Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Proof For God. Abiogenesis and Evolution are Bullshit. Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Infinite Inferno[/m] at 9:22 pm on Oct. 19, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]Irreducible Complexi[/m] at 9:16 pm on Oct. 19, 2008[quote]Look at a DNA molecule. There's no way any self-replicating molecule of that type of complexity could just "come together". If you let a set a wrist watch parts sit there idly, it isn't just going to assemble itself, no matter how long you wait for it. This pretty much throws abiogenesis in the garbage.   Now for evolution. Darwin stated that if there was at all some form of irreducible complexity in a structure, then clearly it was designed. There are plenty of examples for that in the Universe. How could all this matter have come from without creation/creator?   This isn't about religion. This isn't about knowing which religion is correct or some bullshit. This is about knowing whether a creator exists for sure, and He does. [b]GOD EXISTS[/b][/quote] LMAO. Have you studied anything in cell biology? DNA replication is a very complex process, things don't just slide in place. There's chemical reactions, countless proteins, etc... .   DNA is meant to be a self-replicating molecule, a wrist watch isn't.   Big Bang Theory?   "This isn't about religion. This isn't about knowing which religion is correct or some bullshit. This is about knowing whether a creator exists for sure, and He does." Wait, this seems to go against itself. You say this isn't about religion (and I'm also assuming beliefs), yet you end with a statement involving this. Have you heard of the Miller experiment? Showing how more complex molecules can come from simpler molecules such as CO2, H20, etc... with heat and light? "Now for evolution. Darwin stated that if there was at all some form of irreducible complexity in a structure, then clearly it was designed. There are plenty of examples for that in the Universe. How could all this matter have come from without creation/creator?  " Learn what evolution is. Evolution is not meant to explain the matter in the universe, it's meant to explain changes in life of an organism (on Earth). Natural selection, changes in allele frequencies, none of this has anything to do with matter in the universe. Read up on some basic cell and molecular biology and evolution. [/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Irreducible Complexi Posted at 9:16 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 Look at a DNA molecule. There's no way any self-replicating molecule of that type of complexity could just "come together". If you let a set a wrist watch parts sit there idly, it isn't just going to assemble itself, no matter how long you wait for it. This pretty much throws abiogenesis in the garbage. Now for evolution. Darwin stated that if there was at all some form of irreducible complexity in a structure, then clearly it was designed. There are plenty of examples for that in the Universe. How could all this matter have come from without creation/creator? This isn't about religion. This isn't about knowing which religion is correct or some bullshit. This is about knowing whether a creator exists for sure, and He does. GOD EXISTS

Replies draakprinses Posted at 7:18 pm on Oct. 20, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 11:18 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 2:02 am on Oct. 20, 2008 oh that guy?    Oh shit. This entire thread is a joke then. i remember my best joke thread evolution isjust a theory Ohhh I love it when people say "evolution is JUST a theory". They look so confused when I laugh in their faces. BleedingSteelWings Posted at 9:42 am on Oct. 20, 2008 yeah, so I'll point you to a vid so that the answer to this statement can be determined. Although it is possible that it didn't happen, there's just too much proof around you today to say it didn't. Look at yourself, your cells. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg I hate to give evidence twice, but I usually have to do it. iconoclast Posted at 8:26 am on Oct. 20, 2008 and also pretty much makes himself blatantly obvious TheOtherHorseman Posted at 4:13 am on Oct. 20, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 2:19 am on Oct. 20, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 2:18 am on Oct. 20, 2008 What was the rational for banning AC? i guess the fact that hes been banned literally thousands of times AC does enough on a regular basis that "ban momentum" never has to be a reason. iconoclast Posted at 11:19 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 2:18 am on Oct. 20, 2008 What was the rational for banning AC? i guess the fact that hes been banned literally thousands of times obvious child Posted at 11:18 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 What was the rational for banning AC? iconoclast Posted at 11:18 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 2:02 am on Oct. 20, 2008 oh that guy? Oh shit. This entire thread is a joke then. i remember my best joke thread evolution isjust a theory Takinam Posted at 11:06 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 This doesn't solve anything. You have proposed nothing except rampant belief that something complicated was made by something more complicated. And that complicated something is too complicated for us to possible understand how it created the complicated something that we now take t be DNA. In effect, you've achieved nothing and haven't budged evolution from its secular throne. Darwin spent a good part of his life working through his journals, and we can attest to just how exactly some of his methods work. What can attest to make your methods work? How can we sure anything exists in a world where, logically, it is so easy to just nothing does exist? obvious child Posted at 11:02 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 oh that guy? Oh shit. This entire thread is a joke then. iconoclast Posted at 10:54 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 1:52 am on Oct. 20, 2008 Sorry. I tend not to remember certain people. who the hell doesnt remember anti christ obvious child Posted at 10:52 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 Sorry. I tend not to remember certain people. iconoclast Posted at 10:48 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 1:46 am on Oct. 20, 2008 Who's AC?  ha ha you made a funny obvious child Posted at 10:46 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 Who's AC? iconoclast Posted at 10:36 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 1:21 am on Oct. 20, 2008 1) Darwin did not discuss irreducible complexity 2) The primary backer of irreducible complexity, Michael Behe accepts evolution 3) Sequential tests ignore reality 4) God, Abiogenesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive dude its just ac obvious child Posted at 10:21 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 1) Darwin did not discuss irreducible complexity 2) The primary backer of irreducible complexity, Michael Behe accepts evolution 3) Sequential tests ignore reality 4) God, Abiogenesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive Most recent 15 of 66 previous replies displayed.