Yet even MORE supporting evidence ...

[Jorge]

Jorge - I don't know why you made the bet. But really, it would have been in the best interests of 'avoiding the appearance of evil' if you had paid it. NO-ONE here - YEC or otherwise - sees this a something you actually won. You really should just take your medicine and pay up.

Jim

I pay all my debts on time - thank you. However ...
I'm not in the habit of "paying-up" on something I do not owe.
If anything, I was gracious enough to forgive what was owed me.

Do I expect you or your comrades to accept that? Of course not!
I expect the opposite. Just like the Clintons, you people are in the
habit of accusing your 'enemies' of the crimes that YOU are guilty of.
Regardless, facts do not depend on your acceptances or denials of them.

You really need to learn to be quiet when you don't know what you're talking about.
But wait, that would mean that you'd be silent just about all the time.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

I pay all my debts on time - thank you. However ...

Not this one. You lost fair and square and you welshed. Not surprising given your previously demonstrated level of honesty.

[rogue06]

I pay all my debts on time - thank you. However ...
I'm not in the habit of "paying-up" on something I do not owe.
If anything, I was gracious enough to forgive what was owed me.

Do I expect you or your comrades to accept that? Of course not!
I expect the opposite. Just like the Clintons, you people are in the
habit of accusing your 'enemies' of the crimes that YOU are guilty of.
Regardless, facts do not depend on your acceptances or denials of them.

You really need to learn to be quiet when you don't know what you're talking about.
But wait, that would mean that you'd be silent just about all the time.

Jorge

Jorge, you made a bad bet. One you really couldn't win. But it was one of your design. Do the adult thing.

[Jorge]

Jorge, you made a bad bet. One you really couldn't win. But it was one of your design. Do the adult thing.

As per the New Age Logic of you people, you think you're right.
Allow me to be the one to rain on your parade - you're NOT right ... not even close.
The whole lot of you need to get a life and stop trying to get me
to do something that would be morally wrong if I did it.
Oh, wait, you critters are also guided by New Age Morality. My bad ... forget what I said.

Jorge

[rogue06]

So now according to the Jorgean Lexicon things like honesty, integrity, honorable, decency... are equivalent to what you call New Age Morality. And admitting that you were in error when you were is hardly the same as doing something morally wrong unless you're under the delusion that you're perfect.

[Jorge]

So now according to the Jorgean Lexicon things like honesty, integrity, honorable, decency... are equivalent to what you call New Age Morality. And admitting that you were in error when you were is hardly the same as doing something morally wrong unless you're under the delusion that you're perfect.

Wrong again, R6 ... on multiple counts!

But listen, I grow weary of trying to educate the likes of you. Nothing save God Himself could get you people to change your wicked ways. Therefore, say or believe whatever lets you sleep at night.

BTW, I was certainly correct in my prediction that my post would generate "arm-waving, grunts, howls and name-calling" but NEVER an admission that there is indeed evidence that supports the Biblical Creation Model. You people will chew off your hind feet before you make such a confession in public. It's all part of your intellectual dishonesty.
.
.
.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, try getting any one of your ideological comrades (namely, the Atheists) to admit that regarding the origin of life they hold a RELIGIOUS position. I mean, in the final analysis they HAVE to believe in abiogenesis (the unproven belief that life must have arisen from non-living things through natural processes).

Not only has abiogenesis never been observed. In fact, the contrary (biogenesis) has been scientifically shown to hold in all cases. Ergo, these people hold an UNscientific position -- call it religious, metaphysical, ideological, philosophical or whatever but don't you dare call it "scientific" because that claim would be unjustifiable.

In short, they are every bit as religious as the Snake Worshipers of Bali.

Think you can get any of your buddies to 'fess up to that?

I again predict "arm-waving, grunts, howls and name-calling" but NEVER an admission.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

Not only has abiogenesis never been observed. In fact, the contrary (biogenesis) has been scientifically shown to hold in all cases. Ergo, these people hold an UNscientific position -- call it religious, metaphysical, ideological, philosophical or whatever but don't you dare call it "scientific" because that claim would be unjustifiable.

In short, they are every bit as religious as the Snake Worshipers of Bali.

I'm sorry, but maybe you can elaborate on this. The scientists studying abiogenesis are determining the types of chemicals that existed early in the solar system's history, figuring out the conditions that likely prevailed on the early earth, understanding the chemical reactions that would occur spontaneously under those conditions, and looking at things like the spontaneous formation of membranes, the existence of self-replicating RNAs, etc. etc. I'm curious as to how those activities are the equivalent of snake worship.

[oxmixmudd]

Wrong again, R6 ... on multiple counts!

But listen, I grow weary of trying to educate the likes of you. Nothing save God Himself could get you people to change your wicked ways. Therefore, say or believe whatever lets you sleep at night.

BTW, I was certainly correct in my prediction that my post would generate "arm-waving, grunts, howls and name-calling" but NEVER an admission that there is indeed evidence that supports the Biblical Creation Model. You people will chew off your hind feet before you make such a confession in public. It's all part of your intellectual dishonesty.
.
.
.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, try getting any one of your ideological comrades (namely, the Atheists) to admit that regarding the origin of life they hold a RELIGIOUS position. I mean, in the final analysis they HAVE to believe in abiogenesis (the unproven belief that life must have arisen from non-living things through natural processes).

Not only has abiogenesis never been observed. In fact, the contrary (biogenesis) has been scientifically shown to hold in all cases. Ergo, these people hold an UNscientific position -- call it religious, metaphysical, ideological, philosophical or whatever but don't you dare call it "scientific" because that claim would be unjustifiable.

In short, they are every bit as religious as the Snake Worshipers of Bali.

Think you can get any of your buddies to 'fess up to that?

I again predict "arm-waving, grunts, howls and name-calling" but NEVER an admission.

Jorge

Source: abstract from May13 science

Becker et al. show that the A and G bases can be synthesized easily and in high yield from prebiotically reasonable precursors, lending further support to the RNA World hypothesis.

© Copyright Original Source

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6287/833

Research continues. Sometimes it takes a while to work it out. We still don't understand elements of how or why tornadoes form or how they behave, yet they happen every year, every month of the year, sometimes many on a single day. "God of the gaps" is always a weak argument Jorge. Go for something stronger.


Jim

[Roy]

Jorge continues to welch

I pay all my debts on time - thank you. However ...
I'm not in the habit of "paying-up" on something I do not owe.
If anything, I was gracious enough to forgive what was owed me.

Codswallop.

This was your challenge to me:

Unless I'm mistaken, the TWeb rules don't require rogue to prove you wrong . They require that you prove yourself right - which you have not done, since you have failed to demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version.

I don't think you can.

You willing to bet $150.00 on that?
Come on, be a man, put your money where your fat mouth is...

I accepted your bet. I put my money where my mouth was. And what happened? You failed to do any of the things I said you couldn't do. You didn't "demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version". You didn't "prove yourself right". Instead, you admitted you couldn't. You lost the bet that you initiated. Then you welched.

It's painfully obvious to everyone here that you messed up; that you challenged me to "put your money where your fat mouth is" without understanding the implications of what I'd written; and that you have been wriggling and obfuscating, bluffing and blustering, and changing your story ever since. You messed up, and you know you messed up, but you won't take responsibility for, or deal with the consequences of, your mistake. That's why I'm happy to propagate the actual text of your challenge but you never will.

So yes, when you post here you will get responses that don't deal with the substance of your post. But it has nothing to do with your posts being unanswerable. It's because you are a lying coprophile who owes this site money from an ill-considered bet on which you welched.

Roy

[rwatts]

Source: abstract from May13 science

Becker et al. show that the A and G bases can be synthesized easily and in high yield from prebiotically reasonable precursors, lending further support to the RNA World hypothesis.

© Copyright Original Source

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6287/833

Research continues. Sometimes it takes a while to work it out. We still don't understand elements of how or why tornadoes form or how they behave, yet they happen every year, every month of the year, sometimes many on a single day. "God of the gaps" is always a weak argument Jorge. Go for something stronger.


Jim

And a bit more:-

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/16...omms11328.html

[Jorge]

I'm sorry, but maybe you can elaborate on this. The scientists studying abiogenesis are determining the types of chemicals that existed early in the solar system's history, figuring out the conditions that likely prevailed on the early earth, understanding the chemical reactions that would occur spontaneously under those conditions, and looking at things like the spontaneous formation of membranes, the existence of self-replicating RNAs, etc. etc. I'm curious as to how those activities are the equivalent of snake worship.

Observing that mud hardens and, ergo, may be used to make "bricks" that may be assembled to make shelter that may be .... hardly explains a beautifully designed, functional, multilevel 50-room mansion.

What HAS been observed doesn't even take the first step towards first base in explaining how life arose from raw chemicals. Believing otherwise (as Atheists do) is precisely that -- a metaphysical / religious / ideological BELIEF.

Clear enough?

Jorge

[Jorge]

Source: abstract from May13 science

Becker et al. show that the A and G bases can be synthesized easily and in high yield from prebiotically reasonable precursors, lending further support to the RNA World hypothesis.

© Copyright Original Source

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6287/833

Research continues. Sometimes it takes a while to work it out. We still don't understand elements of how or why tornadoes form or how they behave, yet they happen every year, every month of the year, sometimes many on a single day. "God of the gaps" is always a weak argument Jorge. Go for something stronger.


Jim

Regarding O-Mudd, I have long stated that often times there is little-to-no difference between his position and that of Atheists. The above post represents yet another example supporting my claim.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Codswallop.

This was your challenge to me:I accepted your bet. I put my money where my mouth was. And what happened? You failed to do any of the things I said you couldn't do. You didn't "demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version". You didn't "prove yourself right". Instead, you admitted you couldn't. You lost the bet that you initiated. Then you welched.

It's painfully obvious to everyone here that you messed up; that you challenged me to "put your money where your fat mouth is" without understanding the implications of what I'd written; and that you have been wriggling and obfuscating, bluffing and blustering, and changing your story ever since. You messed up, and you know you messed up, but you won't take responsibility for, or deal with the consequences of, your mistake. That's why I'm happy to propagate the actual text of your challenge but you never will.

So yes, when you post here you will get responses that don't deal with the substance of your post. But it has nothing to do with your posts being unanswerable. It's because you are a lying coprophile who owes this site money from an ill-considered bet on which you welched.

Roy

You poor creature! You have no life and so you must invent a cause -- even if it's
a totally fabricated cause -- to find some meaning for your pitiful existence.

Thank you LORD that I am not Roy!!!!!!!!

Jorge

[Roy]

Thank you LORD that I am not Roy!!!!!!!!

You don't meet the requirements.

[Jorge]

You don't meet the requirements.

A big AMEN to that!!!

Those "requirements" include: intellectual dishonesty, distorting facts,
rewriting history, re-interpreting events to suit an agenda ... and similar.

Yup, you are 100% correct, Roy - I do NOT meet the requirements.

For that, my LORD Jesus Christ, I thank you!

Jorge