If the universe requires a creator then the creator should require a creator = religion is made-up

Sort:
Shygirl6985

That's quite a list ...

drpsholder
yureesystem wrote:
25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

So how did the universe begin? How did life arise on Earth? These have been mankind’s most important questions through the ages. In the last century, we have learned more about science and the creation of the universe, than everything that was known before the twentieth century. What is more notable, the last decade has opened new discoveries leading to new theories that give us unique hypotheses about the presence of God and the nature of the universe.

Today’s article will discuss some of the most famous scientists in history who believed in God.   

1) Albert Einstein

2) Arthur Compton

3) Ernst Haeckl 

4) Blaise Pascal 

5) Erwin Schrodinger 

6) Francis Bacon 

7) Francis Collins 

8)Galileo Galilei 

9) Gottfried Leibniz 

10) Guglielmo Marcroni  

11) Isaac Newton 

12) James Clerk Maxwell 

13) Johannes Kepler  

14) John Eccles  

15) Louis Pasteur 

16) Max Planck 

17) Micheal Faraday 

18) Nicholas Copernicus 

19) Rene Descartes 

20) Robert Boyle 

21) Robert A. Millikan 

22) Werner Heisenberg 

23) William T. Kelvin 

24) William Harvey

25) Socretes 

I think yureesystem is trolling! How do we report him?

I have consistently told him that there is no evidence for supernatural processes and he just doesn't seem to get it.

what should we think of his intelligence and why? LMAO! WHAHAHAHA

yureesystem

drosholder, like always you are very dense! Ah, try to explain to a simpleton how God always existed is like talking to a chimpanzee; you know what a chimp might have more intelligence than you. Here we go again, now listen, God always existed because His evidences is His creation. It is very simple even a chimp can understand this. Maybe you are lower than a chimp and so you are incapable to comprehend simple logic.

egoole

Ok... fine ... Ah guess we are just going in circles......

Everybody just remain where you are... PB solved..

yureesystem

The Mystery of Life's Origin

Reassessing Current Theories

Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L. , Olsen, Roger L.

Lewis and Stanley

January 1, 1985

Print ArticleLink to Original Article

 

A seminal work for the theory of intelligent design, this book provides a scientific critique of the prevailing paradigmatic theories of chemical evolution. The authors include Discovery fellows Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley, and they conclude that the prebiotic soup from which the first cell supposedly arose is a myth. The Miller-Urey experiments employed an unrealistic gas mixture, and there is no geological evidence for its existence in Earth's distant past. The "soup" faces a myriad of other problems, such as inevitable rapid destruction at the hands of radiation. 

 

The authors also take aim at the dominant paradigm for chemical evolution using technical arguments from thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics has been misused by creationists who failed to treat the fact that Earth is an open system. But Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen takes this point into account as they argue that thermodynamics is eminently applicable to assessing whether unguided chemical reactions can organize matter into life. Their conclusion is that natural laws cannot account for the encoded "specified complexity" inherent in biomolecules. 

 

The epilogue looks forward to other possible explanations for the origin of life. The book was published in 1984 when the United States was immersed in debate over Genesis-based creationism. Yet these authors take a different approach that is ahead of its time. They recognize that science requires an observation-based understanding of cause-and-effect relationships. Thus they set aside biblical arguments and focus instead on observations about the natural world and intelligence. After demonstrating that various undirected causes lack the power to produce complex information, they note, "We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building" (pg. 211). The authors then pose a simple question: "May not the principle of uniformity suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?" (pg. 211)

 

There current scientists debating evolution and creation, the evidences side with creationists. Laughing

 

The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories

 

 

 

 
drpsholder
yureesystem wrote:

drosholder, like always you are very dense! Ah, try to explain to a simpleton how God always existed is like talking to a chimpanzee; you know what a chimp might have more intelligence than you. Here we go again, now listen, God always existed because His evidences is His creation. It is very simple even a chimp can understand this. Maybe you are lower than a chimp and so you are incapable to comprehend simple logic.

And where's your evidence that god always existed.

Again, again, again.........you have no evidence, but you just can't admit it. Scared? LOL

Is it because you dont WANT to or simply CANT? LOL

Senior-Lazarus_Long

You are not entitled to evidence.You are required to take it on faith,or suffer the consequences. God doesn't have to prove He is worthy of you. You have to prove you are worthy of Him.

Americu

The best post yet !!

GabrieleMiceli

Rosheen-Dove wrote:

So this has become a bash Christians thread.

This is inciting hate.

I call for Alex Atheist to be banned!

All in favour, say "aye".

Let's just be sorry for him.

yureesystem

drpsholder wrote:

I think yureesystem is trolling! How do we report him?

I have consistently told him that there is no evidence for supernatural processes and he just doesn't seem to get it.

what should we think of his intelligence and why? LMAO! WHAHAHAHA 

 

 

 

Througout this thread you have been name calling to everyone, even the ones that hold to the same position ( petrosianpupil) and now you want to play the victim. The problem with inferior person, they are always quarrelsome and name calling and have no substances.

yureesystem

           

drpsholder

yureesystem wrote:

drosholder, like always you are very dense! Ah, try to explain to a simpleton how God always existed is like talking to a chimpanzee; you know what a chimp might have more intelligence than you. Here we go again, now listen, God always existed because His evidences is His creation. It is very simple even a chimp can understand this. Maybe you are lower than a chimp and so you are incapable to comprehend simple logic.

And where's your evidence that god always existed.

Again, again, again.........you have no evidence, but you just can't admit it. Scared? LOL

Is it because you dont WANT to or simply CANT? LOL  

 

 

 

 

I try to explain to you but it is useless. It very simple, God's evidences is His creation; that why scientists who were once a evolutionist are now creationist. The evidences is so strong for a creator that anyone believing in evolution is gullible or intellectual dishonest.

yureesystem

          

alex-rodriguez

"the theory of intelligent design" = The Magic Man did it.

Magic is not a scientific theory. Magic is a childish fantasy. And if you call magic "design" it's still magic and it's still a moronic fantasy.





Yes evolution is fairtytales for the simpletons, you have to have blind faith to believe in a lied, and I also call that a bad religion. Something is created without any aid, that simply is bad sciences; it just happen and life was form. Even a child knows better than believe such theories.

yureesystem

alex-rodriguez wrote; You just call virtually biologist in the world "gullible and dishonest." 

 

 

 

 

 Not at all, there is biologist Jonathan Wells who was once a evolutionist became creationist. 

 

 

 

Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.

  1. ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

  2. DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

  3. HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

  4. VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

  5. ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

  6. PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

  7. DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

  8. MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

  9. HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

  10. EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts? 

     You can be imform or be deceived it is your choice. Research and investigate and eventually you will come to the truth, evolution is a lie.
The_Ghostess_Lola

Stephenson2 seems like they have spent oodles of hours putting together arguments that will undoubtedly change nothing. It's totally hilarious !....must mean oodles to you, yes ?

Ask yourself....why does it mean so much to you....there oodle noodle ?....Smile....

drpsholder
yureesystem wrote:

           

drpsholder

yureesystem wrote:

drosholder, like always you are very dense! Ah, try to explain to a simpleton how God always existed is like talking to a chimpanzee; you know what a chimp might have more intelligence than you. Here we go again, now listen, God always existed because His evidences is His creation. It is very simple even a chimp can understand this. Maybe you are lower than a chimp and so you are incapable to comprehend simple logic.

And where's your evidence that god always existed.

Again, again, again.........you have no evidence, but you just can't admit it. Scared? LOL

Is it because you dont WANT to or simply CANT? LOL  

 

 

 

 

I try to explain to you but it is useless. It very simple, God's evidences is His creation; that why scientists who were once a evolutionist are now creationist. The evidences is so strong for a creator that anyone believing in evolution is gullible or intellectual dishonest.

That's not evidence.  So, again, where's your evidence of anything supernatural.

You got 1 last chance to back up your claim before you get reported for trolling.  Here is your chance. Be a man or look like a child!

The_Ghostess_Lola

ooh ooh ooh !!!....drpsholder is gonna run and report you ! U must be quivering like a chihuahua ! 

yureesystem

Read above what I posted on biologist Jonathan Wells, this should be a enough for most people but some are dense and will never come to any truth and be deceiced all their life.

The_Ghostess_Lola

Why do you care what people believe in S2 ?

yureesystem

             

The_Ghostess_Lola

ooh ooh ooh !!!....drpsholder is gonna run and report you ! U must be quivering like a chihuahua ! 

 

 

I am not quivering at all, I have a mean bark.

yureesystem

2 minutes ago · Quote · #1074

Stephenson2

yureesystem wrote:

alex-rodriguez wrote; You just call virtually biologist in the world "gullible and dishonest." 

 

 Read the bible.

 

 

 Not at all, there is biologist Jonathan Wells who was once a evolutionist became creationist. 

 

 

 

Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution. ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts? 

 You can be imform or be deceived it is your choice. Research and investigate and eventually you will come to the truth, evolution is a lie.    







I agree, but some people need baby steps, the bible is a source of imformation for the truth.
This forum topic has been locked