't even get the story of Egypt right.

 

[ecco]

I thought science is supposed to adhere to the "Scientific Method" to find truth no matter where it leads.

That's what they hope you believe. In fact, hundreds of thousands of scientists, in many different branches of science, are all in a giant conspiracy to destroy God and Religion. To compound the problem many of these atheist scientists pose as Christians and members of other religions.

At the root of this conspiracy is Satan. It is He who uses his slaves to distort God's way.

 

[Polymath257]

You might find this interesting in regards to the 'cambrian explosion":
Fossils of the Burgess Shale - Wikipedia

 

[ecco]

I know you must gag when I say that, but with all of the ancient historical evidences from the major sciences including: Archaeology, Ecology, Oceanography, Geology, Meteorology, Zoology, Human biology and Botany are all in accord with Biblical creation.

Are you serious? None of the disciplines you mentioned support Genesis.

Just for starters, Geologists find the Flood account to be nonsensically fictitious.
Current views of biology provide among the strongest support for Evolution.

I didn't gag but my jaw did drop just a little from the audaciousness of your comment. It would have dropped a lot, but then nothing you said is really anything new. People who must disregard science because it conflicts with their faith are quite common here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. When I mentioned "Body Type" earlier, I was referring to the vast and various types of life forms, (invertebrates etc.) found in the Cambrian rocks. They are fully formed with absolutely NO intermediate evolutionary pathways to any of these life forms. This is what our scientists (both creationist and atheists) have discovered.

I have found the "fully formed" claim to be rather meaningless. What exactly do you mean by that? For example what would a non-fully formed fish look like?

 

[Polymath257]

I have found the "fully formed" claim to be rather meaningless. What exactly do you mean by that? For example what would a non-fully formed fish look like?

It always amazes me when people think that evolution predicts 'partially formed species'. I think they have an image like the crocoduck or even of individuals morphing during their lifetime. Too much sci-fi misusing the term, I guess.

As we well know, evolution predicts no such things.

I could ask if a jellyfish is 'fully formed'. How about planaria? or maybe sponges? Clams? earthworms?

 

[He has Risen!]

How do you know life changed over time, from abiogenesis evolution? Who told you that? I thought science is supposed to adhere to the "Scientific Method" to find truth no matter where it leads. If something is deemed false by this method it should be thrown out right?


Yes. When I mentioned "Body Type" earlier, I was referring to the vast and various types of life forms, (invertebrates etc.) found in the Cambrian rocks. They are fully formed with absolutely NO intermediate evolutionary pathways to any of these life forms. This is what our scientists (both creationist and atheists) have discovered.



Ok, your first sentence I agree with, up until you say, " that increase in complexity over time." This is impossible. The reason is because life forms cannot increase in complexity unless they have the genetic information to do so. This is why we do not see any pathways for any of the life forms found in the earliest times life has been found. It's called the Cambrian Explosion because all of a sudden an incredible vast array of fully formed animals appeared. I know you know this. This type of event is in full accord with the creation narrative in biblical scripture. Now, I understand you don't want God and you don't want the Bible, for whatever your reasons are and that's fine. But as we discuss origins of life from what we have found, I think the the results favor the creation account. God has told us that he created all of the sea creatures in Genesis 1:21 " Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.”
So, on one hand you have a hypothesis or supposition of abiogenesis from a natural standpoint and then we have the same from a creation view. None of us where there, so the question is, which of these two fit the evidence and the data more reasonably? I submit that the Biblical account in Genesis better explains our origins.



In this quote, you don't really know for a fact that those numbers are true or not. Again, by what means do you actually believe this to be true? My authority is Jesus Christ the creator of heaven and earth. With the historical genealogies and time lines in the Bible, it is believed by these written historical facts, that the earth and our universes is actually only about 7,000 years old. I know you must gag when I say that, but with all of the ancient historical evidences from the major sciences including: Archaeology, Ecology, Oceanography, Geology, Meteorology, Zoology, Human biology and Botany are all in accord with Biblical creation. As I have said in the past, either you believe the authority of a massive intelligent and powerful being beyond our comprehension outside of our universe who used the method of fiat creation meaning he spoke it into existence, exactly as he described in the Genesis account or you don't. Your choice to put your faith in God as the ultimate authority or a college professor/scientist is certainly your right. But if you don't believe in a creator, I have to tell you, you have no hope, no hope in learning the truth about our origins. You're not going to discover it, non-believing scientists aren't going to discover it. They haven't yet and they never will because it's extremely hard to try and prove something that never happened.

Hey Rapture man, I think that most people who believe in Darwinian evolution do not realize that it is a world view metanarrative and not science, just as special creation is a world view. Both have the same evidence but interpret that evidence through different explanatory means. People who are open to the existence of an ID have a broader and more scientific interpretation of observable science than the evolutionest who force an interpretation on what is observed because they have to explain what is observable without a designer, which is impossible according to the laws of science which show such fine tuning of the universe, i.e. design. By the way if homo sapiens have been around apox. 200,000 years then why does the written language only date back apox. 5,000 years ago?
from Google...
The Sumerian archaic (pre-cuneiform) writing and the Egyptian hieroglyphs are generally considered the earliest true writing systems, both emerging out of their ancestral proto-literate symbol systems from 3400–3100 BC, with earliest coherent texts from about 2600 BC.

PS Subduction Zone shows my point in his comment below. He can only see through the lens of his Darwinian world view. Theist are open to a broader view that includes an ID.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey Rapture man, I think that most people who believe in Darwinian evolution do not realize that it is a world view metanarrative and not science, just as special creation is a world view. Both have the same evidence but interpret that evidence through different explanatory factors. People who are open to the existence of an ID have a broader and more scientific interpretation of observable science than the evolutionest who force an interpretation on what is observed because they have to explain what is observable without a designer, which is impossible according to the laws of science which show such fine tuning of the universe, i.e. design. By the way if homo sapiens have been around apox. 200,000 years then why does the written language only date back apox. 5,000 years ago?
from Google...
The Sumerian archaic (pre-cuneiform) writing and the Egyptian hieroglyphs are generally considered the earliest true writing systems, both emerging out of their ancestral proto-literate symbol systems from 3400–3100 BC, with earliest coherent texts from about 2600 BC.

What makes you think that accepting the theory of evolution, not "believing" that would be projecting your flaws upon others, is not science? It clearly is based upon the scientific method and it is supported by mountains of evidence. If one accepts gravity then by the same logic one should accept evolution.

EDIT: By the way, there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs so it would be false to claim that "both have the same evidence". This indicates a lack of understanding of the concept of evidence.

 

[ecco]

Hey Rapture man, I think that most people who believe in Darwinian evolution do not realize that it is a world view metanarrative and not science

You are correct, I do not "realize" that Darwinian evolution ... is a world view metanarrative and not science. That is because the study of evolution is a scientific pursuit. If it isn't, it must be the works of the largest group of people to ever have taken part in a conspiracy.

...People who are open to the existence of an ID have a broader and more scientific interpretation of observable science than the evolutionest who force an interpretation on what is observed because they have to explain what is observable without a designer

People who are open to the existence of an ID do not observe and study nature. People who are open to the existence of an ID do so because of deeply held religious views.

, which is impossible according to the laws of science which show such fine tuning of the universe, i.e. design

The odds against YOU existing exactly as you are are astronomical. Therefore, you must believe that YOU have been specifically fine-tuned by an ID.

. By the way if homo sapiens have been around apox. 200,000 years then why does the written language only date back apox. 5,000 years ago?
from Google...
The Sumerian archaic (pre-cuneiform) writing and the Egyptian hieroglyphs are generally considered the earliest true writing systems, both emerging out of their ancestral proto-literate symbol systems from 3400–3100 BC, with earliest coherent texts from about 2600 BC.

Because, until then, people got along quite nicely by passing information on through oral traditions. North American Native Americans got along just fine without a written language.

.
Theist are open to a broader view that includes an ID.

Fundamentalist Theists are closed to any view that conflicts with Genesis.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

This is "The Greatest Question We Should Investigate...Who Is Jesus?"
Read John chapter 1 to find out.

I think I would rather investigate how a fat white-beared old man can deposit presents to most of the children on the planet in just one night, than to read an unknown author's opinions, written 60 years after the fact, about another man's claim to be a son of a God, at the age of nearly 94(life expectancy was under 40 years). Which of the 420 Old and Middle English translations of the Gospels should I read? Finally, which near extra-biblical evidence even mentions that a historical Jesus is the Son of a God? Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? | Cold Case Christianity

So, unless you can demonstrate any parallel nexus between man and God, I think I will have far better success in investigating Santa's special abilities, than in discovering if Jesus is the Son of a God. Unless I need to believe first and read second.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That's what they hope you believe. In fact, hundreds of thousands of scientists, in many different branches of science, are all in a giant conspiracy to destroy God and Religion. To compound the problem many of these atheist scientists pose as Christians and members of other religions.

At the root of this conspiracy is Satan. It is He who uses his slaves to distort God's way.

You'll be quoted as proof that the conspiracy is true, now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow Rapture man they are really coming out in force against what you posted. I am a YEC as well, I also believe the bible to be without error in regards to the originals. But I also believe the copies of the bible we have today are trustworthy copies of the original. As far as the YEC view we seem to share, I would say that they have avoided your initial inquiry as to biogenesis (Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction. That is, life does not spontaneously arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation...taken from GOOGLE) and my request for them to show what laws of science show how information can be increased, not rearranged as they try to show...sounds like a Lawrence Krauss redefinition of nothing. Entropy is science, and that is what is observable.

from GOOGLE
1. Physics
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

• 2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

The reason that people are "coming out in force" against what was posted is because it's outdated and/or inaccurate nonsense that has long ago been debunked and people are tired of having to address it over and over when it isn't factual to begin with. That plus a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about god(s).

 

[He has Risen!]

I agree with the person and the title of this Thread,
The Creator did it.

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by A REAL CHRISTIAN, Jan 20, 2019.

Why do I agree with a Creator who worked as an architect, engineer and master craftsman to make this universe? Because of the Design that it exhibits. When an archeologist comes across the ruins of an ancient civilization and finds tools, pottery and weapons he knows that intelligent people did this and not forces of nature. He does not dismiss the obvious design implication just because he does not know who did it, rather his rational, reasonable, scientific and logical mind tells him someone with intelligence produced these remains.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with the person and the title of this Post,
The Creator did it.

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by A REAL CHRISTIAN, Jan 20, 2019.

Why do I agree with a Creator who worked as an architect, engineer and master craftsman to make this universe? Because of the Design that it exhibits. When an archeologist comes across the ruins of an ancient civilization and finds tools, pottery and weapons he knows that intelligent people did this and not forces of nature. He does not dismiss the obvious design implication just because he does not know who did it, rather his rational, reasonable, scientific and logical mind tells him someone with intelligence produced these remains.

Then why is there no reliable evidence for this belief?

 

[Rapture Era]

Hey Rapture man, I think that most people who believe in Darwinian evolution do not realize that it is a world view metanarrative and not science, just as special creation is a world view. Both have the same evidence but interpret that evidence through different explanatory means. People who are open to the existence of an ID have a broader and more scientific interpretation of observable science than the evolutionest who force an interpretation on what is observed because they have to explain what is observable without a designer, which is impossible according to the laws of science which show such fine tuning of the universe, i.e. design. By the way if homo sapiens have been around apox. 200,000 years then why does the written language only date back apox. 5,000 years ago?
from Google...
The Sumerian archaic (pre-cuneiform) writing and the Egyptian hieroglyphs are generally considered the earliest true writing systems, both emerging out of their ancestral proto-literate symbol systems from 3400–3100 BC, with earliest coherent texts from about 2600 BC.

PS Subduction Zone shows my point in his comment below. He can only see through the lens of his Darwinian world view. Theist are open to a broader view that includes an ID.

You know Hhr, Dennis Prager hit it on the head when he said that evidence should never upset a scientist. Secondly, "beginning" raises an unanswerable question to the atheist! This is why they avoid it like the plague! This is also why they always cop-out with, "well, we are not concerned with how life started, we only study how it changed over time through gene duplication and mutation. Gene duplication does nothing to increase information in the cell NOTHING! And, mutations are always downward, never upward. It's a double whammy and when you call them on it? What is their response? "You don't understand Evolution" Dennis Prager also stated that if you give them evidence for design, which by the way, is so overwhelming in all we observe in our world from life forms to the perfectly ORDERED universe, they say "Oh no! Science can never argue for design!" Why not? It's exactly what science is discovering! And the more science is discovering, the more it points to a designer! So why keep kicking the goad of truth? As Dennis states, it is a fraud, atheist scientists do not go where the evidence dwells. They go where the evidence serves their atheism! Bottom line!
And this is exactly what we see here. So, their denial of an omnipotent and incomprehensibly intelligent mind behind all of the EVIDENCE in life structures and reproduction from the pre-Cambrian that's right in front of their face, they deny it! What more can you offer? They are completely blind to the truth of their own castigation! I have very little time to spend here. I'll check back in the next day or so, but dont spend too much time trying to help them with reason, logic, common sense or evidence for that matter, because they refuse the true meaning of these things. Did you ever notice that my original question of where did the massive information (substantiated by science) in the cell come from has not been answered in any meaningful way? You know why? Because only an incomprehensibly intelligent mind outside of our universe could possibly have created in the way it was done in six literal 24 hour days! Science knows nothing, proves nothing, that contradicts a six day creation, NOTHING! This should be a clue to the simplest of minds.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You know Hhr, Dennis Prager hit it on the head when he said that evidence should never upset a scientist. Secondly, "beginning" raises an unanswerable question to the atheist! This is why they avoid it like the plague! This is also why they always cop-out with, "well, we are not concerned with how life started, we only study how it changed over time through gene duplication and mutation. Gene duplication does nothing to increase information in the cell NOTHING! And, mutations are always downward, never upward. It's a double whammy and when you call them on it? What is their response? "You don't understand Evolution" Dennis Prager also stated that if you give them evidence for design, which by the way, is so overwhelming in all we observe in our world from life forms to the perfectly ORDERED universe, they say "Oh no! Science can never argue for design!" Why not? It's exactly what science is discovering! And the more science is discovering, the more it points to a designer! So why keep kicking the goad of truth? As Dennis states, it is a fraud, atheist scientists do not go where the evidence dwells. They go where the evidence serves their atheism! Bottom line!
And this is exactly what we see here. So, their denial of an omnipotent and incomprehensibly intelligent mind behind all of the EVIDENCE in life structures and reproduction from the pre-Cambrian that's right in front of there face, they deny it! What more can you offer? They are completely blind to the truth of their own castigation! I have very little time to spend here. I'll check back in the next day or so, but dont spend too much time trying to help them with reason, logic, common sense or evidence for that matter, because they refuse the true meaning of these things. Did you ever notice that my original question of where did the massive information (substantiated by science) in the cell come from has not been answered in any meaningful way? You know why? Because only an incomprehensibly intelligent mind outside of our universe could possibly have created in the way it was done in six literal 24 hour days! Science knows nothing, proves nothing, that contradicts a six day creation, NOTHING! This should be a clue to the simplest of minds.

So you were corrected on your inaccuracies about the Cambrian explosion and you're just going to go ahead and repeat them again, as though that never happened? And you're going to throw in a bunch of other creationist canards to boot. Wow.

 

[ecco]

You'll be quoted as proof that the conspiracy is true, now.

Yep. From my lips to Satan's ears. Or is it {sinister background music} from Satan's lips to my ears.