32 thoughts on “Show Me the Goods

  1. Oh my! But you can’t do that!

    You have to play along with their word games, and word games about word games. Occaisional trips down fantasy lane, because anything is possible doncha know, are always fun. Circular reasoning almost always brings you back where you started. That is if, and it’s a big if, you got past the word games.

    Philosophers have no desire to get to the bottom of anything. If they did, they’d be out of a job. They seem to me, to be, professional argue-ists. Not to be confused with internet trolls and hyper religious religiots. They are similar in some ways, but different.

    Show me the goods, is where the rubber hits the road. So, show me the damn goods. 🙂

    I don’t have the time, or the stomach, for that other crap.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The goods are already in the nature but the question is I want to clarify from you sir. If you are really open-minded to understand and accept scientific evidences. I hope there is a possibility to point out goods to you. The problem is, most of the atheist are dishonest and obstinate in accepting scientific evidences which do not support their world views. So, if you give me assurance that you will not block my comments during discussion unless it violates blog rules I can present the scientific findings and goods for the existence of God.

    Like

    1. I’m not a sir, 🙂 I am open minded. I also am quite versed in most of the sciences and I know that what most theists claim to be “scientific evidence” is no such thing.

      Do present what you have. I will consider it and we can discuss what you present. I don’t block comments unless they violate my rules which you can find in the Boss’s Office. You should understand that I was a Christian, have read the bible at least a couple of times and am very familiar with most, if not all, claims by Christian apologists.

      Like

    2. Oh THIS is rich!

      The problem is, most of the atheist are dishonest and obstinate in accepting scientific evidences which do not support their world views.

      Sorry, S-T, but you have it completely turned around … it is, by far, the CHRISTIANS that have problems accepting scientific evidence.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Before starting my discussion. I would like to know from you what kind of scientific evidence you want?. because the discussion is about proving existence of God and not about showing God in person.

    I would like to respectfully place this point before you, that God is spirit in other words beyond matter. So, there will not be any problem in admitting this fact that scientific methods, experiments and evidence are limited to time, space and matter. I can show evidences within the limited sphere of scientific methods and evidences only.

    Like

    1. Per your bible, your god is not “spirit in other words beyond matter”. It has physical form and interacts with the physical world.

      I think we can go with this as a good definition of scientific evidence:

      Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls. – wikipedia

      Like

  4. Sorry madam you are wrong. John 4:24 states that

    God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

    Isaiah 28:5-6

    In that day the Lord of hosts will become a beautiful crown
    And a glorious diadem to the remnant of His people;
    A spirit of justice for him who sits in judgment,
    A strength to those who repel the onslaught at the gate. So, from these literal reading of words from scriptures we can able to say that God is spirit and HE has no material form and HE interacts with the physical world by his spiritual energies.

    You said that, “Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis”. So are you open to accept any scientific findings which counter’s scientific theories or hypothesis?.

    Let us start on with the origin’s of life the warm pond theory hypothesis. Do you believe in warm pond theory?. Where life spontaneously started from inorganic matter by undirected, unguided process of energies.

    Like

    1. “The Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai and present yourself there to me, on the top of the mountain. 3 No one shall come up with you, and do not let anyone be seen throughout all the mountain; and do not let flocks or herds graze in front of that mountain.” 4 So Moses cut two tablets of stone like the former ones; and he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tablets of stone. 5 The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name, “The Lord.” 6 The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed,

      “The Lord, the Lord,
      a God merciful and gracious,
      slow to anger,
      and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
      7 keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,[b]
      forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
      yet by no means clearing the guilty,
      but visiting the iniquity of the parents
      upon the children
      and the children’s children,
      to the third and the fourth generation.””

      and

      “9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11 God[a] did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank.”

      among others.

      “You said that, “Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis”. So are you open to accept any scientific findings which counter’s scientific theories or hypothesis?”

      Yep.

      “Let us start on with the origin’s of life the warm pond theory hypothesis. Do you believe in warm pond theory?. Where life spontaneously started from inorganic matter by undirected, unguided process of energies.”

      It’s one of many hypotheses and it doesnt’ say this “Where life spontaneously started from inorganic matter by undirected, unguided process of energies.”” the laws of physics are in play. And chemicals work according to them.

      It has its strengths and weaknesses. I personally like the black smoker hypothesis myself.

      Still no evidence for a god to be needed.

      Like

  5. @Nan- “Sorry, S-T, but you have it completely turned around … it is, by far, the CHRISTIANS that have problems accepting scientific evidence”. Correction dude, “problem in accepting misleading unscientific evidence to prop secular scientists super imagination’s.

    Like

  6. Smiles, madam you told that God is physical I showed that God is not physical by referring to scriptures still you try to twist the words of scriptures to defend your atheistic ideology. You are not staying on point madam. Secular scientist’s says that life spontaneously arose from prebiotic soup.it’s not surprising that atheist’s go back on their words when confronted with this problem.

    Thankfully, it’s very easy to test these questions: all one must do is examine the technical scientific literature and inquire whether there are legitimate scientific challenges to chemical and biological evolution.

    Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

    According to conventional thinking among origin of life theorists, life arose via unguided chemical reactions on the early Earth some 3 to 4 billion years
    ago. Most theorists believe that there were many steps involved in the origin of life, but the very first step would have involved the production of a
    primordial soup — a water-based sea of simple organic molecules — out of which life arose. While the existence of this “soup” has been accepted as unquestioned
    fact for decades, this first step in most origin-of-life theories faces numerous scientific difficulties.

    In 1953, a graduate student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller, along with his faculty advisor Harold Urey, performed experiments hoping
    to produce the building blocks of life under natural conditions on the early Earth.

    These “Miller-Urey experiments” intended to simulate lightning striking the gasses in the early Earth’s atmosphere. After running the experiments and
    letting the chemical products sit for a period of time, Miller discovered that amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — had been produced.

    For decades, these experiments have been hailed as a demonstration that the “building blocks” of life could have arisen under natural, realistic Earthlike
    conditions,
    corroborating the primordial soup hypothesis. However, it has also been known for decades that the Earth’s early atmosphere was fundamentally different
    from the gasses used by Miller and Urey.

    The atmosphere used in the Miller-Urey experiments was primarily composed of reducing gasses like methane, ammonia, and high levels of hydrogen. Geochemists
    now believe that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain appreciable amounts of these components. (Reducing gasses are those which tend to donate
    electrons during chemical reactions.) UC Santa Cruz origin-of-life theorist David Deamer explains this in the journal Microbiology & Molecular Biology.

    Likewise, an article in the journal Science stated: “Miller and Urey relied on a ‘reducing’ atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not makeorganics in an ‘oxidizing’ atmosphere”.

    So, it is obvious from these scientific findings that life could not have started from primordial soup as speculated by secular scientist’s. Do you admit these findings madam?

    Like

    1. And of course, ST can’t show that I’m wrong since the scriptures show that his god is not immaterial.

      No, dear, “secular scientists” don’t only have the “warm pond” hypothesis. Your usual willful ignorance shows again. All poor ST can do is attack something that not all scientists think is the answer to abiogenesis. He still repeats the same lies.

      The Miller Urey experiment is an experiment and yep it did produce amino acids. It is not the only way to do that. It’s great to see you being a plagiarist too, ST. Your lies come from Evolution News, a creationist website. ST only attacks old information since he can’t address the current science. This is what all creationists do.

      Like

  7. Lol, one who is really ignorant doesn’t realize he is ignorant. Your comments demonstrates your sheer ignorance in the knowledge of chemistry. Have you heard about this word “chirality problem”. If not I strongly suggest you to educate yourself regarding this and give your comments after understanding its underlying problems in doing random chemistry.

    Like

  8. Smiles, just using the words “Liar” doesn’t prove that life evolved by chance. See, in the beginning I already indicated that atheist’s are obstinate and they don’t discuss science they simply blame others to cover their ignorance. So, it’s evident that ignorance is clearly your hall mark and you aren’t open minded to engage in scientific discussion with me. If you are really open to discuss pure science I’m ready to continue this discussion in pure scientific terms. If you are close minded then I don’t want to waste my time with you.

    Like

    1. LIfe didn’t evolve by chance. Evolution is how environmental stressors affect what characteristics are favorable in a living thing.

      It’s hilarious to see you claim you know the sciences. You don’t.

      Like

  9. Lol. Madam did Gish gallop and left a giant skid-mark. We are speaking about chirality problem in a prebiotic soup. The question is whether random chemistry could have done with the chirality problem. What you had indicated in your link is not a random chemistry. It’s only the expert chemist who separated right and left handed molecules using his intelligence.

    If you are really open-minded here you go
    https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-hopes-you-dont-know-chemistry-problem-wi/

    Like

    1. and as usual, poor ST is found a liar again. ICR is a well-known nest of lying Christian creationists. Alas, ICR is wrong as is ST.

      yep, intelligence, ST, not you or your god. and chirality is not the problem you and your creationist liars claim.

      Open minded means not accepting lies from incompetent people. Again, poor ST still things the ‘warm pond” hypothesis is the only one. His laziness and willful ignorance is typical of the common Christian.

      Like

  10. Poor madam, simply pasting multiple links in your comment box illuminates your ignorance more brilliantly . This is not the way to understand chirality problem.

    Let me question you regarding this.

    1. Did uri miller set up traps to isolate mixture from the sealed apparatus?

    2. Did they produce racemic mixture?

    Like

    1. LOL. I do love how poor ST says that scientific articles isn’t the way to “understand chirality”. And he’s still stroking off to the warm pond theory. Sorry, dear, I don’t care about that since we have found better hypotheses.

      alas, creationists are terrified of current science. They must continue to try to attack things that have become superseded.

      Like

  11. Madam lunatic, Don’t jump like a monkey. these scientific articles speculates about the chirality problem. They had accepted that recemic compounds destroys the amino acids and inhibits forming long chain polymers in a prebiotic environment. random chemistry cannot produce homochiral polymers the same handedness to produce life. This fact is accepted by many honest chemistry scientists. We have solid evidence for intelligent design. Darwin’s theory of evolution was just a bunch of imagination shit.

    you are too bad at google search. Here you go
    https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

    Like

    1. poor ST, still lying. what a poor little fellow. There is no such thing as “random chemistry”. And again, we have the Christian lying and trying to insist that the only honest people agree with him.

      and still unable to show this supposed “evidence” for intelligent design aka creationism.

      Like

  12. Gotcha madam, thanks for admitting the fact “There is no such thing as “random chemistry”. Which is the core principle of Darwin’s evolution. Random mutation is proven wrong by your golden statements.

    You deserve to get noble price for the best liar of 2021 and also for your illiteracy in the knowledge of understanding science. You deserve to be praised as the best fool of 2021 as you don’t even know what a peer reviewed journals are.

    Here is the goods to show that God created life. The goods is scientists cannot produce monomers without racemic mixture. The scientists cannot produce all the 21 building blocks of proteins without tar (poisonous compounds). The scientists cannot produce life unless by using their intelligence to separate left handed from right handed optical isomers. All the bunch of scientific article stuff is done in their sophisticated designed labs designed by a intelligent brain. Scientists do chemical manipulation by using monomers and polymers wwhich already is existing in their hands. Even to deny the existence of God they have to use their intelligence to speculate what could have happened in the Primordial soup in a prebiotic environment. Scientists cannot create life from nothing or non life.

    Game over.

    Like

    1. “Gotcha madam, thanks for admitting the fact “There is no such thing as “random chemistry”. Which is the core principle of Darwin’s evolution. Random mutation is proven wrong by your golden statements”

      No, it is not the “core principle” again, ST shows that he is lazy and ignorant and a liar again. It’s hilarious to see him claim I don’t known what a peer-reviewed journal is. The poor thing can’t find one to support his lies.

      Scientists can create monomers without racemic mixtures. Monomers are only “a molecule that can be bonded to other identical molecules to form a polymer” Yep, every plastic is a group of monomers that create polymers. No, racemic mixtures are not required. AS usual, ST is ignorant and lying.

      Scientists can indeed produce amino acids without “tar”, a lovely meaningless term from ST. Scientists can’t “produce” life at all, *yet*. ST just spews nonsense in order to try to appear intelligent.

      It doesn’t work.

      Like

  13. Madam, your ignorance is astounding. There is no atheist in the world who speaks in favor of theist like you. Lol.

    Thanks mam, for admitting the fact that in order to produce monomers without racemic mixture an intelligent intervention of scientist is needed. In order to produce few of the amino acids without tar an intelligent intervention of expert scientist is needed.

    Surely, you will not deny this fact that these scientists were not there in the early earth primordial environment. Right?.

    Our question is whether these things produced by random chemistry in a prebiotic soup where there is no life?. For that you had answered twice No.

    You lost the game again.

    Like

    1. and still no evidence for poor ST’s invented god. Tar is a meaningless term in this context. ST is terribly ignorant about basic science.
      There is no such thing as “random chemistry”.

      Like

    2. S-A, you must really enjoy writing. So much so that all you offer is considerable rambling with little to no substance. But apparently, it satisfies a deep need in your psyche to express yourself.

      Like

  14. Lol, mam more and more you speak i enjoy your defeat. You have no scientific explanation to refute my position. Oh! what a pity that you have to cover your defeat by using words of frustration like “Liar”.

    You are totally done poor baby.

    Like

Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical. And also realize, any blog owner can see the IP address and email address of a commenter.)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.