Super Bio-nano complexity Within a Cell Points to Creation

[Andrew]

Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
intelligence of an awesome Creator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM

[Virgil]

In article <OtGdncw9Zrzx28vM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
> intelligence of an awesome Creator.

Only in the minds of those who want to be slaves!
--

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <OtGdncw9Zrzx28vM...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
> intelligence of an awesome Creator.

Of course it doesn't.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Olrik]

Le 2013-03-29 21:59, Andrew a �crit :

> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
> intelligence of an awesome Creator.

Nope. Try again.

Next time, make sure to have evidence of said �awesome Creator�.

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:09:32 -0400, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Le 2013-03-29 21:59, Andrew a �crit :
>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>
>Nope. Try again.
>
>Next time, make sure to have evidence of said �awesome Creator�.

These borderline retards don't realise just how much they take it for
granted, and see everything as evidence for it.

[Syd M.]

Still wrong.

PDW

[Ralph]

I see you haven't read your bible lately. I wouldn't call the god of
the Old Testament an 'awesome creator'. One
look at his creation will actually show his many flaws.

[Andrew]

"August Rode" wrote in message news:0a491427-aa5d-4dcf...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>

> Simplicity is more likely to be an indicator of intelligence than
> complexity is, Andrew.
>
> Look at it this way: if you give one pile of materials to a
> professional home builder and an identical pile to a complete novice
> and you describe for both of them the kind of house you want them to
> build, which of them is going to build the more complex house?
>
> The professional is going to know how to get the most from the
> materials. He won't run excess wiring or plumbing or heating ducts. He
> doesn't need to guess how a wall or a window or a door ought to be
> framed. Of the two, the professional will build the simpler house.

Thanks, you prove my point!

Super efficient, bio-nano complexity within a cell

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:SZGdneb-ns4qgsrM...@giganews.com...

> On 3/29/2013 9:59 PM, Andrew wrote:
>
>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
>>
> I see you haven't read your bible lately. I wouldn't call
> the god of the Old Testament an 'awesome creator'.

So you think that the Creator of the super efficient, bio
nano complexity that we find within the cell happens to
be the God of the OT?

OK.

> One look at his creation will actually show his many
> flaws.

His reply to you..

"O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,
"Why hast thou made me thus?"




Romans 9:20

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-3E2FD4...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
>> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>
> Of course it doesn't.

In order to honestly say that, you would need
to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
scenario.

Review the evidence here before doing so.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQOQ8vJftn4

[Enkidu]

Sciency-sounding word salad points to an idiot.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
- Susan B. Anthony

[Father Haskell]

On Mar 29, 9:59 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

Then who created the creator?

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:OtGdncw9Zrzx28vM...@earthlink.com:

> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
> intelligence of an awesome Creator.

Andrew, you're not going to convince atheists to convert using fallacious
arguments. (Argument from ignorance, arguemnt from personal incredulity.)
Life has been evolving for a billion years or more. Given that much time,
of course it's going to be complex.

Evidence of this creatorgod would be a start, though. Got any?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:52:39 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew preaches a self-deluding god.

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:HeCdnWlbDKR0pcrM...@earthlink.com:

> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-3E2FD4...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu..
> .
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
>>> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>
>> Of course it doesn't.
>
> In order to honestly say that, you would need
> to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
> scenario.

We don't know what caused life to emerge on this planet. That is the
truth. Why are you in such a hurry to make up answers?

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:g4ednRiCx73hrMrM...@earthlink.com:

> "August Rode" wrote in message
> news:0a491427-aa5d-4dcf...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>>> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>
>> Simplicity is more likely to be an indicator of intelligence than
>> complexity is, Andrew.
>>
>> Look at it this way: if you give one pile of materials to a
>> professional home builder and an identical pile to a complete novice
>> and you describe for both of them the kind of house you want them to
>> build, which of them is going to build the more complex house?
>>
>> The professional is going to know how to get the most from the
>> materials. He won't run excess wiring or plumbing or heating ducts.
>> He doesn't need to guess how a wall or a window or a door ought to be
>> framed. Of the two, the professional will build the simpler house.
>
> Thanks, you prove my point!
>

"God" would be a professional creator, as opposed to a novice, right? In
your OP you said complexity points to an awesome creator. Now you say the
opposite proves your point.

Which means anything proves your point, which is the attitude of a sandbox
bully for jesus, not someone who has a valid point to make.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:55:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:52:39 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>"Ralph" wrote in message news:SZGdneb-ns4qgsrM...@giganews.com...
>>> On 3/29/2013 9:59 PM, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>>>> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
>>>>
>>> I see you haven't read your bible lately. I wouldn't call
>>> the god of the Old Testament an 'awesome creator'.
>>
>>So you think that the Creator of the super efficient, bio
>>nano complexity that we find within the cell happens to
>>be the God of the OT?
>>
>>OK.

Why didn't the moron show this?

>>> One look at his creation will actually show his many
>>> flaws.
>>
>>His reply to you..

Lie noted.

>>"O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
>> Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,
>> "Why hast thou made me thus?"

Sometimes the only response to something so far beyond stupidity, is
"what a fucking moron".

>>Romans 9:20
>
>Andrew preaches a self-deluding god.

Andrew is self-deluded and seriously mentally ill.

It takes mind-boggling stupidity to cite what he knows is merely
somebody else's religion, as if it had any authority.

[August Rode]

On Mar 30, 2:42 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "August Rode" wrote in messagenews:0a491427-aa5d-4dcf...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
> >> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>
> > Simplicity is more likely to be an indicator of intelligence than
> > complexity is, Andrew.
>
> > Look at it this way: if you give one pile of materials to a
> > professional home builder and an identical pile to a complete novice
> > and you describe for both of them the kind of house you want them to
> > build, which of them is going to build the more complex house?
>
> > The professional is going to know how to get the most from the
> > materials. He won't run excess wiring or plumbing or heating ducts. He
> > doesn't need to guess how a wall or a window or a door ought to be
> > framed. Of the two, the professional will build the simpler house.
>
> Thanks, you prove  my point!

Do I? So, you're saying that God is a complete amateur? That It built
complexity because it didn't know how to build simplicity? I didn't
know that you accept that God doesn't know what he's doing. Good to
know.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:55:33 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
>news:HeCdnWlbDKR0pcrM...@earthlink.com:
>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
>> news:hlwdjsd2-3E2FD4...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu..
>> .
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
>>>> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>>
>>> Of course it doesn't.
>>
>> In order to honestly say that, you would need
>> to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
>> scenario.
>
>We don't know what caused life to emerge on this planet. That is the
>truth. Why are you in such a hurry to make up answers?

However simple cells have been formed using the very natural processes
Andrew lies don't happen, in the lab - decades ago.

Whether it actually happened that way or not, is immaterial - it shows
that the supernatural isn't required.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:13:24 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
<chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew is merely an irrational extension of most of the posters here.
They don't really care what their supposed founding prophet said, they
just care how they can twist those words to their own use.

[Devils Advocaat]

Given how complex the human brain is, and yet by comparison how simple
our creations are, what does that say to you about your god, presuming
your god exists?

[Ralph]

On 3/30/2013 2:52 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Ralph" wrote in message news:SZGdneb-ns4qgsrM...@giganews.com...
>> On 3/29/2013 9:59 PM, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>>> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
>>>
>> I see you haven't read your bible lately. I wouldn't call
>> the god of the Old Testament an 'awesome creator'.
> So you think that the Creator of the super efficient, bio
> nano complexity that we find within the cell happens to
> be the God of the OT?
>
> OK.

Damn boy, you really do have a really bad reading comprehension problem.
I would imagine that
comes from all of the creationist bullshit that is locked in your brain.

>> One look at his creation will actually show his many
>> flaws.
> His reply to you..
>
> "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
> Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,
> "Why hast thou made me thus?"
>
>
>
>
> Romans 9:20
>

That's the problem Andrew, he never replied to me or anyone else who
challenged him. You really need
to get a better god.

[Andrew]

"Uncle Vic" wrote in message news:XnsA1938DA8C50...@216.196.121.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
>> .
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
>>>> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>>
>>> Of course it doesn't.
>>
>> In order to honestly say that, you would need
>> to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
>> scenario.
>
> We don't know what caused life to emerge on this planet.

Life was created.

> That is the truth.

Yes, I know.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:22:56 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

So you allege, but you refuse to offer any evidence to support your
claim. Why is that?

>> That is the truth.
>
>Yes, I know.

You know that you are not preaching anything that is true.

[Andrew]

"Father Haskell" wrote in message news:9c164307-326f-4d39...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

"Andrew" wrote:
>
> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM

-
- Then who created the creator?

Atheists often ask this question after they have
seen positive evidence that points to a Creator.

[Andrew]

"August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8c90ad0e-349c-4341...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 30, 2:42 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "August Rode" wrote in messagenews:0a491427-aa5d-4dcf...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>> >> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>
>> > Simplicity is more likely to be an indicator of intelligence than
>> > complexity is, Andrew.
>>
>> > Look at it this way: if you give one pile of materials to a
>> > professional home builder and an identical pile to a complete novice
>> > and you describe for both of them the kind of house you want them to
>> > build, which of them is going to build the more complex house?
>>
>> > The professional is going to know how to get the most from the
>> > materials. He won't run excess wiring or plumbing or heating ducts. He
>> > doesn't need to guess how a wall or a window or a door ought to be
>> > framed. Of the two, the professional will build the simpler house.
>>
>> Thanks, you prove my point!
>
> Do I? So, you're saying that God is a complete amateur?

No, rather He is the professional.

You may at times see in the Creation that which appears to be
redundancy to you, nevertheless it has been working just fine
according to His purposes until now.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <HeCdnWlbDKR0pcrM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-3E2FD4...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >
> >> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
> >> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
> >
> > Of course it doesn't.
>
> In order to honestly say that, you would need
> to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
> scenario.

I don't have to do any such thing.

You made a claim; it's up to you to back it up with evidence. I have
absolutely no obligation to do anything other than laugh at you when you
can't.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <CMWdnboDSe5BrsrM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Ralph" wrote in message news:SZGdneb-ns4qgsrM...@giganews.com...
> > On 3/29/2013 9:59 PM, Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
> >> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
> >>
> > I see you haven't read your bible lately. I wouldn't call
> > the god of the Old Testament an 'awesome creator'.
>
> So you think that the Creator of the super efficient, bio
> nano complexity that we find within the cell

Super-efficient!!!!

Seriously?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <g4ednRiCx73hrMrM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "August Rode" wrote in message
> news:0a491427-aa5d-4dcf...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
> >> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
> >
> > Simplicity is more likely to be an indicator of intelligence than
> > complexity is, Andrew.
> >
> > Look at it this way: if you give one pile of materials to a
> > professional home builder and an identical pile to a complete novice
> > and you describe for both of them the kind of house you want them to
> > build, which of them is going to build the more complex house?
> >
> > The professional is going to know how to get the most from the
> > materials. He won't run excess wiring or plumbing or heating ducts. He
> > doesn't need to guess how a wall or a window or a door ought to be
> > framed. Of the two, the professional will build the simpler house.
>
> Thanks, you prove my point!

You claim that complexity proves your god is a creator and now you're
saying evidence that creators create simplicity supports your position.

Is your mind truly this twisted? Or are you just a stupid liar?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:w7SdnU140amRfcrM...@earthlink.com:

Evasion noted.

It is a good question, why don't you
ever answer it?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:C_ednZOzo6a0fcrM...@earthlink.com:

If He is such a professional why was his
creation so flawed that he had to destroy it
all in worldwide flood and start over?

[Devils Advocaat]

On 31 Mar, 08:07, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Father Haskell" wrote in messagenews:9c164307-326f-4d39...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

You've never presented positive evidence for any creator.

And if all things must have a creator, then your creator must have
been created.

You'll never be able to have your cake and eat it.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:42:35 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>In article <CMWdnboDSe5BrsrM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Ralph" wrote in message news:SZGdneb-ns4qgsrM...@giganews.com...
>> > On 3/29/2013 9:59 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> >
>> >> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>> >> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
>> >>
>> > I see you haven't read your bible lately. I wouldn't call
>> > the god of the Old Testament an 'awesome creator'.
>>
>> So you think that the Creator of the super efficient, bio
>> nano complexity that we find within the cell
>
>
>Super-efficient!!!!
>
>Seriously?

People who refuse to learn any science as a matter of religious dogma
have no idea what is going on in life, the universe, or anything.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:07:20 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

They normally ask the question when the theist makes an assertion and
refuses to explain why there must be a creator but that it was sui
generis.

[linuxgal]

Free Lunch wrote:
> People who refuse to learn any science as a matter of religious dogma
> have no idea what is going on in life, the universe, or anything.

They probably think 6 x 9 = 42

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[linuxgal]

Andrew wrote:
> "Father Haskell" wrote in messagenews:9c164307-326f-4d39...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

We're way behind a Creator, now we're asking for the identity of the
Creator's creator.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA1944C4FB3132...@216.196.121.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "August Rode" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:

>>>> "August Rode" wrote:
>>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> >> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>>>> >> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>>>
>>>> > Simplicity is more likely to be an indicator of intelligence than
>>>> > complexity is, Andrew.
>>>>
>>>> > Look at it this way: if you give one pile of materials to a
>>>> > professional home builder and an identical pile to a complete
>>>> > novice and you describe for both of them the kind of house you
>>>> > want them to build, which of them is going to build the more
>>>> > complex house?
>>>>
>>>> > The professional is going to know how to get the most from the
>>>> > materials. He won't run excess wiring or plumbing or heating
>>>> > ducts. He doesn't need to guess how a wall or a window or a door
>>>> > ought to be framed. Of the two, the professional will build the
>>>> > simpler house.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, you prove my point!
>>>
>>> Do I? So, you're saying that God is a complete amateur?
>>
>> No, rather He is the professional.
>
> If He is such a professional why was his
> creation so flawed that he had to destroy it
> all in worldwide flood and start over?

"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was
filled with violence. And God saw that the earth was corrupt;
for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great
in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their
hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that
he had made humankind on the earth, So the Lord said, 'I will
blot out from the earth the human beings I have created-people
together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air,
for I am sorry that I have made them.'' Genesis 6

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:ObWdnTSOUYH7AMrM...@earthlink.com:

Your unbacked assertion.

>
>> That is the truth.
>
> Yes, I know.
>
>
>

Oh looky, a Christian word-twister! This is what they do when they're not
out spreading lies, or screaming at the sky.

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:w7SdnU140amRfcrM...@earthlink.com:

Yet another disgusting christer lie. What positive evidence, fool? Never
mind, I've seen your "evidence" - just more disgusting christer lies.

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:C_ednZOzo6a0fcrM...@earthlink.com:

>>> Thanks, you prove my point!
>>
>> Do I? So, you're saying that God is a complete amateur?
>
> No, rather He is the professional.
>
> You may at times see in the Creation that which appears to be
> redundancy to you, nevertheless it has been working just fine
> according to His purposes until now.

How does it feel to be commanded not to bear false witness by a book that
is itself a false witness?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:25:27 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

So Genesis clearly states that the creator was incompetent.

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:1N-dnR0ombpLycXM...@earthlink.com:

>>>>> Thanks, you prove my point!
>>>>
>>>> Do I? So, you're saying that God is a complete amateur?
>>>
>>> No, rather He is the professional.
>>
>> If He is such a professional why was his
>> creation so flawed that he had to destroy it
>> all in worldwide flood and start over?
>
> "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was
> filled with violence. And God saw that the earth was corrupt;
> for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth.
>
> The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great
> in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their
> hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that
> he had made humankind on the earth, So the Lord said, 'I will
> blot out from the earth the human beings I have created-people
> together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air,
> for I am sorry that I have made them.'' Genesis 6
>
>
>

Andrew couldn't think of a fresh lie, so he calls on the book-o-lies to
back the first lie.

[Gordon]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:59:36 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>

wrote:

>
>Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
>
And, that awesome Creator also set up all the laws of nature, then
used these laws to accomplish His goals. That is to say, God used his
natural laws of evolution to "evolve" all the creatures he created
from raw minerals, etc.

The thing that may confuse some is that God also has control over the
time associated with these evolutionary processes and they may not fit
into a time frame of random chance creation/evolution. It all fits
together very well if one will review it with an open mind...creation
of life by controlled evolution.

We humans are able to "control" evolution to a limited extent as shown
in our domestic animal breeds and varieties. But, we have not yet
learned how to produce new species. God has perfect control over His
process of evolution. We have only a miniscule level of control, but
that is enough to show that evolution CAN be controlled by an
intelligent controller. Gordon

[linuxgal]

Gordon wrote:
> We humans are able to "control" evolution to a limited extent as shown
> in our domestic animal breeds and varieties. But, we have not yet
> learned how to produce new species. God has perfect control over His
> process of evolution. We have only a miniscule level of control, but
> that is enough to show that evolution CAN be controlled by an
> intelligent controller.

There is a flaw at the heart of your claim. We don't see evidence that
any natural law ever changed. So there's no control. The best God can
hope for is that he accounts for every possible eventuality from the
very beginning when he sets up the laws. But our observation of the
lowest level of reality shows us that there is randomness built right
into the system. In other words, chaos is one of the laws.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:1N-dnR0ombpLycXM...@earthlink.com:

God admits his creation is flawed,
thus that he made a mistake, thus that
he is imperfect. Why do you worship an
imperfect god?

> So the Lord said, 'I will
> blot out from the earth the human beings I have created-people
> together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air,
> for I am sorry that I have made them.'' Genesis 6
>
>

Why not just snap his fingers and cause
just the evil people to die? Why kill all
the plants and animals that had done nothing
wrong?

Doesn't that seem like.........overkill?

[Andrew]

"linuxgal" wrote in message news:VeqdnbI54pjl-MXM...@giganews.com...

> Gordon wrote:
>> We humans are able to "control" evolution to a limited extent as shown
>> in our domestic animal breeds and varieties. But, we have not yet
>> learned how to produce new species. God has perfect control over His
>> process of evolution. We have only a miniscule level of control, but
>> that is enough to show that evolution CAN be controlled by an
>> intelligent controller.
>
> There is a flaw at the heart of your claim. We don't see evidence
> that any natural law ever changed. So there's no control. The best
> God can hope for is that he accounts for every possible eventuality
> from the very beginning when he sets up the laws.
>
> But our observation of the lowest level of reality shows us that
> there is randomness built right into the system.

A randomness "built into the system" by our Creator producing
a beauty that He ordained "from the very beginning" (as you say).

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA194933F0E537...@216.196.121.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote;

No, WE are the one's who messed up - not Him.
He created us with the power of free choice.

Otherwise there would be no alt.atheism, and we
would all be robots. Is that what you would want?

>> So the Lord said, 'I will
>> blot out from the earth the human beings I have created-people
>> together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air,
>> for I am sorry that I have made them.'' Genesis 6
>>
>>
> Why not just snap his fingers and cause
> just the evil people to die? Why kill all
> the plants and animals that had done nothing
> wrong?

Apparently they practiced gross abominations
such as having sex with the animals and other
types of wickedness, for which also He warned
that the earth would again be destroyed, yet this
time not by water.

[Andrew]

"linuxgal" wrote in message news:U5Kdnc1TOJ5KzsXM...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Father Haskell" wrote: "Andrew" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>>> >intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>> >
>>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
>> -
>> - Then who created the creator?
>>
>> Atheists often ask this question after they have
>> seen positive evidence that points to a Creator.
>
> We're way behind a Creator, now we're asking for the identity of the Creator's creator.

"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God:
but those things which are revealed belong unto us
and to our children for ever."

Deuteronomy 29:29

[Gordon]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 14:30:29 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<nomailverizon.net> wrote:

>"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
>news:1N-dnR0ombpLycXM...@earthlink.com:
>
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>> news:XnsA1944C4FB3132...@216.196.121.131...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
"August Rode" wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> If He is such a professional why was his
>>> creation so flawed that he had to destroy it
>>> all in worldwide flood and start over?
>>
>> "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was
>> filled with violence. And God saw that the earth was corrupt;
>> for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth.
>>
>> The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great
>> in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their
>> hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that
>> he had made humankind on the earth,
>
>
> God admits his creation is flawed,
>thus that he made a mistake, thus that
>he is imperfect. Why do you worship an
>imperfect god?
>

Had God omitted anything, even that which is bad, His creation would
not have been complete, therefore not perfect. God intentionally
created all of everything, including sin, and is now in the process of
separating all that is good from all that is not good. My thinking on
this is that the two will be eternally separated by something like a
cosmic portal that can never be breached by anyone.

>
>> So the Lord said, 'I will
>> blot out from the earth the human beings I have created-people
>> together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air,
>> for I am sorry that I have made them.'' Genesis 6
>>
>>
>
> Why not just snap his fingers and cause
>just the evil people to die? Why kill all
>the plants and animals that had done nothing
>wrong?
>

From our temporal perspective or from God's temporal perspective? From
God's temporal perspective He did accomplish all this, instantly but
from our perspective it is taking a very long time. The reason God set
it up this way was to give us all a very in-depth learning by
involvement with sin, with the end result being that NONE of us will
EVER want to go back and explore it any further, once we've been
granted immortality and absolute sovereignty. The Word of God refers
to us as "Children of God" many times. This indicates that we are
expected to mature as children mature to the level of their parents.
We will mature to God's own level and can then interact with him just
as adult children interact with their parents.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:s-mdnYupvefOCMXM...@earthlink.com:

So your god could not see into the
future and know that free choice meant
people choosing disobedience?

> Otherwise there would be no alt.atheism, and we
> would all be robots. Is that what you would want?
>

You mean robots, as in the mindless
sheep that Adam and Eve were before they
gained knowledge?

>>> So the Lord said, 'I will
>>> blot out from the earth the human beings I have created-people
>>> together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air,
>>> for I am sorry that I have made them.'' Genesis 6
>>>
>>>
>> Why not just snap his fingers and cause
>> just the evil people to die? Why kill all
>> the plants and animals that had done nothing
>> wrong?
>
> Apparently they practiced gross abominations
> such as having sex with the animals and other
> types of wickedness, for which also He warned
> that the earth would again be destroyed, yet this
> time not by water.

What sin did the all the animals on
Earth commit that warranted their deaths?

[Mitchell Holman]

Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote in
news:j3bhl8th7cfneh3bt...@4ax.com:

So god creates sin, then he creates the desire
for sin, then he creates the punishment for yeilding
to that desire. Kinda like ordering a thirsty dog
not to drink from the water you put in front of him
and then punishing him when he does.

>>
>>> So the Lord said, 'I will
>>> blot out from the earth the human beings I have created-people
>>> together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air,
>>> for I am sorry that I have made them.'' Genesis 6
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why not just snap his fingers and cause
>>just the evil people to die? Why kill all
>>the plants and animals that had done nothing
>>wrong?
>>
> From our temporal perspective or from God's temporal perspective? From
> God's temporal perspective He did accomplish all this, instantly but
> from our perspective it is taking a very long time. The reason God set
> it up this way was to give us all a very in-depth learning by
> involvement with sin, with the end result being that NONE of us will
> EVER want to go back and explore it any further, once we've been
> granted immortality and absolute sovereignty. The Word of God refers
> to us as "Children of God" many times.

Isn't there a word for a father who kills
his children?

[Jason Parker]

Virgil wrote:
> In article <OtGdncw9Zrzx28vMnZ2dnUVZ_tOdn...@earthlink.com>,

>
>  "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
> > intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>

> Only in the minds of those who want to be slaves!
> --

Well, it's all about intelligent design.

The concept that freely accepts on principal that space aliens created
us all and the organisms, or it was a God?

It's not as if the God of Abraham had a smack down cage match with
Zeus, The Creator Gitche Manitou or the Scientology Galactic Overlord
Xenu and won the UFC Heavy Weight Belt or anything. Zeus and Manitou
preceded the God of Abraham, while Xenu was invented by L. Ron Hubbard
in the 1950s and has many followers. And who can argue with a
populist faith that has many followers?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:00:49 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Once again, Andrew blames the victim.

>Otherwise there would be no alt.atheism, and we
>would all be robots. Is that what you would want?

There is no evidence that Andrew's god exists, but that doesn't stop
Andrew from telling lies to defend the god that he cannot support with
evidence.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:45:59 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

So you preach that god created evil. Heretical but less absurd than
Christian attempts to justify their teachings.

[Andrew]

"Dakota" wrote in message news:kj7aqj$vmh$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 3/30/2013 10:15 AM, August Rode wrote:

>> On Mar 29, 9:59 pm, "Andrew" wrote:
>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>>> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>
>> Simplicity is more likely to be an indicator of intelligence than
>> complexity is, Andrew.
>>
>> Look at it this way: if you give one pile of materials to a
>> professional home builder and an identical pile to a complete novice
>> and you describe for both of them the kind of house you want them to
>> build, which of them is going to build the more complex house?
>>
>> The professional is going to know how to get the most from the
>> materials. He won't run excess wiring or plumbing or heating ducts. He
>> doesn't need to guess how a wall or a window or a door ought to be
>> framed. Of the two, the professional will build the simpler house.
>>

> So far that's the best way I've seen of explaining why
> the 'argument from complexity' fails. Well done.

It is actually a foolish argument having no relation to the
bio-nano complexity that is known to molecular biologists.
Unless you say that, creation exhibits simplicity - to those
who perceive it therein, which is understandable.

Just as those also who may see simplicity in a modern home
loaded with high tech add-ons, yet who don't understand the
complexity and planning required for it's full construction.

Nevertheless the fact remains that, the super bio complexity
within a living cell points to the intelligence and power of

an awesome Creator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQOQ8vJftn4

[Mitchell Holman]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:a8rhl8hslqd2qc1bc...@4ax.com:

To paraphrase an old aviation adage:

If man screws up, man dies.

If God screws up, man dies.

[Ken]

On Mar 31, 7:18 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> Nevertheless the fact remains that................

No one cares what a deluded fool like you imagines are "facts

[Andrew]

"August Rode" wrote in message news:5158f71f$0$19518$862e...@ngroups.net...
> And lo, on Mar 31, 2013 did Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:

>> "Dakota" wrote in message news:kj7aqj$vmh$1...@dont-email.me...
>> > On 3/30/2013 10:15 AM, August Rode wrote:
>> >> On Mar 29, 9:59 pm, "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>> >>> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>> >>
>> >> Simplicity is more likely to be an indicator of intelligence than
>> >> complexity is, Andrew.
>> >>
>> >> Look at it this way: if you give one pile of materials to a
>> >> professional home builder and an identical pile to a complete novice
>> >> and you describe for both of them the kind of house you want them to
>> >> build, which of them is going to build the more complex house?
>> >>
>> >> The professional is going to know how to get the most from the
>> >> materials. He won't run excess wiring or plumbing or heating ducts. He
>> >> doesn't need to guess how a wall or a window or a door ought to be
>> >> framed. Of the two, the professional will build the simpler house.
>> >>
>> > So far that's the best way I've seen of explaining why
>> > the 'argument from complexity' fails. Well done.
>>
>> It is actually a foolish argument having no relation to the
>> bio-nano complexity that is known to molecular biologists.
>

> It isn't an argument, Andrew. It's an analogy.

>
>> Unless you say that, creation exhibits simplicity - to those
>> who perceive it therein, which is understandable.
>

> Sorry, I couldn't make out what you were trying to say.
> Perhaps you could rephrase.

>
>> Just as those also who may see simplicity in a modern home
>> loaded with high tech add-ons, yet who don't understand the
>> complexity and planning required for it's full construction.
>>
>> Nevertheless the fact remains that, the super bio complexity
>> within a living cell points to the intelligence and power of
>> an awesome Creator.
>

> It doesn't, Andrew.
>
> There isn't anything that happens within a cell that
> points unambiguously to an intelligent cause.

This would be like saying that a modern home loaded
with high tech add-ons had no intelligent input for its
origination.

[August Rode]

On Apr 1, 12:18 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "August Rode" wrote in messagenews:5158f71f$0$19518$862e...@ngroups.net...

> > And lo, on Mar 31, 2013 did Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:

> >> "Dakota" wrote in messagenews:kj7aqj$vmh$1...@dont-email.me...

It's not similar in the least, Andrew. Homes, regardless of their
content, are orders of magnitude simpler than cells. In addition, we
have evidence of homes being designed. We have no evidence that
anything within a cell is designed. Your say-so isn't nearly enough.

[August Rode]

On Mar 31, 10:14 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:45:59 -0500, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote
> in alt.talk.creationism:

<snip>

> >Had God omitted anything, even that which is bad, His creation would
> >not have been complete, therefore not perfect. God intentionally
> >created all of everything, including sin, and is now in the process of
> >separating all that is good from all that is not good. My thinking on
> >this is that the two will be eternally separated by something like a
> >cosmic portal that can never be breached by anyone.
>
> So you preach that god created evil. Heretical but less absurd than
> Christian attempts to justify their teachings.

It isn't heretical since Isaiah 45:7 clearly makes the claim that God
creates evil. (That's the word used in the KJV and some other
translations. Still others use the word 'calamity' or 'disaster' or
'bad times'.)

<snip>

[WangoTango]

In article <OtGdncw9Zrzx28vM...@earthlink.com>,
andrew....@usa.net says...
> Super bio-nano complexity
>

Man even google choked on this one.
What kind of crap are you trying to peddle now?
The DNA is a computer program line sure fizzled out.

[WangoTango]

In article <qclel8lbkjb6uikb5...@4ax.com>, chrislee95050
@comcast.net says...

> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:55:33 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in

> >news:HeCdnWlbDKR0pcrM...@earthlink.com:
> >
> >> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> >> news:hlwdjsd2-3E2FD4...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu..
> >> .

> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
> >>>> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
> >>>

> >>> Of course it doesn't.
> >>
> >> In order to honestly say that, you would need
> >> to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
> >> scenario.
> >
> >We don't know what caused life to emerge on this planet. That is the
> >truth. Why are you in such a hurry to make up answers?
>
> However simple cells have been formed using the very natural processes
> Andrew lies don't happen, in the lab - decades ago.
>
> Whether it actually happened that way or not, is immaterial - it shows
> that the supernatural isn't required.

And *THAT* is the bottom line.
Why throw magic into the equation when it isn't required?

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math/math07.gif

[WangoTango]

In article <ObWdnTSOUYH7AMrM...@earthlink.com>,
andrew....@usa.net says...
> "Uncle Vic" wrote in message news:XnsA1938DA8C50...@216.196.121.131...
> > "Andrew" wrote:

> >> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
> >> .
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
> >>>> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
> >>>
> >>> Of course it doesn't.
> >>
> >> In order to honestly say that, you would need
> >> to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
> >> scenario.
> >
> > We don't know what caused life to emerge on this planet.
>

> Life was created.

You and those baseless assertions.
You have to PROVE that life was created and you fall on your face over
and over again. Any proof you have would fly in the face of EVERY
testable and repeatable experiment out there. Publish away and astound
the scientific community.

[WangoTango]

In article <hlwdjsd2-971E5F.00410531032013@c-131-121-196-
216.gonavy.usna.edu>, hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com says...
> In article <HeCdnWlbDKR0pcrM...@earthlink.com>,

> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> > news:hlwdjsd2-3E2FD4...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

> > > "Andrew" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
> > >> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
> > >
> > > Of course it doesn't.
> >
> > In order to honestly say that, you would need
> > to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
> > scenario.
>

> I don't have to do any such thing.
>
> You made a claim; it's up to you to back it up with evidence. I have
> absolutely no obligation to do anything other than laugh at you when you
> can't.

Any claim that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without the
same.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <4vOdnT3zU9AxL8TM...@earthlink.com>,

Of course it wouldn't be the same thing.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-29E792...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "August Rode" wrote:

It wouldn't be the same thing, because since a cell is far more
complex, the origin thereof would therefore obviously require
a far more intelligent agency. This all points to ---> Creation..
and, the intelligence and power of an awesome Creator... God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQOQ8vJftn4

[casey]

On Apr 2, 8:27 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> [...]

> >> This would be like saying that a modern home loaded
> >> with high tech add-ons had no intelligent input for its
> >> origination.
>
> > Of course it wouldn't be the same thing.
>
> It wouldn't be the same thing, because since a cell is far more
> complex, the origin thereof would therefore obviously require
> a far more intelligent agency. This all points to ---> Creation..
> and, the intelligence and power of an awesome Creator... God.

Intelligence can emerge (evolve) out of parts that show no
intelligence.
The behavior of the whole is determined by how the parts are
connected.

An analogy is learning in a neural network (brain) and can
also be demonstrated in evolutionary network programs that
have come up with thier own solutions.

It is true that not any system can evolve and it is also true
we don't know all the details that allow the system we are
part of to evolve. All we know is the evidence so far is that
that we are a product of an evolutionary process.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:41:59 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

It's good to be god.

[Andrew]

"WangoTango" wrote in message news:MPG.2bc391303...@news.east.earthlink.net...

>
> Man even google choked on this one.

Go thru this carefully. Then get back to us..............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQOQ8vJftn4

[Andrew]

"WangoTango" wrote in message news:MPG.2bc391303...@news.east.earthlink.net...

> In article <OtGdncw9Zrzx28vM...@earthlink.com>,
> andrew....@usa.net says...
>> Super bio-nano complexity
>
> Man even google choked on this one.
>

> The DNA is a computer program line sure fizzled out.

The coding regions of DNA have the exact same relevant properties as a
computer code or language. DNA contains detailed *instructions* in the
form of a four-character digital code for the perfect assemblage of all of
the proteins required for living organisms to exist.

This unequivocally points to a super intelligence as having created life.


---> GOD <---

[Andrew]

"WangoTango" wrote in message news:MPG.2bc391ccc...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <qclel8lbkjb6uikb5...@4ax.com>, chrisl...@comcast.net says...

>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:55:33 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>> >"Andrew" wrote in>news:HeCdnWlbDKR0pcrM...@earthlink.com:

>> >> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-3E2FD4...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu..
>> >> .
>> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
>> >>>> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>> >>>
>> >>> Of course it doesn't.
>> >>
>> >> In order to honestly say that, you would need
>> >> to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
>> >> scenario.
>> >
>> >We don't know what caused life to emerge on this planet.

Even though all evidence points to there being a Creation.

> That is the truth.

The "truth", that's what we want.

> Why are you in such a hurry to make up answers?

Why wait when the evidence is in?

>> However simple cells have been formed using the very natural processes

If you had questioned what you were taught, you would not have swallowed
that deception.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <soqdnf8fvbsqgcfM...@earthlink.com>,

Bullshit.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <k8GdnVyzndspg8fM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "WangoTango" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2bc391ccc...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <qclel8lbkjb6uikb5...@4ax.com>,
> > chrisl...@comcast.net says...
> >> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:55:33 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >> >"Andrew" wrote in>news:HeCdnWlbDKR0pcrM...@earthlink.com:
> >> >> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> >> >> news:hlwdjsd2-3E2FD4...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu..
> >> >> .
> >> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
> >> >>>> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Of course it doesn't.
> >> >>
> >> >> In order to honestly say that, you would need
> >> >> to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
> >> >> scenario.
> >> >
> >> >We don't know what caused life to emerge on this planet.
>
> Even though all evidence points to there being a Creation.

What evidence?

> > That is the truth.
>
> The "truth", that's what we want.
>
> > Why are you in such a hurry to make up answers?
>
> Why wait when the evidence is in?

What evidence?

> >> However simple cells have been formed using the very natural processes
>
> If you had questioned what you were taught, you would not have swallowed
> that deception.

Prove it's a deception.

[Virgil]

In article <k8GdnVyzndspg8fM...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> Even though all evidence points to there being a Creation.

There is absolutely no objective physical evidence "pointing to"
creation, and any other sort of "evidence" is mere wichful thinking.

>
> Why wait when the evidence is in?

Al the evidence that I have seen points to Evolution and a beginning to
life that occurred naturally and not miraculously.

>
> >> However simple cells have been formed using the very natural processes
>
> If you had questioned what you were taught, you would not have swallowed
> that deception.

That's our position, exactly!!!
--

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:59:12 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"WangoTango" wrote in message news:MPG.2bc391ccc...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> In article <qclel8lbkjb6uikb5...@4ax.com>, chrisl...@comcast.net says...
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:55:33 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>> >"Andrew" wrote in>news:HeCdnWlbDKR0pcrM...@earthlink.com:
>>> >> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-3E2FD4...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu..
>>> >> .
>>> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
>>> >>>> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Of course it doesn't.
>>> >>
>>> >> In order to honestly say that, you would need
>>> >> to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
>>> >> scenario.
>>> >
>>> >We don't know what caused life to emerge on this planet.
>
>Even though all evidence points to there being a Creation.

Nope, not even close. Absolutely no evidence points to creation.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:50:44 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

It is amazing how many times Andrew is willing to repeat that lie even
though it is clear that he doesn't comprehend science at all or the
religion that he claims to adhere to.

Andrew worships himself and the lies he tells. Nothing more.

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 29, 6:59 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

;
> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>

>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM

I am constantly amused by how quickly the snake oil
salesmen in the "natural medicines" and related woo-woo
health scams are to pick up on the latest jargon from
the real sciences, as soon as it filters down to the
general public. How soon their worthless remedies and
supplements are now "quantum", "chelated", "colloidal",
"cellular"; have more "vibrations" and "resonance",
"energize enzymes"...

Oh, and let us not overlook "nano-"; that one is quite
popular with the snake oil boys these days.

Putting "nano-" in front of tired, dreary, long-refuted
"irreducible complexity" arguments doesn't make them
any more effective than putting "nano-" in front of so-
called "detoxifying" scams suddenly makes them do...
well, anything at all.



Andrew, come back when you can post about Quantum
Colloidal Chelated Higher-Planes Vibrational Cellular
Nano-Irreducible Complexity.

(but if it doesn't re-align my chakras too, don't
even bother)


NBL

[R. Dean]

There's no known instance where a cell arose through natural processes.

[Andrew]

"Virgil" wrote in message news:virgil-C32E53....@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Even though all evidence points to there being a Creation.
>
> There is absolutely no objective physical evidence "pointing to"
> creation,

Except the entire Universe in all of its dimensions.

> and any other sort of "evidence" is mere wichful thinking.

To ask for more ''evidence'' would be obfuscating, because you
do not desire to see evidence that exposes a cherished deception.

[Andrew]

"nature bats_last" wrote in message news:548a864c-1e8c-4ddc...@f5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
>
> I am constantly amused by how quickly the snake oil
> salesmen in the "natural medicines" and related woo-woo
> health scams are to pick up on the latest jargon from
> the real sciences, as soon as it filters down to the
> general public. How soon their worthless remedies and
> supplements are now "quantum", "chelated", "colloidal",
> "cellular"; have more "vibrations" and "resonance",
> "energize enzymes"...

Which has nothing to do with the evidence presented.

> Andrew, come back when you can post about Quantum
> Colloidal Chelated Higher-Planes Vibrational Cellular
> Nano-Irreducible Complexity.

So this must be your happy world.

> (but if it doesn't re-align my chakras too, don't
> even bother)

In the face of truth, many refuse to be "re-aligned".

Why? Jesus told us why...

"Men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil."

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <CMudnTPLZfQq9cfM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Virgil" wrote in message
> news:virgil-C32E53....@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >
> >> Even though all evidence points to there being a Creation.
> >
> > There is absolutely no objective physical evidence "pointing to"
> > creation,
>
> Except the entire Universe in all of its dimensions.

You have yet to provide any evidence for that assertion.

> > and any other sort of "evidence" is mere wichful thinking.
>
> To ask for more ''evidence'' would be obfuscating, because you
> do not desire to see evidence that exposes a cherished deception.

Bullshit.

Any scientist who can provide sufficient evidence to overturn an
established theory is a hero who'll win a Nobel Prize.

So much for your silly theory that all scientists are involved in some
kind of centuries long, worldwide conspiracy.

[Dakota]

It's clearly Andrew who holds a cherished deception.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-D67BA6...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Virgil" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Even though all evidence points to there being a Creation.
>> >
>> > There is absolutely no objective physical evidence "pointing to"
>> > creation,
>>
>> Except the entire Universe in all of its dimensions.
>
> You have yet to provide any evidence for that assertion.

See above.

>> > and any other sort of "evidence" is mere wichful thinking.
>>
>> To ask for more ''evidence'' would be obfuscating, because you
>> do not desire to see evidence that exposes a cherished deception.
>

> Any scientist who can provide sufficient evidence to overturn an
> established theory is a hero who'll win a Nobel Prize.
>
> So much for your silly theory that all scientists are involved in some
> kind of centuries long, worldwide conspiracy.

The greatest scientists of all time have been creationists.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:38:13 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

What "deception" was Andrew lying about?

And I wasn't "taught" it eother.

Once again he projects his own religious brainwashing on everybody
else.

I read it in what the researchers themselves wrote.

>> Prove it's a deception.
>>
>There's no known instance where a cell arose through natural processes.

Just because you say so?

It's gone way beyond your "no it isn't" because neither Fox's research
nor its results will un-happen.

Nor Szostak's.

Not anybody else's.

In fact Fox's, which was sevara decades ago, is aroutine coursework
exercise for university students in the field these days.

So you have to address their work and critique it honestly and
intelligently instead.

[August Rode]

If you want your chakras re-aligned, then what you want is Quantum
Colloidal Chelated Higher-Planes Vibrational Cellular Nano-Irreducibly
Complex Vortexes. I happen to have some here and they can be yours for
just the right price.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:44:20 GMT, "August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>And lo, on Apr 2, 2013 did R. Dean" <"R. Dean spake unto the multitudes,
>saying:

What a remarkable projection by a fundamentalist of why
fundamentalists believe what they do even when it contradicts reality.

>> > Prove it's a deception.
>> >
>> There's no known instance where a cell arose through natural processes.
>

>You do understand that that isn't a proof, right? That's just you asserting
>something.

It's a creationist doing what creationists do.

Instead of acknowledging examples they cover their eyes and ears to
make them go away.

Or they resort to "authorities" without ever explaining how they reach
their supposed "conclusions".

"is not" hardly addresses what both he (Ron Dean) and the previous
poster (Andrew) have been given over and over again.

By giving these examples we have taken it beyond the "no it isn't"
stage to where they have to address the content of the examples they
have been given. And if they disagree with them they should explain
why in an honest and intelligent way that lets things proceed.

Which I have never seen them do.

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 2, 12:38 am, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/2013 8:14 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <k8GdnVyzndspg8fMnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,

> >   "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> "WangoTango" wrote in message
> >>news:MPG.2bc391ccc...@news.east.earthlink.net...

> >>> In article <qclel8lbkjb6uikb5c0n24h1uduect2...@4ax.com>,
> >>> chrislee95...@comcast.net says...

There's no other way.

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 2, 1:15 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Virgil" wrote in messagenews:virgil-C32E53....@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Even though all evidence points to there being a Creation.
>
> > There is absolutely no objective physical evidence "pointing to"
> > creation,
>
> Except the entire Universe in all of its dimensions.

Which only indicates the entire Universe in all of its dimensions.

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 2, 6:09 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-D67BA6...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

Crick and Watson said it's horseshit, and in no uncertain
terms.

[Andrew]

"August Rode" wrote in message news:515ab5a6$0$19660$862e...@ngroups.net...

> R. Dean" <"R. Dean spake unto the multitudes, saying:

>> On 4/1/2013 8:14 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "WangoTango" wrote:
>> >>> chrisl...@comcast.net says...
>> >>>> Uncle Vic wrote:
>> >>>>> "Andrew" wrote

>> >>>>>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message

>> >>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points
>> >>>>>>>> to the intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Of course it doesn't.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> In order to honestly say that, you would need
>> >>>>>> to demonstrate a superior alternative origins
>> >>>>>> scenario.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We don't know what caused life to emerge on this planet.
>> >>
>> >> Even though all evidence points to there being a Creation.
>> >
>> > What evidence?
>> >
>> >
>> >>> That is the truth.
>> >>
>> >> The "truth", that's what we want.
>> >>
>> >>> Why are you in such a hurry to make up answers?
>> >>
>> >> Why wait when the evidence is in?
>> >
>> > What evidence?
>> >
>> >
>> >>>> However simple cells have been formed using the very natural
>> >>>> processes
>> >>
>> >> If you had questioned what you were taught, you would not have
>> >> swallowed that deception.
>> >
>> > Prove it's a deception.
>> >
>> There's no known instance where a cell arose through natural processes.
>

> You do understand that that isn't a proof, right? That's just you asserting
> something.

The assertion that, "simple cells have been formed using very
natural processes" is a deception. If not, please cite otherwise.

...a living cell.

[Andrew]

"Father Haskell" wrote in message news:db8c9421-a710-45a9...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 2, 12:38 am, "R. Dean" wrote:
>
>> There's no known instance where a cell arose through natural processes.
>
> There's no other way.

... another deception.

[Christopher A. Lee]

There's certainly no known instance where a cell arose through
supernatural processes.

Does he even have a point?

>There's no other way.

And that's the problem - those who are utterly convinced that their
god did it, are incapable of grasping the remarkably obvious fact that
things get explained in terms of what is known rather than merely
believed.

But in any case, both he (Ron Dean) and the previous poster (Andrew)
have been given examples of the current state of abiogenesis research
- including simple proto-cells formed in the lab using natural
processes.

Which won't go away even if they cover their eyes and ears, going
"nyaah, nyaah, I can't hear you".

Which is what it amounts to.

Neither understand that this took it beyond their "it ain't so" a long
time ago to the next stage of discussion they refuse to go to because
it is incumbent upon them to explain why what they have been given,
isn't what the researchers who actually did the work, describe.

[Andrew]

"Father Haskell" wrote in message news:7dd6282e-0b83-4bc5...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
- "Andrew" wrote:

> "Virgil" wrote:
> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Even though all evidence points to there being a Creation.
>
> > There is absolutely no objective physical evidence "pointing to"
> > creation,
>
> Except the entire Universe in all of its dimensions.

-
- Which only indicates the entire Universe in all of its dimensions.

That's all there is.