This weird idea that because humans know intricate details of physics, chemistry, biology, and other disciplines, that this somehow disproves the existence of god.
News flash, hon. Knowledge of the natural world does not disprove the existence of an ultimate creator. So you think that because you discovered the mechanism, this somehow proves that the source does not exist? This somehow disproves the existence of the source?
No, that's your atheist liberal interpretation. Liberals think that because we have discovered the vastly complex ways that life arose, that somehow because we discovered it, that this proves there is no god.
Do you have any idea how elaborate, complex and intricate this is? This did not just happen spontaneously.
-- I got news for ya. That's not science either.
-- science cannot make any claims as to[[____hmmm thnk thk__ any extrapolations, interpretations___ [[cannot lay dogma beyond the scope of its purpose__]]]]
-- so you think you have us. You think that because science has not thus far proven the existence of a deity, this conclusively proves there is no deity. Sorry, but nope. Failure to prove a positive does not prove a negative. That’s not how science works.
Atheists try to claim that there should have been some non-physical evidence, or at least something that defies the laws of physics that should have happened. So, your argument is that the universe works, and this is your proof positive that there is no god?
The atheist asks, "so why can't you just pray to god and miraculously make this healing of a sick person happen?"
Guffaw. God didn't do it that way. What makes you think we can? Like atheists have said before. The only thing to them that would prove there is a god is if some natural occurrence happens that defies the laws of physics, of nature, of the universe.
Oh, you're kind of superstitious, aren't you? You have given evidence that you are in fact more superstitious than those religious folks you make fun of.
--in rebuttal: so religious types have conviction and feel definite about something. And you atheists think this is a weakness? We know that god did it. And here's how god did it. We have studied this extensively.
Nature has decreed that activation energies be present to prevent chemical reactions from spontaneously combusting (heh). but nature has also fashioned catalysts to push along a reaction in case a particular co-mingling is in fact needed to sustain biological life.
Such a delicate, teeter-tottering balance betwixt ->progressing towards more organization, advancing towards highly specialized and "skilled" compartments, and ->entropy/chaos. That is how the enzyme-substrate dynamic emerged. E.g., because H2O versus nonpolar hydrophobic aliphatic groups. Therefore substrate and enzyme had to move closer to each other, thereby bridging the gap between two nonpolar entities. Releases free H2O from its hydro-repelling cage around oil. And yet at the same time, enables more complex chemical reactions. And you still think there is no intelligent design?
News flash, hon. Knowledge of the natural world does not disprove the existence of an ultimate creator. So you think that because you discovered the mechanism, this somehow proves that the source does not exist? This somehow disproves the existence of the source?
No, that's your atheist liberal interpretation. Liberals think that because we have discovered the vastly complex ways that life arose, that somehow because we discovered it, that this proves there is no god.
Do you have any idea how elaborate, complex and intricate this is? This did not just happen spontaneously.
-- I got news for ya. That's not science either.
-- science cannot make any claims as to[[____hmmm thnk thk__ any extrapolations, interpretations___ [[cannot lay dogma beyond the scope of its purpose__]]]]
-- so you think you have us. You think that because science has not thus far proven the existence of a deity, this conclusively proves there is no deity. Sorry, but nope. Failure to prove a positive does not prove a negative. That’s not how science works.
Atheists try to claim that there should have been some non-physical evidence, or at least something that defies the laws of physics that should have happened. So, your argument is that the universe works, and this is your proof positive that there is no god?
The atheist asks, "so why can't you just pray to god and miraculously make this healing of a sick person happen?"
Guffaw. God didn't do it that way. What makes you think we can? Like atheists have said before. The only thing to them that would prove there is a god is if some natural occurrence happens that defies the laws of physics, of nature, of the universe.
Oh, you're kind of superstitious, aren't you? You have given evidence that you are in fact more superstitious than those religious folks you make fun of.
--in rebuttal: so religious types have conviction and feel definite about something. And you atheists think this is a weakness? We know that god did it. And here's how god did it. We have studied this extensively.
Nature has decreed that activation energies be present to prevent chemical reactions from spontaneously combusting (heh). but nature has also fashioned catalysts to push along a reaction in case a particular co-mingling is in fact needed to sustain biological life.
Such a delicate, teeter-tottering balance betwixt ->progressing towards more organization, advancing towards highly specialized and "skilled" compartments, and ->entropy/chaos. That is how the enzyme-substrate dynamic emerged. E.g., because H2O versus nonpolar hydrophobic aliphatic groups. Therefore substrate and enzyme had to move closer to each other, thereby bridging the gap between two nonpolar entities. Releases free H2O from its hydro-repelling cage around oil. And yet at the same time, enables more complex chemical reactions. And you still think there is no intelligent design?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment