How An Atheist Became a Christian

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

Scientist Dr Sy Garte shares his experience of leaving atheism for Christianity:

He says, 

Chemical evolution is not the same as biological evolution, there is no natural selection, no replication...the chemicals react or do something only on the basis of chemistry without any mutation or replication. If you have to have self-replication to have evolution, how did the self-replication get there? It could not have evolved because there was no evolution. You need to start out with a cell that's already good at self-replication or else, you can't do it. It's not gonna work, you'll never get living cells and you'll never get evolution going. You need too many things that are too difficult to explain through only chemical evolution.  

It's pretty amazing he's going into things I could not name or call before, but tried Lol. Where the chemical/evolutionists at?  

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

As this issue intensifies, I believe they will come out and say, the 'aliens' are the ones behind life on the planet. It's a big fat lie considering that the aliens have been bioengineered in underground labs.     

[Hankenhunter]

19 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

As this issue intensifies, I believe they will come out and say, the 'aliens' are the ones behind life on the planet. It's a big fat lie considering that the aliens have been bioengineered in underground labs.     

I suppose the aliens ships were built for them, but not us. Man, you've slipped a cog-nitive on this one. I'm rating this one 4.5/5 on the b.s scale.💩

Edited November 5, 2023 by Hankenhunter

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

53 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Scientist Dr Sy Garte shares his experience of leaving atheism for Christianity:

He says, 

Chemical evolution is not the same as biological evolution, there is no natural selection, no replication...the chemicals react or do something only on the basis of chemistry without any mutation or replication. If you have to have self-replication to have evolution, how did the self-replication get there? It could not have evolved because there was no evolution. You need to start out with a cell that's already good at self-replication or else, you can't do it. It's not gonna work, you'll never get living cells and you'll never get evolution going. You need too many things that are too difficult to explain through only chemical evolution.  

It's pretty amazing he's going into things I could not name or call before, but tried Lol. Where the chemical/evolutionists at?  

You live in such a small world, I pity you. Faith and reason can and should co-exist within the mind of all people. 

[Antigonos]

You really need a hobby.

[+joc]

39 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

You really need a hobby.

She has one:  Preaching.

[trevor borocz johnson]

Maybe there is no beginning to life in the universe. No one will ever know. I like to think life exists because energy is released from stationary matter through its own gravity, energy that seeks out equilibrium and is single directional. Life obviously depends on energy travelling through a system like an animal. There is no reason to believe that energy will ever be any different.

[Piney]

8 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Scientist Dr Sy Garte shares his experience of leaving atheism for Christianity:

He says, 

Chemical evolution is not the same as biological evolution, there is no natural selection, no replication...the chemicals react or do something only on the basis of chemistry without any mutation or replication. If you have to have self-replication to have evolution, how did the self-replication get there? It could not have evolved because there was no evolution. You need to start out with a cell that's already good at self-replication or else, you can't do it. It's not gonna work, you'll never get living cells and you'll never get evolution going. You need too many things that are too difficult to explain through only chemical evolution.  

It's pretty amazing he's going into things I could not name or call before, but tried Lol. Where the chemical/evolutionists at?  

Chemical evolution is also only a theory and how it suppose to work is atoms and molecules combine to form more complex chemicals leading up to life. 

Richard Lenski and Zach Blount observed and recorded the evolution of bacteria in action. 

Andrew Schlafy, who believes the same as you tried to debunk him and made himself look like New Jersey's biggest ass, not that he wasn't a frontrunner already.  It was called the "Lenski Affair". 

[Piney]

7 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

You live in such a small world, I pity you. Faith and reason can and should co-exist within the mind of all people. 

"Science, history and religion should agree. When religion doesn't agree with them that aspect of religion is nonsense and nonsense has no place in a Quaker Meeting". 

Emma Peaslee Engle 

[eight bits]

Full marks, @ReadTheGreatControversyEGW for finding conversion stories from people with the strangest backstories, now a "red diaper baby" (searchable).

I was disappointed, though, since the gentleman didn't say much about "How" he became a Christian (of all the ways to express his new found belief that the world was created), just "that" Christian is what he ended up as.

He seems to have left out a few steps between "How life began is an open problem" and "Jesus Christ rose from the dead." Apparently, we need to buy his book for "details" (= any clue about what his thought process was).

Do you not find it odd, Read, that all your converts so far are selling their conversion narratives for cash?

[Piney]

12 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Full marks, @ReadTheGreatControversyEGW for finding conversion stories from people with the strangest backstories, now a "red diaper baby" (searchable).

I was disappointed, though, since the gentleman didn't say much about "How" he became a Christian (of all the ways to express his new found belief that the world was created), just "that" Christian is what he ended up as.

He seems to have left out a few steps between "How life began is an open problem" and "Jesus Christ rose from the dead." Apparently, we need to buy his book for "details" (= any clue about what his thought process was).

Do you not find it odd, Read, that all your converts so far are selling their conversion narratives for cash?

Satanists, Atheists and Commies! Oh my! 

Only John Birch can save us.....

[Alchopwn]

9 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Chemical evolution is not the same as biological evolution, there is no natural selection, no replication...

This is actually quite wrong.  While the chemical processes are not a 1:1 copy of biological evolution there are similar processes in nature that certainly surprised me in terms of what is possible. 

To suggest there is no natural replication in chemistry is obviously wrong.  I offer you the natural growth of crystals in cave systems, or in water as it takes the form of ice, or the allegedly endless variation of snowflakes.  Of course, carbon offers far more complexity than mere crystals.

As for there being no natural selection, well, that isn't necessarily true either.  It is quite possible to view all life as a chemical reaction (not that I am making this the core of my argument), and when the chemical reaction ends, death and decay begins.  Consider then, that any continuous reaction in nature has been selected for by nature.  When the supply of the natural chemical ingredients stop being amassed in the area where the reaction is taking place, then the reaction ends causing a form of die out, but not everywhere.  One could argue that oceans precipitating salt into great salt accretions is such a reaction.  Eventually the tectonic movement causes the salt accretion to end, and the salt eventually becomes a salt pan, which is gradually eroded by other natural processes in the same way that a carcass is picked apart by winds eroding it or scavengers.

[bmk1245]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Full marks, @ReadTheGreatControversyEGW for finding conversion stories from people with the strangest backstories, now a "red diaper baby" (searchable).

I was disappointed, though, since the gentleman didn't say much about "How" he became a Christian (of all the ways to express his new found belief that the world was created), just "that" Christian is what he ended up as.

He seems to have left out a few steps between "How life began is an open problem" and "Jesus Christ rose from the dead." Apparently, we need to buy his book for "details" (= any clue about what his thought process was).

Do you not find it odd, Read, that all your converts so far are selling their conversion narratives for cash?

How long till he turns muslim?...

[Piney]

43 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

This is actually quite wrong.  While the chemical processes are not a 1:1 copy of biological evolution there are similar processes in nature that certainly surprised me in terms of what is possible. 

To suggest there is no natural replication in chemistry is obviously wrong.  I offer you the natural growth of crystals in cave systems, or in water as it takes the form of ice, or the allegedly endless variation of snowflakes.  Of course, carbon offers far more complexity than mere crystals.

As for there being no natural selection, well, that isn't necessarily true either.  It is quite possible to view all life as a chemical reaction (not that I am making this the core of my argument), and when the chemical reaction ends, death and decay begins.  Consider then, that any continuous reaction in nature has been selected for by nature.  When the supply of the natural chemical ingredients stop being amassed in the area where the reaction is taking place, then the reaction ends causing a form of die out, but not everywhere.  One could argue that oceans precipitating salt into great salt accretions is such a reaction.  Eventually the tectonic movement causes the salt accretion to end, and the salt eventually becomes a salt pan, which is gradually eroded by other natural processes in the same way that a carcass is picked apart by winds eroding it or scavengers.

Trying to explain the Macroscopic Law of the evolution of elements, then minerals along with lifeforms to a SDA is like trying to teach a monkey to code.

I went through this in another thread. She doesn't respond. I just put it out there for the readers. 

It's called "The Law of Increasing Functional Information" and explains how the elements grew out of star fusion, merger and death and how the more diverse life is, the more diverse the minerals on this planet are.

Something the "scientist?" in this video fails to understand......

 

[XenoFish]

Another propaganda thread.

[Abramelin]

2 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

How long till he turns muslim?...

"He"?

[XenoFish]

I'm guessing the next few threads created by the op will run along these lines.

ex-satanist becomes christian.

ex-occultist becomes christian.

ex-muslim becomes christian.

ex-jew becomes christian,

ex-christian becomes christian.

ex-pagan becomes christian.

We've already had two of these, could be three. I haven't paid that much attention, 

[Piney]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Another propaganda thread.

I'm shocked!!!!!

....no...I'm not....

[XenoFish]

Just now, Piney said:

I'm shocked!!!!!

....no...I'm not....

Neither am I. We just got done with the ex-satanist thread and halloween one. Must be lonely in the golden castles of heaven.

[Crazy Horse]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

"Science, history and religion should agree. When religion doesn't agree with them that aspect of religion is nonsense and nonsense has no place in a Quaker Meeting". 

Emma Peaslee Engle 

So now I am interested to know Emma Peaslee Engles view on the miracles of Christ?

Because as far as I know, science doesn't even admit that such things exist, let alone have some empirical evidence of the miraculous. 

[Crazy Horse]

14 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Neither am I. We just got done with the ex-satanist thread and halloween one. Must be lonely in the golden castles of heaven.

Only those with criminal intent, fear the light shinning upon them.. 

[+joc]

7 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Maybe there is no beginning to life in the universe. No one will ever know. I like to think life exists because energy is released from stationary matter through its own gravity, energy that seeks out equilibrium and is single directional. Life obviously depends on energy travelling through a system like an animal. There is no reason to believe that energy will ever be any different.

I like your post Trevor.  It was worded in a way that makes sense to me.

It's all a matter of perspective I think.

Whether or not there is a beginning to life in the universe is entirely a matter of perspective.  I will give you an example:  My Koi Pond.  

It has a waterfall.  A pump pulls water from the pond and it returns in the form of a waterfall.  If one's perspective is looking at the waterfall: Where does the waterfall begin and end?  It doesn't.  It is a continuous flow.

But if I unplug the pump  then the waterfall will stop.  So, If one's perspective is from an unplugged pump, then there is a beginning and end to the waterfall.

Hence  the Universe at large.  Did the universe have a beginning?  Of course it did.  Of course it didn't.  Did life have a beginning? Of course it did.  Of course it didn't.  It is only a matter of perspective.

My perspective is similar to your own.  A spark of energy and a continuous flow of energy thereafter creates a flow that pulls one direction.  It is always only pulling in one direction, and the flow only flows in one direction.  The flow is returned to the origin where it is in a state of 'no flow' until it is pulled back into the circle of the flow.

What of the fish in the pond?  They come and they go...some will die and some will not die...and yet eventually all of the fish will die. None of the original fish can be replaced; .  But all of the fish can be replaced.  It's a matter of perspective.

The Circle of Flow depends upon  the continuous spark of energy, which powers the flow.  It all goes back to the spark.  No spark, no flow.  The Koi Pond, The Universe, Life...all depend upon the continuance of the spark of Energy.  I am the controller of the spark that powers the Koi Pond.  I can turn it off and on as I will.  I suppose God is that which controls the spark of the universe.  There is Potential Flow.  There is Flow.

It's all a matter of perspective.

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

So now I am interested to know Emma Peaslee Engles view on the miracles of Christ?

Because as far as I know, science doesn't even admit that such things exist, let alone have some empirical evidence of the miraculous. 

She was a Hicksite Quaker Cadburyite and knew his "miracles" were fictions added later. 

[+Hammerclaw]

33 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Neither am I. We just got done with the ex-satanist thread and halloween one. Must be lonely in the golden castles of heaven.

Covid killed tourist revenue on the North Island, so she had to diversify.

[Crazy Horse]

7 minutes ago, Piney said:

She was a Hicksite Quaker Cadburyite and knew his "miracles" were fictions added later. 

Sorry, just give me a couple of months to let that information sink in.. 

So, the Hicksite Quakers don't believe that He had miraculous powers, but what about the resurrection?

And, what about the claim that "I and the Father are one.."?