Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1

    The Cell is literally a piece of nanotechnology, based on temple architecture

    Today I noted this anti-evolution articvle and video, which helps explain how the livng cell is not and was not produced by chance or evolution but according to the architecture of the Lords Temple... http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age3660029/pg1

    For I have studied Architecture and the Tabernacle Desiogn extensively... and it is seen in the forth post.

    SEE and Study http://www.davidjayjordan.com/Lordst...sacredsex.html

    and follow all the hyperlinks for explanations and graphics, for they apprarently do fit into the micro-cosm as well as the middle cosm.... and as can also be seen is part of the macro cosm...of the Tabernacle of the Sun in our Solar System,,,,,,,, all big or small being designed after the temple or TABERNACLE of the Lord.

    So study this video and note the grapghics, and start to learn the basics of Sacred Geomtery and ARCHITECTURE, rather than pretending every thing is by luck and chance and at random.

    Remember intelligence takes work and study and knowledge, and always defeats lack of wisdom and lack of design.

    Only gamblers gamble on the inaccuracies of luck and chance.

    Dells did not evolve into being.. they were designed by the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.

    FULL STOP...Selah

    IHS

    David

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    Today I noted this anti-evolution articvle and video, which helps explain how the livng cell is not and was not produced by chance or evolution but according to the architecture of the Lords Temple... http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age3660029/pg1

    For I have studied Architecture and the Tabernacle Desiogn extensively... and it is seen in the forth post.

    SEE and Study http://www.davidjayjordan.com/Lordst...sacredsex.html

    and follow all the hyperlinks for explanations and graphics, for they apprarently do fit into the micro-cosm as well as the middle cosm.... and as can also be seen is part of the macro cosm...of the Tabernacle of the Sun in our Solar System,,,,,,,, all big or small being designed after the temple or TABERNACLE of the Lord.

    So study this video and note the grapghics, and start to learn the basics of Sacred Geomtery and ARCHITECTURE, rather than pretending every thing is by luck and chance and at random.

    Remember intelligence takes work and study and knowledge, and always defeats lack of wisdom and lack of design.

    Only gamblers gamble on the inaccuracies of luck and chance.

    Dells did not evolve into being.. they were designed by the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.

    FULL STOP...Selah

    IHS

    David

    That video links to a video by Michael Behe. Just another discredited creationist hack who has been exposed as such during the Dover trial. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

    Behe served as an expert witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Under cross examination, he was obliged to admit: [5]


    That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design's claims.

    That Behe's own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed.

    That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional material created for that purpose.

    That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God.

    That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743?1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD."[6]

    That the definition of "theory" supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences[7] did not encompass ID, and that his broader definition would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory.[8][9]

    That he had claimed in his book that evolution could not explain immunology without even investigating the subject. He was presented with 58 peer reviewed articles, nine books, and several textbook chapters on the subject; he insisted they were "not good enough."[10].
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    That video links to a video by Michael Behe. Just another discredited creationist hack who has been exposed as such during the Dover trial. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

    Behe served as an expert witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Under cross examination, he was obliged to admit: [5]


    That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design's claims.

    That Behe's own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed.

    That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional material created for that purpose.

    That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God.

    That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743?1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD."[6]

    That the definition of "theory" supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences[7] did not encompass ID, and that his broader definition would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory.[8][9]

    That he had claimed in his book that evolution could not explain immunology without even investigating the subject. He was presented with 58 peer reviewed articles, nine books, and several textbook chapters on the subject; he insisted they were "not good enough."[10].
    Good work Justin. I was going to present the same facts. Of course, they are only for the other readers, since David has proven that he despises truth and will deny any fact (no matter how obvious and well established) if it does not fit with what he wants to believe.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    That video links to a video by Michael Behe. Just another discredited creationist hack who has been exposed as such during the Dover trial. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

    Behe served as an expert witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Under cross examination, he was obliged to admit: [5]


    That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design's claims.

    That Behe's own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed.

    That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional material created for that purpose.

    That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God.

    That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743?1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD."[6]

    That the definition of "theory" supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences[7] did not encompass ID, and that his broader definition would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory.[8][9]

    That he had claimed in his book that evolution could not explain immunology without even investigating the subject. He was presented with 58 peer reviewed articles, nine books, and several textbook chapters on the subject; he insisted they were "not good enough."[10].
    Thanks for again showing your attempted denial of truths, simply because you say...evolutionists that are forced to believe in evolution will not even consider the math, and physics and cell structure that consists of design, as they demand that there be no design and no pattern or uniform template such as the golden section, let alone the sacred architectural design of the Lords Temple or Tabernacle. These are not peers scientists, these peers are simply closed minded evolutionists, who must speak out against design to keep their jobs. As evolution is a religion that is FORCED on students and those in the academic field if they want to keep their tenure and jobs and livlihood. Evolution is all about intimidation and force.

    Now back to the video and the truth... deny it with facts and anything other than .... so called evolutionists.... who pretend to be open minded scientists reject creationism.

    I repeat, say something, bring forth your cause, answer the question, rather than always skirting the issue and the point and the video.

    Creationism again wins..... because evolutionists can never answer questions and only know how to excuse and dismiss opposition rather than give answers. But then again, how can their non math, and their non physics, and their irrational luck and chance defeat, logic reason, law, and intelligent design. This is why they are so evasive...

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good work Justin. I was going to present the same facts. Of course, they are only for the other readers, since David has proven that he despises truth and will deny any fact (no matter how obvious and well established) if it does not fit with what he wants to believe.
    You two have stated no facts, besides you two evolutionists admit that your luck and chance theory of evolution does not involve anything that was not already created, and there by luck and chance.

    You can not contradict yourself and now pretend that you have any credibility in discussing cells that were needed to create life.

    All you can state, is a mindless ignorance that cells were 'just there'. All you can say is that cells just happened at random as the cell walls just magically appeared and encased a perfectly functioning cell.... and then you pretend that your god of evolution took over after this magic, and started differentiating cells into magical species with complete systems with hearts, lungs, nerves, sexual reproduction, etc. etc...

    So please stick to your so called area of expertise in your so called science called evolution, that you say started AFTER your magical creations that were always 'just there'. Thanks.



    PS) Evolutionists Richard and L67 do consider starting your own thread on your own proofs of evolution. Remember this is a debate, where BOTH sides are suppose to query the other. I hate giving all the answers.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    You two have stated no facts,
    We have stated many facts. Your words are utterly delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    besides you two evolutionists admit that your luck and chance theory of evolution does not involve anything that was not already created, and there by luck and chance.
    Evolution is not a "luck and chance" theory. You are ignorant as dirt.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    You can not contradict yourself and now pretend that you have any credibility in discussing cells that were needed to create life.
    You need to deal with the facts presented. Denying them makes you look like a deluded fool.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    All you can state, is a mindless ignorance that cells were 'just there'.
    You lie. We never said it was "just there." Those are you words.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    All you can say is that cells just happened at random as the cell walls just magically appeared and encased a perfectly functioning cell.... and then you pretend that your god of evolution took over after this magic, and started differentiating cells into magical species with complete systems with hearts, lungs, nerves, sexual reproduction, etc. etc...
    Again, you lie. We never said "cells just happened at random." On the contrary, the original cells most probably formed according to natural law, not unlike soap bubbles.

    Your words are ludicrous and absurd. You win the prize as the most arrogant ignorant person I've interacted with this year. And that's saying quite a lot, given the kind of people I often interact with.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    PS) Evolutionists Richard and L67 do consider starting your own thread on your own proofs of evolution. Remember this is a debate, where BOTH sides are suppose to query the other. I hate giving all the answers.
    You have yet to answer a single point I have made. Your delusion is as deep as the ocean.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #7
    Richard, you are doing it again, using words like probably,

    You said..."Again, you lie. We never said "cells just happened at random." On the contrary, the original cells most probably formed according to natural law, not unlike soap bubbles."Remember you are suppose to be a scientist rather than a theorist, for this repeated terminology of luck and chance "probabilty" shows your desperation.

    Do also stop trying to suggest creation is just natural LAW Because you have already stated that evolution has nothing to do with forces and laws. You must be consistent Richard. You have no expertise, supposed or even imaginary in the realm of laws and physics. Evolution has nothing to do with these real sciences.

    But you do give us a laugh, with your soap bubble cell theory, they just ahppened like a soap bubble that magically put all those ingredients magically nto a soap bubble. Good humor but very poor science Richard. But as can be detected, you always seem to come up with anew theory of a theory of an original theory.. to cover its buttocks.

    Creation wins, bubbles loses.

    Have a bath, evolutionists and see if you can produce some cells and life forms

  8. #8
    When doing so, evolutionists do observe through your sense of smell, the bubbles behind you.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    Richard, you are doing it again, using words like probably,

    You said..."Again, you lie. We never said "cells just happened at random." On the contrary, the original cells most probably formed according to natural law, not unlike soap bubbles."Remember you are suppose to be a scientist rather than a theorist, for this repeated terminology of luck and chance "probabilty" shows your desperation.
    What are you babbling about? All intelligent and honest people use words like "probably" when talking about things that seem likely but are not known with certainty.

    You really need to learn basic English dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    Do also stop trying to suggest creation is just natural LAW Because you have already stated that evolution has nothing to do with forces and laws. You must be consistent Richard. You have no expertise, supposed or even imaginary in the realm of laws and physics. Evolution has nothing to do with these real sciences.
    OK, I see the problem. You really do have a profound problem with basic reading comprehension. I never said that evolution "has nothing to do with forces or laws." On the contrary, I have explicitly stated that evolution is DRIVEN BY natural law.

    Your confusion is based on my response to your confusion about the supposed "evolution" of natural laws, to which I replied by explaining that the theory of evolution is a BIOLOGICAL THEORY (driven by natural law) that explains the origin of species, not the origin of natural laws.

    Your confusion is as deep as the ocean.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    But you do give us a laugh, with your soap bubble cell theory, they just ahppened like a soap bubble that magically put all those ingredients magically nto a soap bubble. Good humor but very poor science Richard. But as can be detected, you always seem to come up with anew theory of a theory of an original theory.. to cover its buttocks.
    There is no "magic" in soap bubbles.

    You are babbling about bubbles.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    Thanks for again showing your attempted denial of truths, simply because you say...
    There was no denial on my part. There was an exposure of your source as not trustworthy. Your source was exposed as being dishonest with his work. Case closed.

    And it's not because I say so. I have provided evidence for my claims. Again, you fail miserably with your futile attempts at sounding intelligent.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    evolutionists that are forced to believe in evolution will not even consider the math, and physics and cell structure that consists of design,
    What math? What physics? You haven't posted any math or physics that's for damn sure. All you do is spew rank garbage at me in your vain effort to discredit evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    as they demand that there be no design and no pattern or uniform template such as the golden section, let alone the sacred architectural design of the Lords Temple or Tabernacle. These are not peers scientists, these peers are simply closed minded evolutionists, who must speak out against design to keep their jobs. As evolution is a religion that is FORCED on students and those in the academic field if they want to keep their tenure and jobs and livlihood. Evolution is all about intimidation and force.
    Total and complete bullshit. I don't demand that there be no design. I demand that you post some freaking evidence to support your claims. The fact that you never post any evidence shows that your claims are fiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidjayjordan View Post
    Now back to the video and the truth... deny it with facts and anything other than .... so called evolutionists.... who pretend to be open minded scientists reject creationism.

    I repeat, say something, bring forth your cause, answer the question, rather than always skirting the issue and the point and the video.

    Creationism again wins..... because evolutionists can never answer questions and only know how to excuse and dismiss opposition rather than give answers. But then again, how can their non math, and their non physics, and their irrational luck and chance defeat, logic reason, law, and intelligent design. This is why they are so evasive...
    I can't deny something when there is absolute evidence in front me. There is no absolute evidence that you could show or else you would and you know it. There would be no need to attack evolution the way you do if you had anything other than a flaming pile of shit. Those are the facts.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •