There is no evidence that these are new, spontaneous created enzymes. Ever hear of the law of biogenesis? Life comes only from life. There has never been an exception to this law. These enzymes are the result of the adaptation of existing enzymes. In fact, there are similar enzymes living wild that adapt and do the same thing these "new" enzymes can do, never having been exposed to these waste products. It took them three days. No evolution going on here. Only a fool would think otherwise.
What they actually said is that living organisms can adapt to their environment. They mentioned similar bacteria, living in the wild that could do the same thing after three days. There is no evidence that these bacteria did not already exist and we're adapted to their new environment. They were not recently created. They were adapted.
He did not disprove anything. He posted a link. I posted a link refuting it. And I banned him because his only purpose on this site is to bash Christians. He offers no evidence based arguments, and refuses to ever acknowledge that someone might actually have a valid argument, in spite of facts or evidence provided. In short, he's a troll.
Easily debunked.
I would bet that none of you watched the video. Even if the odds are not as started, the simplest cell has about three hundred proteins. And that doesn't include the rna, DNA, lipids and many others that MUST be in the same place at the same time in order for life to exist. But atheism is a religion. You accept it on faith. You have no choice because it has no scientific evidence to support it. It's a fairy tale for grownups. Nice to see the same ignorant, Christian-bashing fools that we're here a year ago. Well. I'm back, and I'm armed with the truth. You don't stand a chance.
There is a certain point where are the odds of something happening become so great that it is effectively zero. The chance of a protein forming by chance is 1 * 10 to the 176 power. The point where the odds become a near impossibility is 1 times 10 to the 55 power. Now, here is a short video that visualizes just how poor a chance this protein has.
If someone did inherit their money,, it's still their money. What the hell gives you the right to say they don't deserve it, you piece of shit. FUCK YOU!
And what gave you the impression that I'm wealthy? I'm living on disability. But I'm not jealous of the rich. You, on the other hand, are a greedy, jealous little bitch who will probably die broke and bitter. I hope so. You deserve it.
So you finally admit it. You believe you have the right to steal from the rich and give it to someone who did nothing to earn it. And, by all means, come and try to rob me. It would be my greatest pleasure to put two rounds center mass and one in your head.
Now you are just boring me. You make ludicrous statements, then claim victory based on them. That is not debate. You do not debate. You don't know how. You just present an argument, then declare yourself the winner. Don't bother replying. I'll just ignore it. But you're going to reply anyway. Know why? Because you always have to have the last word. You can't help yourself. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. I bet you cant.
So. Are you saying that calling my Lord and Savior a sky fairy is not being an obnoxious troll? I could easily defeat your arguments. It's just not worth my time. You go right ahead and believe that you've actually scored any points against me. I'll keep laughing.
And your knowledge of history is laughable. For one thing, many of the victims, if not the majority, of the inquisition were Christians.they were persecuted because they simply wanted to worship God in a way that was different than what the church wanted. Btw, the Catholic church is not Christian. It was created by a Pagan emperor hundreds of years after the time of Christ.
Also, the witch hunts were, most likely, the result of a biological agent that afflicted their crops. It affected their minds and caused a kind of phychosis. The History Channel did a show about it. Long story short. You know nothing.
For two thousand years, atheists have been trying to eliminate Christianity. They have failed. So now they think the muzzies will help them. Good luck with that. Historically, Christianity has always flourished when perscuted. So go right ahead and persecute us. You're only shooting yourself in the foot. Lolol.
Hey ghost. Is this your idea of political debate? If so, you might want to consider another hobby. Something you could be good at. Like watching grass grow. Actually, you probably do not have the attention span for that. How about watching paint dry? Well, even fast-drying paint might be too much of a challenge for you. Don't worry. I'll think of something.
John Wayne Gacy was a democrat. What's your point? If it is your desire to implicate political beliefs in criminal activity, you'll have to do better than this. Especially since most assassinations, attempted assassinations and mass shootings are committed by democrats.
They spread the good news of a risen Savior, while facing the threat of imprisonment and death. That's how.
Show me His body. The Roman Empire did its best to stop the spread of Christianity. In fact, the more Christianity is persecuted, the the more it spreads. How did Christianity spread throughout the known world against the best efforts of the most powerful empire in the worlds best efforts to stop it? All they had to do was show His dead corpse.
It is a historical fact that Mohammed was a murderer and a pedophile who instructed his followers to lie in order to promote the spread Islam. These are hardly credible witnesss. Also, such an event would have been witnessed by the entire world. Notice that no one else recorded such an event. Your evidence is quite laughable. Try again?
The twelve apostles, for one. They were not fictional characters. They were real people who witnessed it all and wrote it all down.
I've already answered this. They claimed that Jesus was the Son of God and that He rose from the dead. They also suffered torture and death rather than deny a risen Christ. Once again, no one would die for a lie.
Did anyone else witness Mohammed splitting the moon in two?
A belief in God is based on faith. But that faith is based on evidence. Some of that evidence is from eyewitness accounts. They were present when Jesus performed His miracles. They witnessed His death and resurrection. They suffered inprisonment, torture and death because they stood by their eyewitness accounts. No one would die for something they knew to be a lie. Therefore, they told the truth. Now. Do you have any evidence to contradict this historical account?
You would have to agree that the same thing is true about a naturalistic origin of the universe. There is no evidence that it happened that way, or is even possible. There is also no way to prove that there isn't a God. So where does that leave us? It means that both positions are a matter of faith. Which is what I've been saying all along, and atheists flatly refuse to admit.
Even if that's true, what about the physical constants? They are immaterial, yet they affect the material universe. Without them, the universe could not exist. They are not composed of matter or energy. Why do they exist? Quantum physics cannot explain them. Nothing can... with one exception.
A scientific answer, maybe. Events cannot occur without time and space for them to occur in. However, such constraints are eliminated when an all powerful God is involved. Since it is physically impossible, that leaves only a supernatural explanation.
Are you familiar with the universal physical constants? They are immaterial, yet they affect the material. They are not matter or energy. The only reason we know they exist is by seeing how they interact with the physical universe. There are six of them that are responsible for the existence of the universe. If any one of them had a slightly different value, the universe would not exist. Where did these immaterial forces come from if not from God?
Nothing physical can be eternal. In order for something physical to exist, it had to have been created by someone who is eternal. God exists outside of time and space. He has no beginning and no end. I don't understand how it's possible, but He's GOD. He can do anything He likes. The alternative is that the universe created itself from nothing. That makes no sense at all. It's a scientific impossibility. When you have excluded the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Apples and oranges. You are trying to equate the physical universe to God. The universe, being a physical entity, requires a beginning. God does not. Also, the universe cannot be eternal because of the existence of time. If you have an infinite number of yesterdays, then tomorrow would never get here.
Only physical things need to be created. God is not physical, therefore He's eternal. Anyway you slice it, the universe requires a Creator. And that Creator would have to be eternal. Otherwise you would have an infinite regression of causes. Something that science tells us is impossible.
The FBI used the Steele dossier, which they never confirmed as truthful and was paid for by his former rival for the Oval Office, to launch an illegal investigation against a sitting President in order to remove him from office.
Is that the kind of action you were looking for?
What you describe is called adaptation. Not evolution. Do you know the difference? Besides, aren't scientists telling us that evolution takes millions of years to happen? Those bacteria are changing in just a few years. You can't have it both ways. It either takes millions of years or it doesnt. Which is it?
If are referring to the geologic column, then there are areas where the layers are out of order. It is not a uniform progression. There are fossils that appear along with those from another period where they are not supposed to exist yet, or later, when they should have been extinct.
Give it your best shot. Please note that your answers must be backed up by real science. That means direct observation or repeatable experiments. You know. The scientific method. Unless you can do so, it's not science. It's philosophy. It exists only between your ears.
Regardless, the universe requires a cause. It could not have created itself. You say it was caused by a singularity. What caused the singularity to exist? What caused whatever caused the singularity...etc. There had to be a singular cause that caused the universe to exist. This cause, whatever it was, would have to be eternal as well as intelligent, since it requires an act of will in order to make something happen.
Are you aware of the fact that the scientific method is the result of people who believed in a Creator? They believed that the universe was created and that it was ordered to the point that repeatable observations and experiments would lead to an understanding of existence. Now, the scientific method cannot be used for past events. We cannot observe them, nor can we do experiments on them. So science is incapable of determining how or why the universe exists. Christians are not anti science. We are anti bad science. Show me the actual scientific evidence, obtained through the scientific method, and we'll discuss it. Otherwise it's simply a story that people believe without evidence.
Do you know what an infinite regression is? This caused that, which was caused by this, which was caused by that...etc. all the back into infinity. It's a scientific impossibility. Causality is what all of modern science is based on. Without it the scientific method could not exist. Everything that has happened was caused to happen. Every scrap of scientific knowledge confirms this. That means that there must be a singular cause that was not itself caused. What would you call that? Most people would call it God.
Well then. Where do you think the singularity came from? This is the problem with atheism. The universe requires a cause for existing. Without an eternal first cause you are left with an infinite regression of causes. Something that is impossible. The universe requires a Creator. Science, as well as logic, demand it. And that Creator must be eternal, with no beginning.
My argument aplies to the PHYSICAL universe. God is not physical. He has always existed. And you still haven't addressed the problem of the universe not being able to create itself. It either created itself or it was created by a non physical being. The first is impossible. Therefore the second must be true. You cannot have a creation without a Creator.
