J C wrote: » Jesus Christ AKA God wrote it.
J C wrote: » ... yes the Roman's and Jews did an even more comprehensive job of shredding any non-biblical mention of Jesus until well after His death as well.:eek:
Dan_Solo wrote: » What did he write it on? When? Who did he give the book to, the Jerusalem public library?
Dan_Solo wrote: » Do source this. I would like to read on it further.
Stano and his colleagues do not yet understand why this happened. It may yet be a random process that a better statistical model will explain. It may be that these particular molecules are suited to this kind of self-organization because they are already highly evolved. An important next step is to see if similar, but less complex, molecules are also capable of this feat. Regardless of the limitations, Stano’s experiment has shown for the first time that self-assembly of molecular machines into simple cells may be an inevitable physical process. Finding out how exactly this self-assembly happens will mean taking a big step towards understanding how life was formed.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » more numbers with lots of zeros 23 zeros because yesterday was mole day (atoms are small) ,15 zeros because of the amount of phosphorus in the oceans, 10 zeros because 8-20 billion earth like planets , 12 zeros because 100 billion galaxies in known universe. 16 zeros is the number of seconds in 300 million years. That's 76 zeros combinations of anything based on random self assembly of phosphorus based chemistry being a certainty of happening somewhere , sometime. except that chemistry usually takes a lot less than a second so more zero's And it isn't random, because of things like autocatalysis speeding stuff up and steric hinderance limiting choices because big molecules don't wizz about and contort in the way lighter gases can. And that's before you remember that RNA uses complimentary bases which means there is a degree of self organisation whereby the next base added isn't completely random.
J C wrote: » Shredding of evidence tends to destroy evidence ... and I don't make up evidence that no longer exists.:)
SaveOurLyric wrote: » Which is not answering what you were asked. Provide the source for the claim that Romans and Jews shred non biblical evidence of Jesus.
J C wrote: » ... please stop unfounded personal insults ... most Atheists aren't delusional or insane ... and calling their belief that they evolved from Pondscum 'simple minded' is also going a bit far.
J C wrote: » Please stick to the topic at issue - and leave your trolling abusive comments behind you, when you come here to debate.:(
J C wrote: » They suppressed and persecuted the Christians ... and fed them to the Lions in the Colosseum ... is that enough evidence of 'shredding' on the part of the Romans for you?
SaveOurLyric wrote: » A take this as a deliberate misreading a post again. Are the creationists delusional and or insane ?
SaveOurLyric wrote: » You need to use bold print when you post with your Mod's hat on.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » Those events seem to have written them into history. The Christian story has always loved its martyrs. Still though, the evidence that that non biblical evidence was shredded.....
J C wrote: » They are neither ... and again you are trolling and abusive in making such unfounded prejudicial personal remarks ... and that the objective truth. I'm not a mod ... nor am I modding ... I'm just reaching objective conclusions based on your post.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » How many atheists, considering the topic, end up thinking creationism is a correct explanation ?
SaveOurLyric wrote: » It is neither personal nor prejudicial. Personal relates to an individual not a group. It is a question, therefore no conclusion has been drawn, and so not prejudicial.
J C wrote: » Personal relates to a person holding a particular belief ... and your question was rhetorical. Please stick to attacking Creationist ideas, by all means ... and leave comments about their person out of it.
J C wrote: » ... shredded metaphorically speaking ... you guys are such literalists!!!!:)
SaveOurLyric wrote: » Again, the question isnt personal. It is about the group of creationists as a whole. Nevertheless, the question seems to trouble you.
J C wrote: » Please stick to attacking Creationist ideas, by all means ... and leave unfounded comments about their person out of it.
Dan_Solo wrote: » So how in the name of bollockology do you know the suppression of Christianity was suppressed if it was supressed?
J C wrote: » Your comments are now moving from personal name-calling to sectarian name-calling. One is bad and the other is worse ... and they're both unfounded
SaveOurLyric wrote: » The mental state of those promoting the ideas is valid to question. If the state in unsound, then the ideas are worthless, and debating them pointless.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » They always referred to the group, despite your repeated effort to paint them thus. And it is not sectarian to refer to a group. That is now a personal accusation at me.
J C wrote: » Those whom people would destroy ... they first declare to be mad ... a very sinister activity. It's quite reprehensible to call somebody who is objectively sane ... mad. Such an unfounded ad hominem is a form of bullying.
