@ Noetic

I do not believe that my good/fate is dependent on an unseen order (God, Allah, whateva).

I do not adhere to a religion because my life does not involve any practices that are believed to affect or be related to an unseen order.

I'm not an atheist because I do not deny the possibility of a cause to the existence of the universe. If that is what U call "God", then I do not deny the possibility of such to exist.

Can u please make sense of the Genesis creation story in light of modern science?

If u deny evolution as a plausible explanation for human existence,  a more plausible one than creationism as described in Genesis, why?

noetic2:

please open a new thread. . . . I will gladly oblige.

thank you   

Krayola2:

@ Noetic

I do not believe that my good/fate is dependent on an unseen order (God, Allah, whateva).

I do not adhere to a religion because my life does not involve any practices that are believed to affect or be related to an unseen order.

Like every other rational and intelligent person, u are entitled to ur opinion and beliefs.
The only difference is that from time to time the rationality and objectivity of ur beliefs would be questioned. It is up to u to come up with plausible answers, when they do arise, . . . .they surely would on this thread.

I'm not an atheist because I do not deny the possibility of a cause to the existence of the universe. If that is what U call "God", then I do not deny the possibility of such to exist.

That is reconcilable with an ontological attribute of God. So definitely u are referring to the God of the bible. whether or not u choose to acknowledge or believe Him is up to u.

Can u please make sense of the Genesis creation story in light of modern science?

If u deny evolution as a plausible explanation for human existence,  a more plausible one than creationism as described in Genesis, why?

thank you   

I believe that this is what this thread is all about. . . .I will do so now.

I'm not sure I understand what u mean. This is what i said

Krayola2:

@ Noetic

I'm not an atheist because I do not deny the possibility of a cause to the existence of the universe. If that is what U call "God", then I do not deny the possibility of such to exist.

to which u responded

noetic2:

That is reconcilable with an ontological attribute of God. So definitely u are referring to the God of the bible. whether or not u choose to acknowledge or believe Him is up to u.

There are other creation stories outside of the Bible. for example Semerian Epics and The Babylonian creation story. I think the statement I made "is reconcilable with the ontological attributes" of other non biblical stories or theories about the existence of the universe.Why would i definitely be referring to the God of the Bible? I'm just seeking clarification. 

First let me state that my belief and acceptance of the Genesis account of creation as plausible and more tenable to evolution. . .is not singularly borne out of faith, religious dogma or preconceived notions. It is largely due extensive analysis of the underlying claims of evolution.

I have asked several questions to evolutionists over and over again, this was in an attempt to gasp evolution as plausible and tenable for intellectual reasons. . . .some of my questions have been. . .

1. Since life is believed to beget life. . . as we all know in biology and biogenesis. how is it then possible that the first form of life according to evolution is from non-living organisms otherwise called spontaneous generation?

2. Charles Darwin false claimed that all organisms are from a last universal ancestor. . . . .how about the mitochondria gene exception?

3. We were all taught in school that (evolution) life is traceable to the phylogenetic tree which postulates three domains of life (bacteria, archea and eucaryota). . . .what then is the major common denominator to whom life can be traced to amongst the three domains. . .considering that evolutionists claimed that all organisms are from a last universal ancestor?

4. Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are the last traces of life.
what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life?
and what were the substances that made up this reaction?
what was the structure of the first living things? what was the catalyst of this first chemical reaction? what were the components of this catalyst?

with regards to the pioneer formation of the RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?

I do not expect these questions to be answered, cos evolutionists have no answers to these questions. I have only used this questions to lay a foundation as the the non-plausability of evolution.

I will now proceed to offer analysis of the genesis account of creationism. . .with emphasis on its plausibility and superior argument compared to evolution or any other scientific explanation.

Krayola2:

I'm not sure I understand what u mean. This is what i said


to which u responded

There are other creation stories outside of the Bible. for example Semerian Epics and The Babylonian creation story. I think the statement I made "is reconcilable with the ontological attributes" of other non biblical stories or theories about the existence of the universe.Why would i definitely be referring to the God of the Bible? I'm just seeking clarification. 

u believe that there is a cause to the existence of the earth. . . . .I believe that reconciles with the ontological xterics of Jehovah God. . . .I do not subscribe to any deity, god or story that lays credence to this ontological attribute. . . .as such, as far as I am concerned you are referring to the bible God.

noetic2:

u believe that there is a cause to the existence of the earth

What I said was that I do not deny the possibility of a cause to existence of the universe. Please don't twist my words. Thank you.

Krayola2:

I'm not an atheist because I do not deny the possibility of a cause to the existence of the universe. If that is what U call "God", then I do not deny the possibility of such to exist.

Krayola2:

What I said was that I do not deny the possibility of a cause to existence of the universe. Please don't twist my words. Thank you.

whats the difference between statements A and B?

A. I believe that there is a cause to the existence of the universe.

B. I do not deny the possibility of a cause to existence of the universe

be⋅lieve  [bi-leev]  Show IPA verb, -lieved, -liev⋅ing.
Use believe in a Sentence
–verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:

de⋅ny  [di-nahy]  Show IPA
Use deny in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), -nied, -ny⋅ing.
1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.

I have not denied the possibility of a cause to the existence of the universe. But I do not have confidence in it because I have not been convinced. neither by creationism, nor by the big bang theory. Even though I think the big bang is the more plausible explanation, I don't think it is right on the money, but i feel it does explain more about the universe, if not it's exact origin, than Genesis.

But this isn't about what you believe/practice (ur faith/religion). I respect ur beliefs and I'm not asking you to justify them. I just didn't want u putting words in my mouth.

Please go on to explain why u think Geneseis is more plausible that science. 

Krayola2:

be⋅lieve  [bi-leev]  Show IPA verb, -lieved, -liev⋅ing.
Use believe in a Sentence
–verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:

de⋅ny  [di-nahy]  Show IPA
Use deny in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), -nied, -ny⋅ing.
1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.

I have not denied the possibility of a cause to the existence of the universe. But I do not have confidence in it because I have not been convinced. neither by creationism, nor by the big bang theory. Even though I think the big bang is the more plausible explanation, I don't think it is right on the money, but i feel it does explain more about the universe, if not it's exact origin, than Genesis.

But this isn't about what you believe/practice (ur faith/religion). I respect ur beliefs and I'm not asking you to justify them. I just didn't want u putting words in my mouth.

Please go on to explain why u think Geneseis is more plausible that science. 

u did not tell me the difference between both statements. whats the simple difference between statement A and B?

noetic2:

whats the difference between statements A and B?

A. I believe that there is a cause to the existence of the universe.

B. I do not deny the possibility of a cause to existence of the universe

Statement A. affirms what "I"   accepts as truth

Statement B. does not affirm what "I" (Krayola, moi, me) accepts as truth, or that "I" even thinks that the claim is plausible.  It just states that "I" does not affirm that the claim is false.

Does Krayola understand science to start with?

Noetic, I sometimes avoid entering a debate with you because you responses are stereotyped, but i decided to enter this one because you are asking specific questions and giving "cogent" reason why you disagree with evolution. Although i disagree with your conclusions of " if evolution cannot explain the existence of life on earth then Genesis must be true". I am sorry i had never seen anyone reason that way. They are lots of things i do not understand and i leave it that way " I Do Not Understand". I might seek explanations but until i find one i understand and agree with.

All the questions you raised were raised and answered adequately by scientists, the problem you have with evolution does not fall within the purview of evolution itself, It falls within either biogenesis, biochemistry or molecular biology. Evolution in the strict sense deals with the diversification and differentiation of organisms on the earth surface, as a result of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
So your puzzle of how the first life appeared on earth is more directed at Molecular Biologist than evolutionist.

Also i do not know your background or your ability to understand science, because i had deduced ( maybe wrongly) from past debates that you do not have adequate scientific background, so i thought you copy davidylans line of arguments since he claims to be a biologist.

I can assure you that all your five questions are one and the same, namely how was it that simple inorganic compounds could form a living organic compound. As i said it will be time consuming and difficult to explain every detail to you in just one or a few pages. It might take a text book for you to begin to understand the chemical process involved, but i assure you the answer had been adequately dealt with.

To answer your question, you first have to define what you mean by LIFE. Because when we say LIFE people have varied definitions of its meanings. Some can define life and afterlife and beforelife. I had provided my own definition in one of the debates. So lets have your definition of life, then we can go into how life can start from non-life.
i claim to be an evolutionist but you have provided me with many evolutionary terms i am unfamilair with, like spontaneous generation and last universal ancestor please explain what they are, after all we are here to learn.

davidylan:

Does Krayola understand science to start with?  

This foolish pseudo scientist can not hear the word science without coming there and displaying his foolishness. Do you understand what science is in the first place? Idiot. . . . . .

wirinet:

I can assure you that all your five questions are one and the same, namely how was it that simple inorganic compounds could form a living organic compound. As i said it will be time consuming and difficult to explain every detail to you in just one or a few pages. It might take a text book for you to begin to understand the chemical process involved, but i assure you the answer had been adequately dealt with.

this is false.

mazaje:

This foolish pseudo scientist can not hear the word science without coming there and displaying his foolishness. Do you understand what science is in the first place? Idiot. . . . . .

Do you?

davidylan:

Does Krayola understand science to start with?  

haha

I'm not a science expert, so i probably won't know all the little details. But I'll admit when I don't understand something and ask questions. And, as I've done several times on this forum,  I'll gladly admit when I'm wrong if credible evidence is produced to show that.

I believe this thread is gonna end at the familiar NL stalemate
ATHEIST :"Provide evidence for your creation" ,
CHRISTIAN:"No! First give me evidence for evolution and i'll oblige". . . .
Anybody wanna bet?

Krayola2:

haha

I'm not a science expert, so i probably won't know all the little details. But I'll admit when I don't understand something and ask questions. And, as I've done several times on this forum,  I'll gladly admit when I'm wrong if credible evidence is produced to show that.

you people are only an "expert" at one thing - castigating the bible even when you neither understand it nor the very science you try to postulate as an alternative.

Tudór:

I believe this thread is gonna end at the familiar NL stalemate
ATHEIST :"Provide evidence for your creation" ,
CHRISTIAN:"No! First give me evidence for evolution and i'll oblige". . . .
Anybody wanna bet?

I was hoping it wouldn't go there.

I don't want proof of anything and I never asked for proof. I really hope this debate does not head in that direction. I was hoping we could just weight all the evidence in an intellectually honest way. Which is why I'm waiting for Noetic2 to give her reasons for believing Genesis.

Tudór:

I believe this thread is gonna end at the familiar NL stalemate
ATHEIST :"Provide evidence for your creation" ,
CHRISTIAN:"No! First give me evidence for evolution and i'll oblige". . . .
Anybody wanna bet?

why do you think that is the stalemate? FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT ATHEISTS CANNOT/WILL NEVER PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION SINCE THEY DONT HAVE!

There are several threads explaining Genesis . . . several explaining the gospels, several explaining God and his dealing with the jews in the OT. When will atheists oblige with their own side of the story?

Krayola2:

I was hoping it wouldn't go there.

I don't want proof of anything and I never asked for proof. I really hope this debate does not head in that direction. I was hoping we could just weight all the evidence in an intellectually honest way. Which is why I'm waiting for Noetic2 to give her reasons for believing Genesis.

that is dishonest. Isnt it funny that "all the evidence" just coincidentally happens to do with the bible and you NEVER having to answer any questions yourself? Where is your own evidence?

davidylan:

you people are only an "expert" at one thing - castigating the bible even when you neither understand it nor the very science you try to postulate as an alternative.

with all due respect this debate was going pretty smoothly till u showed up. I haven't claimed to have all the answers, have I? All I've done is ask questions in an effort to understand. Why do u have a problem with that?

@ davidylan. . . I politely asked Noetic2 some questions, and she gracefully obliged to respond. I have spoken to her respectfully, and vice versa. . .what is ur beef?

Krayola2:

with all due respect this debate was going pretty smoothly till u showed up. I haven't claimed to have all the answers, have I? All I've done is ask questions in an effort to understand. Why do u have a problem with that?

pretty smoothly in ONLY ONE DIRECTION. Have you ever stopped to consider why? Has it occured to you that maybe just maybe you folks dont really have any story yourselves?

A one-sided question and answer session is not a debate but an interrogation which is what you have. Pls stop dressing up this charade as a debate, you devalue that word.

@davidylan

davidylan:

pretty smoothly in ONLY ONE DIRECTION. Have you ever stopped to consider why? Has it occured to you that maybe just maybe you folks dont really have any story yourselves?

A one-sided question and answer session is not a debate but an interrogation which is what you have. Pls stop dressing up this charade as a debate, you devalue that word.

In Noetic2 first post on this thread she said this

noetic2:

Like every other rational and intelligent person, u are entitled to ur opinion and beliefs.
The only difference is that from time to time the rationality and objectivity of ur beliefs would be questioned. It is up to u to come up with plausible answers, when they do arise, . . . .they surely would on this thread.

I did not refuse to answer her questions, did I? They just haven't come up yet. Again, what is ur beef?

Besides, I have politely answered every question she has asked me so far, no?

davidylan:

why do you think that is the stalemate? FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT ATHEISTS CANNOT/WILL NEVER PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION SINCE THEY DONT HAVE!

There are several threads explaining Genesis . . . several explaining the gospels, several explaining God and his dealing with the jews in the OT. When will atheists oblige with their own side of the story?

What have these "thread" ever "explained" about genesis?

@ Krayola

I am not a she. . . I am a HE. . . .  

Krayola2:


Statement A. affirms what "I"   accepts as truth

Statement B. does not affirm what "I" (Krayola, moi, me) accepts as truth, or that "I" even thinks that the claim is plausible.  It just states that "I" does not affirm that the claim is false.

u are simply playing with words, . . .  .I will let this pass. make up ur mind before u make pronouncements.

I will analyse genesis accounts in a bit. . . lemme respond to wirinet.

mazaje:

What have these "thread" ever "explained" about genesis?

Simply say you chose not to see them or you scoffed at them. Even if there were 1000 threads explaining genesis . . . one of you woolheads will still come back demanding more "Explanation". Nothing new here . . . next quest pls.

davidylan:

you people are only an "expert" at one thing - castigating the bible even when you neither understand it nor the very science you try to postulate as an alternative.

do you understand the bible you are always trying to defend what do you know about it? what do you understand about science? Idiot. . . .

noetic2:

@ Krayola

I am not a she. . . I am a HE. . . .  
u are simply playing with words,  . . .  .I will let this pass. make up ur mind before u make pronouncements.

I will analyse genesis accounts in a bit. . . lemme respond to wirinet.

haha. . . I apologize. Don't know why I thought u were female.


That isn't playing with words. Those 2 statements mean 2 different things. but i agree we shouldn't get caught up with that.

mazaje:

do you understand the bible you are always trying to defend what do you know about it? what do you understand about science? Idiot. . . .

The day i see you make a cerebral contribution to a thread aside from snide remarks and insults . . . hell will freeze over.