One of the most astonishing realities uncovered by modern science is that living organisms are not passive collections of molecules, but active responsive systems—built with foresight. Take the cell, for example. It doesn’t simply exist; it senses, adapts, communicates, and defends itself against threats. The question is unavoidable: did this arise through blind chance, or was it intentionally designed?
A recent article from Science & Culture illustrates this with an analogy. Imagine a small boat capsizing in the middle of the ocean. Without outside help, the passengers would be doomed. But if a distress call is sent, a well-prepared rescue team could be dispatched, equipped with the tools and training to save lives. Such operations don’t happen by accident—they require foresight, planning, and readiness.
Cells operate in much the same way. They constantly face threats, one of which is the toxic biowaste produced during metabolism. If left unchecked, this waste could damage and kill the cell. Yet, built-in rescue systems exist: specialized organelles dock at mitochondria, using protein “contact points” to detoxify harmful chemicals.
Dr. Michael Schrader, co-author of the study, observed: “We are moving away from the idea that organelles operate in isolation and toward a more integrated view of how they communicate and coordinate to protect the cell.”
That phrase—communicate and coordinate—is striking. Within the cell, tiny components act like skilled teams working together to keep life alive. They don’t stumble about randomly; they operate with efficiency, purpose, and foresight.
And here lies the problem for naturalistic explanations. Nonliving matter—rocks, dirt—doesn’t behave this way. They don’t produce waste, nor do they require repair systems. So how would nonliving chemicals, by chance, ever assemble themselves into a system that not only survives but actively anticipates and responds to danger? If such mechanisms arose only after life began, how did the first cells survive long enough without them?
To say that “given enough time, it just happened” is not a scientific explanation; it’s wishful thinking. Time is not a creative force. Invoking it as the answer to cellular complexity is no different from waving a magic wand and calling it science.
What we see in the cell is not chaos slowly organizing itself, but a blueprint already in place from the beginning—systems designed to detect, communicate, repair, and defend. These are not the marks of chance but of intelligence.
In the end, the cell’s emergency response system reminds us of something profound: foresight requires a forethinker. Just as a rescue operation depends on trained personnel and intentional preparation, so too the cell’s survival mechanisms point toward a purposeful Designer. Far from being a story of chance, life itself is testimony to God’s creation.
sixdaysblog 
And still no evidence for your imaginary friend. You, as usual, make baseless assertions.
“And here lies the problem for naturalistic explanations. Nonliving matter—rocks, dirt—doesn’t behave this way. They don’t produce waste, nor do they require repair systems. So how would nonliving chemicals, by chance, ever assemble themselves into a system that not only survives but actively anticipates and responds to danger? If such mechanisms arose only after life began, how did the first cells survive long enough without them?”
Again, not by “chance” e.g. random events. The laws of physics exist so no “chance” as a creationist liar would claim. Why shouldn’t non-living things become living?
“In the end, the cell’s emergency response system reminds us of something profound: foresight requires a forethinker. Just as a rescue operation depends on trained personnel and intentional preparation, so too the cell’s survival mechanisms point toward a purposeful Designer. Far from being a story of chance, life itself is testimony to God’s creation.”
curious how the cell repeatedly fails so your claims of a “forethinker” means that this “forethinker” is a complete idiot and incompetent.
I’m not sure what more you want. I provided evidence after evidence, and all you can say is, “And still no evidence…” If living organisms were designed by God, what evidence would you accept? There’s gotta be something reasonable, right? You can’t just bury your head in the sand and say, “Nope, no evidence here.” All the rescue systems found in cells are evidence. Why? Because there’s no evidence that such things can arise by chance. Can you name a single example where a defense mechanism arose apart from what is already programmed into the DNA?
I suggest that these defense mechanisms are evidence of God because there’s no evidence that they can arise without being preprogrammed to do so. If you disagree, then produce evidence.
You claim, without evidence, that such defense mechanisms don’t arise by chance or random events because the laws of physics exist. Firstly, you reject proven scientific laws, particularly if they’re inconvenient. For instance, you’ve denied the Law of Biogenesis based on personal bias. So it’s telling that you would site another law to explain why defense mechanisms don’t arise randomly. But please keep in mind that invoking “The laws of physics” doesn’t produce life from nonlife. If you sincerely believe that the laws of physics can produce these kinds of defense mechanisms, then provide evidence, not words. The fact is, we don’t observe the laws of physics creating brand new defense mechanisms out of nowhere, which is exactly what would have been required in the first living organisms.
You ask, “Why shouldn’t non-living things become living?” First, it’s not that living things should or shouldn’t become living. It’s more a matter of the way things are. Non-living things simply don’t come to life. It’s an observation. Science. It has nothing to do with how things “ought” to be. Second, that’s how God designed the laws of physics to behave. Life requires intelligence and design.
You ask, “curious how the cell repeatedly fails so your claims of a “forethinker” means that this “forethinker” is a complete idiot and incompetent.”
Well, if you’re curious, then let me explain. Christians refer to the event as “the fall.” This is where Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command not to eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Prior to this event, cells operated perfectly and never failed because there was no sin, but after sin, that’s when cells began to fail because God warned of death if Adam disobeyed, and that’s exactly what happened. So cells fail, not because God is an idiot or incompetent, but because those were the consequences he handed down.
it’s great to see you fail again, Jonathan. And it’s evne better to hear the crickets when you asked me this “Okay, let’s get started. I love talking about Jesus. Glad you’re interested. Go ahead, explain how Paul is utterly ignorant about the events around Jesus. Make your case.”
and can’t respond to what I wrote. You are a fraud and a failure, jonathan. I’ll be back to tear apart your nonsense here.
You havent’ provided evidence. You’ve made baseless claims.
If organisms were “designed by god”, then I would expect them to have no faults. How does a supposed “perfect” being make faulty things, Jonathan? The “rescue systems” would not be needed at all, so your argument fails miserably. Why would a defense mechanism for DNA arise without DNA?
Again, no “chance” as ignorant theists claim. And you have no evidence at all that such things can’t arise in the natural system of physics and evolution. You demand that your god is needed, when you have no evidence it merely exists.
It’s great how you lie and claim I reject “proven scientific laws” when I have not. Your lies about there being a “law of biogenesis” is just precious. It is no more than the god of the gaps argument. I haven’t denied it based on “personal bias”, I’ve denied it because it doesn’t exist.
I know that physics produces life since it does. Again, dear, no evidence of magic or your imaginary friend. What other possibilities are there? Defenses don’t need to come out of “nowhere” since they have to come from what exists. You want to claim your god makes thing out of nowhere, and yep, we’re back to the special pleading of cultists.
No surprise that you can’t explain why living things shouldn’t come from nonliving things,but you claim that they can’t. You are unable to show that they can’t or why they can’t. You are a fraud yet again, Jonathan. You simply baselessly assert “non living things simply don’t come to life”. You have no idea if they do or not.
Claiming your god “designed” the laws of physics is just one more baseless assertion. Again, Jonathan, where is your god?
Yep, Christians claim the “fall” caused reality to change. If that happened, then all claims of seeing “design” are lies since you would literally be unable to see what your god actually intended. You fail again, Jonathan. Anything you claims as “designed” was not, per your bible.
Your “original sin” nonsense also fails since it makes your god a liar. It claims it would never punish someone for the actions of another. This is all that original sin is. Of course, the bible also says it will punish people for the actions of others, which means your god contradict itself. That’s quite a problem.
You keep saying that I haven’t provided any evidence, just baseless claims. But I keep pointing you to the evidence. And you keep denying it. So I keep asking, what more do you want? What evidence for God’s design would you accept? Then you state, “I would expect them to have no faults.” And I keep explaining that, according to the Bible, which is my source of authority, God did create organisms without any faults. I’m giving you a biblical response. You don’t have to agree with it. You don’t even have to like it. But please don’t keep acting like the Bible doesn’t directly address your claims. And if you recognize the fall, then we can easily explain why rescue systems are needed. Without them, life would go extinct. Thankfully, God didn’t simply annihilate us right then and there. No. Instead, he punished Adam and Eve for their disobedience, allowing death, disease and suffering. So instead of blame-shifting to God, we need to accept and deal with the consequences and judgment.
And if God is omniscient (all-knowing), it’s reasonable to conclude that God knew Adam and Eve would sin. Therefore, we have a few options. Either God preprogrammed our DNA (and all organisms) so that the defense mechanisms would kick in after the fall. Or God altered the DNA after the fall. Either one is plausible from a biblical perspective, although I’m in favor of the former.
You also keep saying we have no evidence at all that such things can’t arise in the natural system of physics and evolution. But I’m saying the opposite. There is no evidence that such things can arise naturally. This is the Law of Biogenesis. In order to refute this, all one would need to do is point to a single defense mechanism that came about naturally… one where the genetic code did not come purposely from preprogrammed genetic coding. I’m suggesting that all complex defense mechanisms are coded within the DNA, and such coding does not come about by natural processes.
Unless you can refute the Law of Biogenesis, then you can’t claim it doesn’t exist. Otherwise you’re lying. And it’s not a god of the gaps argument. It’s a logical deduction based on evidence, including the Bible. Just because one denies God’s existence doesn’t defeat the Law of Biogenesis. No. You’d actually have to refute it by demonstrating that life can arise naturally and without intelligence. Otherwise God is a perfectly viable explanation for the origin of life. We’re not confined merely to natural explanations. If we were, and God does exist, then we’re doomed to come up with lies to explain the truth in order to prop up a false ideology.
You state, “I know that physics produces life since it does.” That’s a false claim. And your claim is not evidence. The only way physics can produce life is if the Law of Biogenesis is true. Physics upholds the Law of Biogenesis. Physics can’t simply turn a pile of dirt into life. No, it must start with living chemistry. Sounds like you need to learn about reproduction.
Now it’s nice that you’re in agreement that “Defenses don’t need to come out of ‘nowhere’ since they have to come from what exists.” Exactly! You’re catching on.
Again, it’s not about why living things should or shouldn’t do what they do. Not sure why that’s so hard to understand. They just don’t. If you want to know why, then that’s what chemistry is about. It’s because of the way molecules behave when they form proteins and enzymes and such. They simply don’t become arranged in a way where the molecules actually communicate with one another to do jobs, like metabolism and reproduction, and they certainly don’t come to life anymore than roadkill can come to life (even though the roadkill was once alive).
I do know that non-living things don’t simply come to life. That’s what we’ve learned from science. If you deny it, then prove me wrong. Don’t lie about it.
The fact that God designed the laws of physics isn’t a baseless assertion. God has revealed that in his Word.
The fall is a perfectly good explanation (since it’s true). Your assertion for why we couldn’t see design if the fall was real makes no sense. We know what God intended because he told us. So you fail again.
The doctrine of Original Sin is real and easily understood by those who want to understand it. God’s punishment upon Adam, Eve and the serpent are universal. It was a curse upon them. It’s their sin that brought such a universal consequences, which God promised if they disobeyed. It is the consequences of Adam’s sin that brought sin, death, disease and suffering. So God is not a liar. He is holy and just. And when God says he will punish the children for the sin of their fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate him, he is just in doing so. God is not punishing the innocent, but those involved in ongoing, generational sin. Yet he turns his wrath away from those who repent. There are no lies or contradictions.
And still no evidence that your god exists. And you can’t show I’m wrong when I show that Paul is clueless about jesus.
Again, you keep pointing at things that aren’t evidence but baseless claims that have nothing to support them. I want evidence, not your presuppositional nonsense that depends on a god you can’t show exists at all.
If your god designed things, things should be with no flaws. It’s perfect, right? You have to claim that the flaws we see are from some “fall” which means your claims of seeing design are simply false. Per your myths, all you can see is what was supposed changed from what your god wanted. So no evidence of design at all. If your god changed things back per the myth, you would have some room to maneuver. Since it doesn’t, you have nothing.
Your bible is indeed your “source of authority” and that source is a poorly written set of books replete with human ignorance. You have no evidence your god exists or that anything was different before some “fall” you can’t show happening. Your “biblical response” is nonsense. I don’t recognize your “fall” myth, it’s pure invention.
Your god doesn’t exist so of course it didn’t “annihilate” anything. It’s hilarious thatyour god which is supposedly omniscient, made us the way we are and then would annhiliate us for being exactly as it made us. That takes some real stupid on the part of your god. Your god, per the myth, punished Adam and Eve for being what he made them, two amora humans who had no idea what “good” and “evil” were and thus had no idea that it was “wrong” to disobey. So your garbage about needing to “accept” your idiot god fails.
Yep, it is more than reasonable that this god would know that adam and eve would sin, and thus its punishment is the action of an idiot and an abuser. You have to then make up more nonsense to excuse your idiot god, and add things to your bible, dear. Your bible says that’s a no-no. IF this god wanted to punish people, no need for “defense mechanisms”, so your fable fails yet again.
Yep, no evidence that can’t be explained with physics and evolution. Yep, you are saying the opposite, and you have nothing to support your nonsense. There is plenty of evidence that things can arise naturally. Again, your god of the gaps argument fails since we may never know exactly how things worked, and that still doesn’t mean your god exists at all. There is no “law of biogenesis”, which is a lie invented by incompetent creationists like you. We have plenty of mechanisms that have come about naturally, e.g. by evolution. My own family has one of them that can be good in some cases and harmful in others, Alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency. It helps making the body resistant to parasites but it also makes the lungs and pancreas screw up if exposed to pollutants. Your ignorance is typical and destroys your claims.
No need to “refute” that which doesn’t exist. You are simply one more failed liar, dear. We have already seen how organic molecules are widespread and how they can form naturally. You still have nothing to show your god exists or to show that magic is needed for anything. Your bible is not evidence, it is a set of claims that have nothing to support them.
Most, if not all, religions all have creation stories, and yours is just one of them. Not one of these stories is shown true, including yours. Allah, Brahman, Aten, Ahura-Mazda, etc are all “perfectly viable explanations for the origin of life” per your nonsense, and surprise, not one theist can show that any of them exist.
Physics produces life. You can’t show otherwise and you can’t show your imaginary friend exists. It’s hilarious how you think you can make claims that have no evidence and then have a hissy fit when I make a claim that could be construed that way. Tsk. Repeating the lie of “the law of biogenesis” doesn’t make it true. Living things reproducing isn’t abiogenesis, and again, where is your god, dear?
Defenses don’t’ come out of nowhere, they are evolved. Poor Jonathan, still failing.
Again, your lies still don’t work. You can’t show your god exists or does anything at all. You declare that chemistry doesn’t do things that it does do and your ignorance fails you again. Molecules don’t communicate, dear, they interact thanks to physical laws.
You claim you know that non-living things don’t simply come to life, and yet you literally have no idea if that can happen or not. You simply assume it can’t based on the presuppositions of your cult. You haven’t learned your lies from science; they come from your religion.
Still no evidence for your god so again, the claim that your god “designed the laws of physics” is a baseless presupposition. Most, if not all, religions have that their cult’s book “reveals” that their god created reality. Again, a book with no evidence to support it is worthless.
The fall is an idiotic explanation of why bad things happen and why things are flawed. No evidence for any perfect creation, so you fail again. Your bible claims this god said things. Nothing supports the claim that it did. You only assume your cult’s book is true since you’ve been told it’s true. Strange how most, if not all, “holy books” make that exact same claim, just like yours.
The doctrine of original sin is a myth, and is, again, idiotic. It’s not hard to understand, an idiot god who failed, blamed its creations and took a temper tantrum. That’s all it is. It’s notable how your god says it would never punish people for the sins of others
“As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. – Ezekiel 18
“16 “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. – Deut 24”
so in which case is your god lying, Jonathan? Both can’t be true for an “unchanging” god. Per the myth, god is a liar, since it said that the humans would die the day they ate the magic fruit. They didn’t.
As usual, you show no more than that Christian morality is primitive, no more than might equals right. How pathetic. Your poor lil’ god gets upset when ants don’t like him, like some upset three year old. You cultists can’t even agree on what yur imaginary friend considers to be a sin, so your prating is just one little boy who wants everyone to obey him.
You keep repeating points that have been refuted. Try something different. My arguments are valid. You simply won’t accept any evidence, which is irrational. Everything we’ve discussed demonstrates consistency with the Bible, and that’s why things like design counts as evidence. It explains why everything looks designed, and why things break down.
You may not recognize the fall, but I encourage you to. We’re all sinners in need of a savior, including you. If you don’t confess your sins and seek forgiveness from Jesus Christ, then your stubbornness isn’t going to save you. We’re all going to die, so the smart thing to do is be prepared, and the best way to do that is through faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Then we will spend eternity with him in paradise, and there will be no more sin, death, disease or suffering. Sounds like a pretty good deal to the alternative. You can make derisive comments all you want, but you’re going to die just like everyone else. I’m just saying that it would be worth your while to make an effort to know Jesus rather than disparage him.
You claim “There is plenty of evidence that things can arise naturally,” and then point to Alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). Now this is an excellent point to discuss. The name itself indicates that something is broken or deficient. What evolutionists have to do is explain where the efficiency came from in the first place. Evolution would be the time when the alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) didn’t exist in the ancestral population, but eventually it evolved to protect the tissues from damage by enzymes like neutrophil elastase. But this raises the question of how our ancestors survived without AAT in the first place, and how it became necessary. AAT is a complex protein, and there’s no explanation as to how it could arise naturally, without being designed on purpose. It exhibits complex three-dimensional folding essential for its function in inhibiting enzymes like neutrophil elastase. Its complexity arises from its single polypeptide chain with precise structural domains, post-translational modifications, and dynamic conformational changes during inhibition. AAT is more elaborate than other proteins due to its size, glycosylation, and mechanistic versatility. There’s much more to its complexity, but evolution can’t explain how this evolved over millions of years in a step-by-step process of trial and error.
Now AATD is inherited in an autosomal codominant pattern, meaning you need to inherit faulty genes from both parents to have the severe form, or the milder forms with one faulty gene. In other words, this disease is a defect. Nothing evolved. Something is broken. This is what we would expect in a sinful, broken world.
You quoted Ezekiel 18 and Deuteronomy 24, but I don’t see any contradiction. Where is the contradiction?
Unsurprsingly, you still have no evidence and your arguments have been refuted.
Again, no design, and your claims about the fall fail. Why would I consider something that has no evidence for it happening, Jonathan? If the fall happened, then everything literally can’t look designed.
Your threats about sin, which christains can’t agree on, aren’t impressive. Yep, we will all die, and there is no imaginary heaven or hell, so impotent threats don’t work very well. Per your own bible, christians aren’t spend eternity with their god, most are in the “city of heaven on earth”. You might want to actually know what your bible promises.
I know jesus quite well for a fictional character. It’s quite a sad little figure that depends on hate and violence. If you could show it exists, I would still not worship such a being. If your god doesn’t like what I say about it, it can come down and tell me. Why would it depend on a puny flawed human to do that?
Again, your arguments fail hilariously. That alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency has a title using those words doesn’t mean it is entirely harmful, and it’s sweet how you try to lie about this. We don’t completely know where the “efficiency” came from and we may never completely figure that out. Again, nice to see your usual god of the gaps lies. There is nothign to show that AAT can’t come about naturally, so your creationism fails miserably again. Baseless assertions fail.
Again, nothing is “broken”. Your cult’s stupidity on perfection fails yet again.
Let me walk you through what you don’t want to grasp:
“The doctrine of original sin is a myth, and is, again, idiotic. It’s not hard to understand, an idiot god who failed, blamed its creations and took a temper tantrum. That’s all it is. It’s notable how your god says it would never punish people for the sins of others
“As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. – Ezekiel 18
“16 “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. – Deut 24”
so in which case is your god lying, Jonathan? Both can’t be true for an “unchanging” god. Per the myth, god is a liar, since it said that the humans would die the day they ate the magic fruit. They didn’t.”
Original sin says that this god cursed humanity for what adam and eve did, the mother and father of humanity. Ezekiel 18 and Deut 24 has this god saying that it would never hold descendants accountable for the actions of their parents.
it isn’t that hard, dear.
Of course there’s evidence. Sadly, you’re not interested in evidence. If you believe my evidence has been refuted, then you need to explain the refutation. Otherwise it’s just words. I’m not asking you to consider something that has no evidence for it. I’m asking you to consider something that does have evidence for it.
Your claim that, “If the fall happened, then everything literally can’t look designed.” Nonsense. That’s like saying, “If someone designed and built my house 200 years ago, but now it’s falling apart, then it doesn’t look designed.” Duh. That’s illogical. Could such an argument cause others to agree that the house came about naturally? Or would people recognize your fallacy?
So God’s designs still look like design despite the fall. The designs were originally very good, but sin corrupted those designs so that now there are errors. Yet we can still see the design despite the errors. Just because your car may have a dent in it doesn’t mean it was there when it came out of the factory. The ability to see design is based on the ability to detect patterns and understand the world around us. How do you know a house, car, boat, watch, computer were designed? If you’re able to detect design in any man-made object, then it’s also possible to detect design in nature (God-made things). It’s just a matter of using logic and reason.
I didn’t offer any threats about sin. It’s a warning. Just like a stop light isn’t a threat. It’s a warning. If you have a habit of ignoring warnings, there could be unpleasant consequences. If you told a child not to jump into the water because there are alligators in it, are you threatening that child? I hope you can recognize the difference between a threat and a warning.
Sadly, your view of Jesus is flawed. He’s the only who can save you from death. I hope you come to place a greater value on your soul and actually seek a personal relationship with Jesus, who can forgive your sins.
Funny how you resort to a nature of the gaps fallacy about AATD in order to deny the inevitable conclusion that it was designed. You admit the obvious- that no one completely knows where the “efficiency” came from and may never completely figure that out but you’re going to believe it came about naturally anyway no matter how silly that may be because you refuse to believe in God and his design, which is actually a logical conclusion of the evidence. Got it. There is nothing to show that AAT can come about naturally, but you’re going to believe it anyway because you refuse to believe in God and accept his free gift of eternal life. Your baseless assertion fails.
Both Ezekiel 18 and Deuteronomy 24 are true. There’s no contradiction with Genesis. As for Adam’s sin, God warned Adam that if he sinned, he would surely die. Therefore, it’s his sin (through his headship) that led to his ancestors falling prey to sin and death. It’s Adam who deserves the blame for our sinful condition. But God isn’t punishing us for Adam’s sin. God punishes us for our own sin. God cursed Adam for his disobedience. We suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, but not his guilt. We are born into this fallen condition and we suffer because of Adam’s sin, but we are not held guilty for his sins. Adam’s sin corrupted human nature, but we are condemned for our own sin. There’s a difference between personal accountability and the universal condition of sin. We do not die for Adam’s sin in the legal sense. We die because Adam’s sin introduced death and corruption into the human condition. Each person is responsible for their own choices, but those choices are inevitably shaped by a fallen nature inherited from Adam.
If Adam hadn’t sinned, then there would be no sin for anyone to die for. Nonetheless, God provided a way out through the blood of Christ.
And still no evidence. Evidence is facts supporting a claim. You have none. You have arguments that any theist can use, and not one can be shown to be true. Your claims have been refuted and I’ve repeatedly shown that. It’s hilarious how you claim you need the refutation explained, which is hilarious since a refutation is an explanation on why your nonsense fails.
Again, you claim things were designed by your god, but then you claim that what we see in the world was irrevocably altered by the fall, which means literally you can’t see any design. Anything you assume is design could be from the fall. Your analogy about a house fails since you assume you know how a fallen down house would be constructed by looking at the ruins, and your assumption is simply baseless.
Curious how reality doesn’t look like design at all since we have no idea what your god intended. You assume you know since you have nothing else to look at. Nothing shows that there were any “designs” that “were originally very good”. That is simply baseless assertion.
We can know that a car, house, etc are designed since we have the designers. You still have nothing but baseless assertions: that your god exists and that it designed anything at all. A house, car, etc aren’t a universe.
The ability to assume design is based on a human failing to think that everything must be designed and you have no evidence to support that claim.
You have offered threats, and it’s so sweet when a christain fraud tries to claim a threat is a “warning” to avoid being responsible for their actions. That would only work if you could show your claims are true. Other than that it’s a threat, based on your sadistic cult’s fantasies.
Yep, I can determine the difference between threat and warning:
threat: “ an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage”
vs
Warning: “an act to give notice to beforehand especially of danger or evil”
All you have are baseless threats, nothing more.
My view of jesus is that this is a fictional character, that Christians cannot agree on since they cannot agree on what this character wants, who it is, and what it does. Nothing shows that this character exists and as such, cannot save me from anything, much less death. That is a baseless claim by Christians. Not one can show that this character exist, including you, Jonathan. You are evidence it does not since you cannot do what your bible has jesus promising to his true followers.
There is no evidence of a soul either, so I don’t have to have value for something that doesn’t exist. Theists have been looking for the “soul” for millennia and have yet to find one.
As for a “personal relationship”, Christians do love to claim they have this, and yet they cannot produce this character that they claim exists. They also cannot agree on what this character considers to be a sin, so they have no idea what it supposedly forgives.
Again, nice fail to show that your god exists, dear. I have not used a nature of the gaps fallacy, but nice lies. That’s all you have. Ype, we may neve figure everything out before the end of the universe. That still doesn’t mean your god exists. Again, where is it, dear? There is no evidence that points to your imaginary friend, or that it is the one true creator. Again, other religions use the same arguments as you and surprise, they fail, just like you.
No free gift, even per the bible, so your further lies fail miserably. This character requires much for this supposed “eternal life”. It requires giving up everything. It requires obedience. It requires ignorance.
It’s hilarious how you try to claim that it can be true that this god both does not punish people for others’ actions and that it does do that. That’s just sweet. Unsurpringly, your argument fails hilariously, when you try to excuse this nonsense by the invented “headship”, which means that yep, this god punishes people for the actions of others. So when it says it won’t do that in Ezekiel 18, it is either lying in genesis/exodus, or it is lying in Ezekiel.
If adam is to blame “for our sinful condition”, then adam’s actions are what causes this god to punish humans. You say this yourself, so nice self-own “Therefore, it’s his sin (through his headship) that led to his ancestors falling prey to sin and death.” Per the original sin nonsense, this god punishes us for Adam’s actions *and* our own sin. You fail yet again. If there is a “universal condition of sin” caused by Adam and Eve, that means everyone was punished for the actions of two people. It’s hilarious how Christians can’t even agree on their “legal” nonsense.
This is all that anyone needs to read in the bible to kow you are quite a liar “12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law.” Romans 5
People were punished by death because of adam’s actions. The idea of sin came into existence in eden. Not because of their own actions, but because of the nonsense in eden. The fact that children who die and have had no chance to “sin” are also under original sin shows your cult’s nonsense to fail rather amusingly.
“If Adam hadn’t sinned, then there would be no sin for anyone to die for. Nonetheless, God provided a way out through the blood of Christ.”
and this is hilarious since this literally shows your claims to be false. If Adam hadn’t sinned, then there would be no original sin, which brought death and sin into the world. But you claim that people die for their own sins, which didn’t bring death or sin into the world. Which is it, Jonathan?
as for the nonsense of the “blood of christ”, curious how this god evidently thought it could fix eden with the flood. That failed, then it tried babel. that failed. then it tried the laws, and they failed. For a supposed omniscient being, this god is quite an idiot, finally supposedly coming up with a human blood sacrifice by torture to make itself happy. How ridiculous.
I provided plenty of evidence. If you truly believe you’ve refuted me, then make your case. Not just assertions.
Yes, I believe God designed the universe and life on earth, and it was very good. But then sin came into the world, and now there’s death, disease and decay. But that doesn’t mean we can’t see any design- as you suggest. That’s nonsense. My house analogy explains why. You’re an atheist. I get it. Nonetheless, in our discussion on “Did Squid Eyes Evolve?” you had a moment of clarity and admitted “it can look like there is design.” That’s a good start.
You try so hard to deny design, but it’s right in front of your nose (literally). If only you would employ more intellectual honesty. You admit that “We can know that a car, house, etc are designed since we have the designers.” Good. All I’m saying is that if we employ this same logic to the origin of life, it makes more sense that God created life than natural processes did it. After all, we don’t observe natural processes designing and building cars and houses, which are not as complex as the simplest living organism on earth. If natural processes could design life, then we should be able to observe this process happening today. Or we should be able to observe natural processes building cars and houses. But we don’t observe natural processes designing or building any complex things. So why should we pretend they can? Why not just admit that the Bible might be right, and God does exist. This solves everything. Elegant logic.
The ability to assume design is simple logic. If 2 + 2 can never equal 5, then let’s not ignore the facts and pretend it can anyway just because “we have no evidence to support that claim.” That’s illogical. If 2 + 2 can never equal five, then, maybe- just maybe- it can equal 4! Truth.
No threats. You’re free to assume that hell is a threat based on your feelings, but the fact remains that I’m reaching out to save you from harm. If you don’t accept my help, that’s on you. I’m assuming you’re an adult, so if you want to play in shark infested water and think you will survive, then that’s your decision, and your blood is on your own head. I tried to warn you, but you wouldn’t listen because of your stubbornness. My conscious is clear.
Thanks for being honest about who you think Jesus is. But Christians don’t have to “agree on what this character wants, who it is, and what it does” in order for the Bible to be the Word of God. Even if every Christian were divided, the Bible would still be true, and God would hold us all accountable. Thankfully, we can read the Bible for ourselves to find out what is true.
Today, there are very few experts who deny that Jesus existed. There’s so much evidence that knowledgeable people don’t deny his existence. Such unbelievers simply deny that he was the Christ or Messiah. So it’s not a baseless claim by Christians because non-Christians believe he existed too, based on evidence. This is the opposite of baseless. Your claim that Jesus didn’t exist is baseless.
It’s interesting that you claim that I “cannot do what your bible has jesus promising to his true followers.” It’s hard to follow what you’re trying to say, but it’s true that I cannot do what my Bible says. Nobody can. Paul explains this well in Romans 7:18 when he says, “For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.” So then, what is the solution? In verse 18 Paul says, “Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Amen.
Of course there’s evidence for a soul. Near death experiences serve as evidence. Even if you choose to deny all the claims in the Bible where the dead appeared (Moses, Elijah), if God does exist, then there’s a pretty good possibility that souls do exist. This is something you don’t want to get wrong.
Nature of the gaps fallacy: Atheist says, “We don’t understand it, but we know that nature did it. There’s no evidence that nature did it or can do it, but we believe it anyway because we don’t want to believe your God did it, and we refuse to acknowledge that your God could do it.”
Knowing Jesus doesn’t require anything on our part. We’re dead in our transgressions. What can a dead man do? A dead man can’t get up and run out of a burning building. No. Jesus doesn’t require dead men to do anything. He rescues them without requiring them to give up anything, or to resort to obedience, or ignorance. All he want is for us to accept the free gift of life that he offered us. And that is done through the forgiveness of sins. If you confess your sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive your sins and purify you from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).
You’re free to impose your verdict on God since you refuse to accept the headship of Adam for the sin and death we face, but keep in mind, humans already tried and convicted God to death on the cross 2,000 years ago. He humbled himself before those he created and let them torture and kill him. But he did it because he loved them. While on the cross my Lord and Savior said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And this is my prayer for you. That you may receive the forgiveness of sins just as I have, and that you may know Jesus and spend eternity with him in paradise.
No evidence as usual. It’s hilarious. All you have now are desperate pleas that I accept yur cult’s baseless myths.
Christians have no evidence for their god. They cannot agree on what t his imaginary friend considers to be a “sin”, and they can’t agree on if their god punishe everyone for the sins of two people or if it doesn’t.
If everything changed with the “fall”, then there can be no signs of “design”, since this world is not what this god supposedly wanted. The entire original sin myth depends on this world being irrevocably altered. Saying that it looks like a design doesn’t say it looks like a perfect design nor does it say it is an actual design. You are truly desperate for evidence, aren’t you? You have no faith at all.
No evidence of design. My nose is evidence of evolution since it often gets terribly clogged up by allergies.
Your “logic” fails since the universe is not a car, etc. You also assume that your particular god is the creator and have no evidence for that either. We see natural processes creating crystals, etc so you still fail miserably. Nothing shows that natural processes can’t evolve life. Tehre is no design happening. We still see life evolving. No need to see abiogenesis happen since the conditions may not be appropriate anymore. Still no evidence for your imaginary friend.
Your ”elegant logic” is used by all cultists. Show which god is the right one.
Curious how 2+2 equals 4, and we have no evidence that life can’t come from non-life. Your own argument fails miserably. You simply make more baseless assertions that your god must exist and must be the source of life. Curious how we don’t see this god creating life right now. Surely it should be able to, right?
Plenty of impotent threats from you, dear, but I’m not surprised that you are too cowardly to be responsible for your own words. You can’t show that there is any harm to save me from, so you are just one more fraud selling a cure for a threat you’ve invented.
Actually Christians do need to agree on what this character wants, who it is and what it does to show that their imaginary friend exists. Not one Christain can show that their bible is “true” since Christians can’t agree on what the bible actually means. To see if something is true means you can test it. Curius how not one of you can. In that every Christian is sure that their version of the bible is the one and only true version, you still fail.
There are many people who do not think that your jesus christ existed. There are many who think that there was a delusional Jewish fellow who was killed by the romans and ended up the core of the Christain myths. There is no evidence for either, although the second may be more probable since we do know that it was not uncommon for people to claim to be the Jewish messiah.
since Christians do not worship a delusional Jewish fellow, that means the appeals to a “historical jesus” are useless to them. There is no evidence for the divine christ; no one noticed him at all, despite the claims in the bible. Not one of the essential events around jesus christ can be shown to have happened.
It is nothing new to have a Christian run to Paul when jesus fails. Unsurprsingly, Paul was terribly ignorant about jesus and had no idea what that character supposedly said. Jesus never sais that ones “sinful nature” will prevent his followers from being able to do miracles like him or to have prayers answered, so your excuses fail yet again. You fail every single one of these promises: Mark 11:22-24, Mark 16 15-18, Matthew 7:7-9, John 14:11-14, John 15: 7,James 5:13-18
NDEs do not show that there is a soul at all. They are interesting phenomena, but nothing shows that they are magical. Curious how people do not agree on what they see, nor can any of them support their claims of seeing real things in their neurological state.
No evidence that the dead appeared in your story books, dear. Your entire argument depends on if you can show your imaginary friend to exist. Strange how you cannot.
If you could show your god to exist, I’d believe it existed. I would not worship such a pathetic creature, so you continued impotent threats are worthless.
Curious how Christians and other thesits have yet to show their god exists or magic happens. Youv’e had millennia. Science has had at best a couple of centuries. What’s the hold up with your evidence for god, dear?
In that Christians each make up their own jesus, it doesn’t require much on your part except ignorance and arrogance. You can’t even agree on what your “transgressions” are. Your god requires humasn to obey it, and to accept it, so your argument about what this god needs is hilariously wrong, even per your own bible. No free gift at all, but again, nice set of lies from a Christian who doesn’t even know what his bible requires.
No evidence of any “headship” evne in your bible, so it’s just your opinion. People didn’t convict your god on the cross. The only one who needed a human blood sacrifice by torture was your god, per the story. It had to have satan gin up hatred so it would get its blood. And curious how your gospels don’t agree on what jesus said on this cross, with each making up what it wanted. You have a very strange cult.
Your prayer is rather impotent too, and like with all other christains, it won’t come true. I’ve had literally hundreds of Christians of all versions praying for me to agree with them over the last 30+ years. Despite the promises in your bible, you are all quite the frauds.
I honestly feel sorry for you. All you can do is object, ramble, and throw out accusations. But we will all die, so there will be a day when your rejection of Christ determines your eternity. I sincerely hope you come to know Christ Jesus as your Lord and Savior before that day comes.
Poor Jonathan, you still have nothing to show your imaginary friend exists and you have demonstrated you are not a true believer in christ at all.
Evidence is facts supporting a conclusion. Notable how you can’t show I’m wrong about that either. We will all die and your cult’s claims about your sadistic fantasies has yet to be shown true.
All you hav are impotent threats, and a cult that has failed for 2000+ years, splintering and making false prophecies abouat their end times, which they can’t agree on.
Still no evidence for evolution. And no evidence against God’s existence. But you have demonstrated that you’re not a true believer in science at all.
You state, “Evidence is facts supporting a conclusion.” It’s great fun to see you give this information with no sources. That is not the definition of ‘evidence.’
The definition used by the National Academy of Sciences states, “In science, evidence is data obtained through observation or experiment that is used to test a hypothesis or theory. Scientific evidence must be empirical (based on observation or experience) and repeatable by others.”
Therefore, evolution is not supported by evidence because the evidence isn’t empirical (based on observation), nor is it repeatable. But the Law of Biogenesis does meet this criteria. Therefore, the Law of Biogenesis is evidence for God and a supernatural creation as described in Genesis.
ROFL. Oh dear, that’s all you seem to have.
I also love how you can’t comprehend that data are facts and that you have failed miserably in showing me wrong. it’s also curious that no where on the National Academy of Science website is there this definition. Where did you get it, Jonathan?
there’s a not bad definition for “evidence” on the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “If E is evidence for some hypothesis H, then E makes it more likely that H is true: in such circumstances, E confirms H. On the other hand, if E is evidence against H, then E makes it less likely that H is true: E disconfirms H. Verification is the limiting case of confirmation: a piece of evidence verifies a hypothesis in this sense just in case it conclusively establishes that hypothesis as true. At the other end of the spectrum, falsification is the limiting case of disconfirmation: a piece of evidence falsifies a hypothesis just in case it conclusively establishes that the hypothesis is false. It is at least somewhat controversial whether full-fledged verification or falsification in this sense ever occurs.”
Evolutionary theory is supposrted by evidence, and yes, the evidence is empirical. We see what is predicted by evolutionary theory repeatedly. Your ignorance is hilarious since yes, it is repeatable and is observed. We see that in the area around Chernobyl. Again, no law of biogenesis, that’s just a lie from incompetent creationists.
funny how you can’t show any magical creation ever happening either in the past or now. Why not, dear?