Could Stu be right ?

[jem]

Actually this thread proves Stu was wrong and lying.
Stu's misrepresentation was such an embarrassment even his sock puppets changed their names to things like fraudcurrents.

When arguing about evolution and science Stu said:
"There is plenty of science showing life from non life."

Nobody here will be surprised if someday science shows life evolved from non life.
That would be expected with the thesis of directed evolution. Some top scientists in the field have speculated the drive to life was programmed into the "building blocks" of life.

 

[futurecurrents]

Actually this thread proves Stu was wrong and lying.
Stu's misrepresentation was such an embarrassment even his sock puppets changed their names to things like fraudcurrents.

When arguing about evolution and science Stu said:
"There is plenty of science showing life from non life."

Nobody here will be surprised if someday science shows life evolved from non life.
That would be expected with the thesis of directed evolution. Some top scientists in the field have speculated the drive to life was programmed into the "building blocks" of life.

But they were not programmed. That would assume a programmer. Stu is not lying but you are grasping at straws and misreading what science is saying. As usual.

And I'm changing my name? Your really going off the deep end now aren't you? Please see your psychiatrist about your meds.

 

[jem]

this is not opinion... this is simple fact and I provided the quote.
using the search function anyone can see that Stu lied about the science.

had his point been that someday science will find life evolved from non life... no one would have been arguing with him.

But they were not programmed. That would assume a programmer. Stu is not lying but you are grasping at straws and misreading what science is saying. As usual.

And I'm changing my name? Your really going off the deep end now aren't you? Please see your psychiatrist about your meds.

 

[Wallet]

But they were not programmed. That would assume a programmer. .

That's right, "DON'T LET THAT DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR". We know the is no God therefore any proof pointing towards or suggesting fine tuning or intelligent design must be wrong.

Open your friggin' eyes, this is no accident or random outcome.

 

[futurecurrents]

That's right, "DON'T LET THAT DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR". We know the is no God therefore any proof pointing towards or suggesting fine tuning or intelligent design must be wrong.

Open your friggin' eyes, this is no accident or random outcome.

Yes it is.

 

[futurecurrents]

this is not opinion... this is simple fact and I provided the quote.
using the search function anyone can see that Stu lied about the science.

had his point been that someday science will find life evolved from non life... no one would have been arguing with him.

No he did not. I have read everything he has said. He makes sense. You make nonsense.

 

[Trader666]

I have read everything he [stu] has said. He makes sense.

He makes sense only if you're stunningly STUpid like him.

A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2951231#post2951231

It [the Christian God] expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God.
The Christian God would have to be an atheist anyway
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3233482&#post3233482

You can't reason something out of existence that cannot be reasoned in.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3277977#post3277977

Are or appear. Which one. It can't be both. The Earth IS flat or it Appears flat. Which is it, do you even understand that much?
http://www.elitetrader.com/vB/showthread.php?p=3975043#post3975043

 

[stu]

Actually this thread proves Stu was wrong and lying.

You're lying again.

Stu's misrepresentation was such an embarrassment even his sock puppets changed their names to things like fraudcurrents.

You've been caught twice using a sockpuppet. That's you using a sockpuppet ..not me
Last time being thick headed enough, you forget to even change your name . Lol!. In any case, there is no handle "fraudcurrents."

When arguing about evolution and science Stu said:

"There is plenty of science showing life from non life."

You're lying again. Those are not the words I used . You've been caught lying that way before.

Nobody here will be surprised if someday science shows life evolved from non life.[/QUOTE]

Science already does show how that could occur. Which is what I said.

That would be expected with the thesis of directed evolution. Some top scientists in the field have speculated the drive to life was programmed into the "building blocks" of life.

That's a theological thesis, not a scientific one.

 

[stu]

That's right, "DON'T LET THAT DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR". We know the is no God therefore any proof pointing towards or suggesting fine tuning or intelligent design must be wrong.

Open your friggin' eyes, this is no accident or random outcome.

When you do open your eyes, there are really only the inevitable consequences of natural events pointing towards any sort of a sensible explanation.

 

[Wallet]

When you do open your eyes, there are really only the inevitable consequences of natural events pointing towards any sort of a sensible explanation.

My eyes are open, and it's plainly seen.... the odds of your so-called natural events aligning themselves to make matter out of absolute nothingness let alone life as we know it, make it totally impossible. Actually "impossible" doesn't accurately convey the true essence in this sense .....

ergo, seeing as it could not have happened by random chance the only possible and simplest explanation is - it was designed and created.