If you have the right to exist outside of Hell, why are you not burning in it now?

If you have the right to exist outside of Hell, why are you not burning in it now?

That's a stupid question. The Creator was not created. You know that. You simply hate God and are trying to make Him go away so He can't rule against you. God loves you and you hate Him because you are a hater. Stop being a hater, fool. Believe God loves you so much that He gave His Son to pay for your sins, and offers you forgiveness in His resurrection. Receive the Creator, God, as your Savior, Jesus Christ, and live with Him forever. Reject your Creator and die without Him forever. You are being a fool. I think you always will be a fool. I hope you prove me wrong and get saved before it's too late, but I'm fairly confident that you will keep on being stubborn right into Hell.....a proud, brave fool with a big foul mouth like dipstick.

People who believe in evolution stopped thinking. They decided to believe a lie, and all they do is strengthen that belief to reinforce their short circuited thinking which they enjoy because they feel like their lives are justified by their own existence so as long as they forgive themselves, they think...hope...everything is ok. It's a religious belief system which is very much akin to Hinduism........evolution, atheism, Hinduism, all are existential religious belief systems and practices.

Except for anyone who values logic and reason...and those who are not going to Hell.

Okay but God created those fossils. I bet you did not know humans were around during the dinosaur times. Oh wow it is so cool how they can not mate. GOD did that he chooses what animals mate and when to stop them. If you do not believe in God How were you made? Where you made by Santa? God created everyone in his image.

Keep on saying it, over and over and over and tell them about the Savior and the good news of His resurrection.

Can you elaborate on any of those fallacies?

I have never heard any arguments for affirming the consequent. And, any evidence that has been denied has been thoroughly proven to be false. What evidence is being denied?

Yes, you are a very unique monkey and you will make an excellent meal for a fitter monkey....that is if sodomites don't turn you into a hotdog first.

Do you understand that you are dying and that if you don't get saved you will be dead? Do you hope to go unpunished in death? Are you crazy?

Liar, liar, your pants are on fire and in your pic it looks like a big fire.

You might want to look at the Miller-Urey experiment...which I doubt you really know anything about...but here's some help for you.

Dr. Timothy Standish of the Geoscience Institute wrote to tell us:

By the way, I noticed what I think may be an error in one of your Swap Sheet Ads entitled, "EVERYONE KNOWS LIFE HAPPENS" It says, "experiments have produced just 2 of the 4 necessary proteins necessary for life." This is news to me. As far as I can tell, nothing like what we would call a real protein has been produced using a prebiotic soup type situation. In any case, life requires many more than 4 proteins. Current estimates, based on the Mycoplasma genitalium genome put the minimum genome necessary for life at about 300-400 genes each of which codes for a protein. Life, even at its most simple, is still mighty complex!

What was I thinking? Unfortunately, five years ago, I wasn’t as careful to document sources as I am today. I found a note in which an undocumented evolutionary source had claimed that in 1974, Stanley Miller was able to produce the “proteins” adenine and guanine, but failed to produce cytosine and thymine. Adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine aren’t proteins. They are the four bases in the DNA molecule. But I was so focused on the “half-empty or half-full” perspective that I didn’t even stop to think that the bases aren’t proteins. I was more interested in the idea that two of the four required building blocks could not even be produced in the laboratory under ideal (possibly impossible) “natural” conditions.

Apparently some more recent experiments may have produced all four bases.

Juan Orowin, in 1961, took some of the materials that were produced in the Miller experiments and he took hydrogen cyanide, one of these compounds produced, along with ammonia and left out the aldehyde. So he kind of organized the experiment in a certain way. He produced some amino acids but he also got some adenine, one of the nitrogen containing bases. Later experiments by him and others were actually able to produce the other nucleic acid bases.

I wrote to apologize to Dr. Standish, explaining my error, and he wrote back,

I think of the four bases, cytosine is the sticking point when it comes to generating it using Miller-Urey type conditions. The problem is that not all reports are clear on this. Any way you slice and dice the chemical evolution thing, "experiments" that have been done generating this or that chemical are generally irrelevant to the real problem, which is generation of novel genetic information. Making the bases is merely making the letters to spell out the genetic information. Jonathan Wells wrote about this very well in Icons of Evolution.

We agree that evolutionists face an insurmountable problem when it comes to the origin of genetic information, and that Jonathan Wells’ book is excellent. But there is yet another problem that Wells doesn’t address.

Automobiles are made by natural processes. By that we mean that they are made by people like Henry Ford, not wizards like Harry Potter. No magic power is employed in their construction. No laws of physics are violated. Every step of the manufacturing process is governed by natural law. But the fact that many people have built automobiles using methods available to anyone who isn’t even an apprentice wizard does not prove that automobiles can occur spontaneously in nature without any conscious intent.

When you think about it, you will realize that it is impossible for any laboratory experiment that involves active participation of goal-seeking scientists to prove that a predetermined output can occur apart from conscious effort. It is clearly illogical to say that if an intelligent scientist designs a situation that produces an object, it proves that object can be produced in the absence of an intelligent designer. Yet evolutionists seem to be saying that the reason why nobody has designed an experiment that shows how life can begin without an intelligent designer is that the designers haven’t been intelligent enough.

The only way one could prove that automobiles are naturally-occurring phenomena would be to observe them forming in nature all by themselves.

Let’s take a simpler example. One could grow icicles in a laboratory by allowing water to drip onto a piece of wood suspended above the floor in a very cold room. That would prove that icicles can form under those conditions, but it doesn’t prove that they do form naturally that way (even though they really do form naturally). The only way you can prove icicles occur naturally is to observe them appear on the twigs of trees (or in some other natural environment) without any manipulation by any conscious, living thing.

The fact that one can manufacture a few of the molecules required for life in a laboratory does not prove that those molecules naturally assemble themselves in nature. It only shows you a set of conditions under which organic molecules might naturally assemble themselves. That, in turn, tells you what natural environment would be a good place to look to see if they actually do assemble themselves.

Going back to the icicle example, the laboratory experiment tells you that icicles can form when cold water slowly accumulates on something cold that has some open space below it. So, to see if icicles form naturally, you need to look in cold places where water is present. The laboratory experiment saves you the futility of looking for icicles in the desert on a hot, dry afternoon.

The real value of Stanley Miller’s classic experiment is that it tells us where to look (and where not to look) for the spontaneous formation of living creatures. It tells us that life cannot form anywhere there is free oxygen. That would be as futile as looking for icicles in the desert on an August afternoon. It tells us that some organic molecules might form where there is a high concentration of methane and ammonia. So, scientists should be going to the county dump, examining the thousands of disposable diapers there, to see if life naturally occurs in that environment.

Louis Pasteur is justifiably famous for disproving the spontaneous generation of life. But Stanley Miller deserves even more credit for extending Pasteur’s work by showing exactly why life cannot form spontaneously. Once the theory of evolution is finally discarded by the entire scientific community, perhaps the real meaning and importance of Stanley Miller’s work will be truly appreciated.

The Miller-Urey experiment fell far short of showing life can emerge from non-life, better showing why it is impossible.

To believe life emerged from non-life is just wishful thinking on the part of people who wish to escape God's judgement against their evildoings

The Miller experiment not only shows that life cannot arise spontaneously, it shows that the reason why it can’t arise is because of the second law of thermodynamics. Miller had to build a machine, including a trap, that would organize low-energy molecules into higher-energy molecules and then isolate them before they would naturally break down. Sugars, proteins, and amino acids naturally break down. They don’t naturally form because it would violate the second law.

Even if you can get the molecules to form, you still have the problem of getting them to operate as a functional organic system. If this could be done, then doctors could get the organic molecules in any dead body to function again, bringing the patient back to life. If doctors could do that, no doubt we would have heard about it on the news.

In other words, the “prebiotic soup” theory isn’t a reasonable explanation for the origin of life because the Earth’s atmosphere never resembled the one simulated in the Miller experiment. The only way to make the experiment relevant is to postulate that such an atmosphere existed on some other planet. Life evolved there, and then hitch-hiked to Earth on a meteorite. Or, maybe there was a small area around a volcano that was similar to Miller’s conditions. Obviously, they are grasping at straws to make the experiment support the theory of evolution.

They are overlooking the obvious importance of Miller's work. Miller’s experiment helped explain why life could not have originated naturally on Earth. Evolutionists don’t want to want to admit that!

Alchemists eventually did enough experiments to convince themselves that one can’t turn lead into gold. For the past 50 years, evolutionists have been doing experiments, trying to turn chemicals into living cells. Sooner or later, the evolutionists will come to the same conclusion the alchemists did.

"In addition to the several radioactive isotopes of gold, the particle collisions presumably produced some amount of the stable isotope gold 197—the stuff of wedding bands and gold bullion—but because it does not decay the researchers were unable to confirm its presence"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-lead-can-be-turned-into- gold/

Did you not read what I argued on my behalf? The main force is God, not evolution. Evolution is, in my view, just a way for humans to pop around the earth in a more rational way, just as technology develops over time instead of suddenly popping out of nowhere. As a Christian myself, and God forgive me, is God not a belief? To us Christians, what we believe is powerful. To others, they are labeled as beliefs. And YES, evolution is a belief, but it has been theorized to be true. But that does not stop me from believing in God. I find it that you misinterpret my colloquial form of the word "belief." My beliefs are what I place my trust on, just as you believe (or had believed) that your mom will shelter you, that God will protect you, etc. So please, instead of relying on such rote Google definitions to explain what a "belief" is, think outside of the box for others that TRULY BELIEVE.

Microevolution has empirical evidence backing it, the transformation of wolves into modern domestic dogs is one example. If you have evidence that shows macroevolution, i.e. one organism turning into a completely different one, please link the website or article.

macro evolution is a belief with no evidence. Micro evolution is nothing but adaptation in which the animal remains whatever animal it is. This is all you can observe in nature, it's all that is ever observed. A fossil of a dinosaur which lived in the water near the shore is only that. Only in fairy land can you believe it turned into a bird.