Originally posted by dj2beckerHave you forgotten Muffyism 101, dj2? Let me remind you of the doctrine. Evidence for God is evidence for Muffy. This is because Muffy created God. Though God had no physical beginning, he did have a beginning in the spiritual dimension.
[b]Now can you explain why its more likely to be God rather than Muffy who created life?
God's revelation to mankind.[/b]
Remember the ancient wisdom:
The natural is evidence of the supernatural. The supernatural is evidence of the super-supernatural.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhere does this show that M-U experiment was "hailed to be a major development in Evolutionary Science?" The link is a couple of creationists rebutting the relevance of M-U. In fact, they even quote one evolutionary biologist (whether in the right context or not, I'm not sure) seemingly dismissing the importance of M-U.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2097
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe TOE has no need to eliminate "special creation" at all unless by "special creation" you mean the quaint thought that genesis 1 is a history book of events that occurred 6000 years ago.
That TOE required a further mechanism by which to eliminate special creation from the equation is self-evident. Supposedly providing such an opportunity, the self-genesis is germane (sp!) to TOE's very existence.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou keep missing the point, dj. We're not saying that we don't know what the M-U experiment was. We're asking you to show us how it was "hailed as a major development in Evolutionary Science."
Dude, are you seriously saying that you have never heard of chemical evolution and the primordial soup?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
My suspicion is that any "hailing" has been done by creationists in an attempt to increase the prestige of their screeds against M-U.
Originally posted by KellyJayStop evading the question Kelly; which part of standard christian doctorine do you reject? I see your strategy - muddy the waters a bit and everyone will forget I had you against a rock.
Why I just assumed you could read my mind and put words in my
mouth like you did last time. Are we going to allow the other person
to make their own points?
Kelly
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou use multiple convergent lines of evidence. If you make the same measurement in 6 different ways, each with its own assumptions, and you get 5 answers the same and 1 different, there is a problem with that method. You can use material of a given age, for example, to calibrate 14C dating.
You are contradicting yourself.
If the agreement between experimental results and understanding is used to determine whether a faulty premise was used in your experiment, then it means that your understanding of Chemistry is used as the absolute point of reference, since that is used to evaluate the experimental results.
Originally posted by jaywillI'll talk with you about it. What problem do you have?
Typical phony would be expert on science.
I mean to say that Evolutionists have backed off of including Origin of life as being a part of Evolution Theory.
And if you say "Origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution" or something similiar then I would include you too.
You may want to talk about origin of life. But I suspect you want to keep the theory of Evolution isolated from that problem.
You would do well to stop calling people names. My "typical lying creationist" was in response to one of your slurs. You think you'll get into your imaginary heaven that way? You call me a "phony expert on science"? Well, I have a PhD in Biology - what do you have?
Originally posted by KellyJaySo what you are, in effect, saying here is that what I think the words "yes" and "no" mean, you can change their definitions at any time to suit yourself?
You can read what I believe from me or ask specific questions, what
is standard Christian doctrine in your mind may not be in mine. At
lease give me the benifit of stating my beliefs and I'll give you a
chance to state yours.
I can say yes to your questions and statements, but still not mean the
same thing when I say it as you do, when you say it.
Kelly
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnother disingenious, incorrect statement from Freaky. All that the Theory of Evolution requires is life (or at least replicating, hereditary molecules); it does not require (although may explain) to know where life came from.
The Miller-Urey primordial experiment is germane to TOE. Otherwise, the whole thing (despite other internal flaws) is one big dangling participle.
Originally posted by NosracNice C&P. Shame you have to "redo" so much of God's apparent handiwork for your story to even come close to the scientific evidence.
Okay, Scott, try this on for size:
I. "AND GOD SAID, "LET THERE BE LIGHT."
A. In verse one we read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I understand that to mean our universe.
B. In verse 2 we read that the earth was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep.
1. Out here in the corner of the Milky Way Galaxy ...[text shortened]... ship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.