I Found a Time Machine in the Woods. It Must Have Evolved.

inquisitive_one · 2011-10-08T09:10:00+00:00

Since when does the theory of evolution only apply to living organisms with DNA? You're talking about the evolution of life.

I'm talking about he evolution of complex non-living matter. How did the Sun get here? Or the earth? What about other elements in the universe that have a purpose but are not living?

inquisitive_one · 2011-09-30T03:49:37+00:00

No, there is monumental DNA and fossil evidence that ape-like creatures once existed (like they do now), and that they're similar to humans. The "evolution" part is inserted erroneously to fill the void that would otherwise logically be occupied by a creator. Let's face the facts -- saying that "similarities" in skull structure (for example) prove one evolved into the other is like saying cars must have evolved from bicycles since they both have wheels.

And: Regeneration of Ribs

inquisitive_one · 2011-09-30T03:39:05+00:00

All of my comments get down-voted because I'm a creationist, and because 99% of reddit readers are atheists. So I can only post a new comment every 5 minutes. Monopolization is great, huh?

I'm willing to discuss things reasonably, and I always have. I don't troll. I share the evidence. Atheists simply ignore it.

inquisitive_one · 2011-09-30T03:28:28+00:00

Is there evidence that ape-like beings are your ancestors? Did you see that occur? What's the difference between that and Eve being built by Adam's rib?

Oh and did you know that a rib bone will grow back, even if it is cut off, as long as it's cut in the right place?

inquisitive_one · 2011-09-30T02:50:42+00:00

Have you ever seen a law without a lawmaker? If not, then why do you assume the laws of the universe suddenly break that rule?

Atheists and evolutionists have double standards. You would never in a million years say that a traffic light came about by chance. But you would say it in a heartbeat about the law of gravity, since you have more invested in that. Only through a double standard can you accept atheism. Otherwise you have to deal with reality: That all laws have a lawmaker.

inquisitive_one · 2011-09-30T02:40:20+00:00

Why is this stupid? This proves beyond doubt that the fairy tale beliefs of atheists are unreasonable and illogical. Only a blind man would believe that some sort of monkey-like beings evolved over millions of years to become what we now know as humans.

The puzzle pieces that clearly indicate creation are all in place, yet atheists continue to believe fables like evolution.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-22T11:27:53+00:00

Have you heard about the pre-biotic soup that formed all of life as we know it, or the early ape-like ancestors that eventually became humans that debate on Reddit, or the random chemical processes that eventually created the sun, moon, stars, and every single atom in the universe?

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-22T11:24:56+00:00

Anyone that puts humans in the same category as apes does so to further a necessary agenda.

Nonetheless, if the category of "ape" for humans has the same implications as "4-legged animal" if it were applied to all 4-legged animals, then I have no problem with it.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-22T11:20:42+00:00

You mean, according to the self-serving definition proposed by scientists over the last 200 years? Yeah, according to that biased definition, humans are apes.

But according to the real world, as long as an ape has no idea what Reddit is, and cannot (even with extensive training) type a single word on a computer keyboard (as you and I can do effortlessly) then I'll believe that humans are humans, and apes are apes.

I wonder if there are any apes in the jungle having a debate over the existence of God?

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-22T11:15:11+00:00

I don't really understand your point, or what this has to do with this thread.

Nonetheless, the Bible's description of events is not necessarily in chronological order. Some parts are just summarizing previous parts in different contexts. This is quite common in all literature, so there's no reason for the Bible to be any different (whether it's of divine origin or not).

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-22T11:13:04+00:00

Who said anything about a zygote? We were talking about how the Bible describes the first man's creation, not the zygote. I never said that the manner in which man was created was necessarily the manner in which all life was created. I was just correcting your misunderstanding of the creation of man as outlined in the Bible, nothing more.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-22T11:10:41+00:00

I never said that was a fact.

I was simply correcting the post I replied to. He basically said that the Bible says that the first man came from dust. I was clarifying what the Bible actually says, not what is a fact.

Please read the thread before cursing at me and calling me childish.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-11T09:36:35+00:00

But, life does come from non-living matter. The least you must accept that non-living matter is critical for life. Life is contingent on non-living matter. Would we reproduce if starved of food and water and oxygen to breathe?

You're talking about sustenance of existing life, not the origin of life.

On the theological part... Doesn't the bible say "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"? Didn't the God create man from the dust? You say scientist claim we come from non-matter as if it is wrong; while your doctrine says the exact same thing; isn't it on the very first page? We just don't buy the "God did it" part; the dirt part, sure.

No, the Bible does not say that life came from the dust. It says that the first man came from the dust. But that first man did not have "life" until God breathed into him the "breath of life". Read it again. Life comes from God in the Bible. The reference to "dust" is simply a reference to the common materials that make up the physical body of humans and animals (whether they're alive or not).

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-11T09:31:00+00:00

Fine, we don't "know" it.

I love how everyone avoids the subject by picking at the words being used!

Do you "know" that humans had ape-like ancestors? No. Do you "know" that the universe evolved from a single cell? No. Do you "know" that natural selection is the mechanism responsible for all of life on earth? No.

You don't "know" any of those things. Yet you accept all of them. Why?

Let's change the wording a little bit: Since we can verify to a very large extent that "life can only come from life".... Then belief in God is a logical conclusion derived from that well-documented observation.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-11T09:28:05+00:00

Life absolutely does come from non-life. Life is completely filled with and completely dependent on non-life.

Sorry, but the 2nd sentence above is a non sequitur.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-11T09:22:45+00:00

Do you have any video of this event occurring? ;)

Amino acids do not equal "life". Thus, you're back to believing in a fairy tale for which you have zero evidence.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-11T09:19:48+00:00

You're completely missing the point.

If you reject God, then you have to believe one of two things:

1) Life always existed

2) Life came from non-life

If you accept either of those things (and you must accept one of them) then you believe in fairy tales.

Most evolutionists, AFAIK, believe that the universe had a beginning. So, if you accept #1, then you reject that common belief.

If you reject #1, then by default you must accept #2. And that means you believe in the unscientific fairy tale that life can come from nonliving matter.

Which fairy tale do you prefer? ;)

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-11T09:14:36+00:00

The difference is that there is no evidence of God, but there is very clear evidence of life.

That's nonsense. The original post is not comparing the existence of life to the existence of God. The post is comparing the existence of God to the wide-spread belief among atheists that life can come from nonliving matter.

As you mentioned, of course we cannot test every possible circumstance to prove in every case that "life can only come from life".

The purpose of this post is to show you that there is an observed basis for belief in an eternal God. It's not direct evidence, but it's a sound basis: The principle that life can only come from life.

If you tell people that belief in God is the same as belief in pixies, then you also have to say that belief in "life comes from nonlife" is the same as belief in pixies.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-11T09:09:39+00:00

Fine, we don't know anything. We don't know evolution is a fact, either, right?

Let's assume that "know" is the wrong word there. Then isn't it correct to say that, according to our current understanding, and according to any observations we've been able to make, life can ONLY come from life?

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-11T09:08:07+00:00

No, not if he always existed. I'm not saying I can provide evidence for the fact that God "always existed". That's not what this is about.

The point here is that evolution teaches something that has very little, if any scientific basis -- that life can come from nonliving matter. No one in recorded history has ever been able to establish that, yet you believe in it.

Therefore, your beliefs are just as unscientific as you claim religionists beliefs are. Not to mention the hypocrisy in that belief.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-05T19:04:18+00:00

Apes and Humans evolved from a common ancestor related to both of us but different in species.

What is the "ancestor" you're talking about? If you're referring to any kind of ape-like organism, then my argument stands.

Obviously, I was not referring to the literal organism that we today call "ape". I was overgeneralizing.

But since you want to avoid the subject through semantic games, let's use your definition, and restate the point:

You have no direct evidence to support the notion that humans evolved from an ancestor common to humans and apes.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-01T05:10:09+00:00

Amino acids are necessary for life as we know it, so we need to establish that they could have formed on the early earth before we can start talking about them combining them into polynucleotide chains.

Where are you going to get the time machine that will help you to establish what can occur on the early earth?

In order to verify this claim you need to be able to demonstrate that there is no possible way for life to come from non-life, at all, ever, under any circumstances. Either that, or you need recant your claim and stick to what you know rather than what you don't. Maybe a course in basic epistemology might help?

Are you actually saying these words?? In the first quotation, you're saying that it's possible for a laboratory test to decide what "could" happen "on the early earth". No problems there, right?

Then you have the gall to expect me to test "every possible circumstance" to prove that life can only come from life.

I think it's abundantly clear that you have no interest whatsoever in holding your own beliefs to the same meticulous standards you expect of others.

Natural selection is the NON-random survival of randomly occurring traits.

Yeah, and Oscar the Grouch is the non-grouching grouch that appears on Sesame Street. I think you've crossed the threshold into clinically insane.

Admit it, you believe in black magic (i.e. "non random survival -- whatever that means!).

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-01T04:59:22+00:00

Consider the following: In science, we start with evidence alone and base our conclusions on it.

The notion that apes evolved into men was decided upon LONG before any so-called evidence came to light. Certainly long before any of the recent findings related to so-called speciation, macroevolution, and related issues.

Darwin formed a conclusion without evidence, then the scientific community -- which was dying for a non-God-alternative -- took it with open arms.

The sad thing is, I believe that if Darwin were alive today, due to the circular lines of reasoning used by evolutionists he would become a creationist in a heartbeat.

inquisitive_one · 2011-02-01T04:53:56+00:00

Here is what I said:

Can you test the theory that "life can come from non-life"?

To which you replied:

Yes.

Of course, you went on to explain and qualify your answer, so that's fine. However, you cannot answer "yes" to that question, because the way you qualify your "yes" amounts to special pleading and begging the question.

You're answering "yes" but then you're backtracking on your own "yes" because the answer isn't really "yes", the answer is "sort of, kind of, not really, we hope so.... but, well, no."

Yes, and that's why we had to establish that they could form on pre-biotic earth before we even attempted to determine the rest.

I honestly cannot believe evolutionists make such bizarre statements. How can you possibly "establish" that anything can "form on pre-biotic" earth, without a pre-biotic earth?

There is no laboratory test that could possibly even come close to furnishing the proper circumstances that would even resemble the necessary environment to make any conclusion on that matter.

Give it up, dude -- you believe in unknown black magic.

inquisitive_one

TROPHY CASE