im gonna say this one more time and maybe it will make sense of many things "the love of money is the root of all evil" says the bible, which is very true, if you love money you cause problems for a lot of other people. i will be refering to this quote from the bible because it makes sense of a lot of things.

...i'm not really losing in this discussion

then come back and support your evidence with some hardcore evidence. you have showed me nothing. if I make a claim you demand hard evidence all you do is make claims and then pronounce my ignorance in the subject for disputing them. yes dude, you are losing because I provide evidence and I will provide even more evidence in this post. you have done nothing but make claims.

no, the concept that life can spontaneously form under the right conditions is far from disproven

oh ok so theyve done it already? they have made life in the lab? no they they have not. either you are ignorant or you are lying. ignorance can be fixed tho, lets hope its not something else.

humans are made of organic parts that can arise through natural processes

processes like what? natural selection? too bad its not a creative force. it doesnt make anything new, it selects from what is already there. divergent/micro evolution is a result of natural selection, changing from a reptile to a bird over millions of years takes leap of faith and a fall in logic.
even charles darwin in his book "the origin of species" explained in how the evolution of the eye is just unthinkable (impossible). and thats the human eye. trilobytes have an even more complex eye than we do and it was one of the first creatures to evolve? its an index fossil for one of the lowest layers.
organisms do not evolve from single celled organisms into everything we see today over millions of years. you have no evidence to support this and all the evidence you do have has been proven wrong.

they've shown a theoretical framework, but it's kind of hard to set up conditions under which life arose...and it's kind of hard to have the same timeframe to work with ie hundreds of millions of years.

the earth isnt even millions of years old. our magnetic field limits the age of the earth to less than 25,000 years old. the earth has lost 6% of its magnetic strength over that past 150 years. and of course if you throw millions of years in there that fixes everything? uhm no, you have to have millions of years or else your theory look even more dumb.

...we can. we haven't, but we can

oh that makes a lot of sense. how do you know you can if you havent yet? thats like me saying I can fly like superman... I havent but I can.

we can get life to arise from organic molecules, rudimentary proteins and whatnot

evidence? from what materials? what experiment are you refering to?
and getting the buliding blocks for life does not give you life. it gives you the material for life. now put all these things in the right order (btw which is thousands of things that have to be in precise order). I can get a bunch of wood together, doesnt mean I can build a house, I gotta have the right pieces, right sizes, etc...

and aspirin and ibuprofen do fix the cause of the problem...

have you ever read the warning labels? you will see what I am talking about.

actually, many still use the whole "crop rotation" thing
and you forgot the rise of fertilizers. fertilizers work better than leaving land fallow
crop rotation works better than leaving the land fallow

uhm, have you ever researched on what happens with the fertilizers and hormones and all the other chemicals they pump into the ground, yeah they may be good for the plants growth, but it gets passed onto human beings and animals which is the bad part. this stuff is learned in high school in biology class (ecosystems). and in order to survive in todays world, farmers have to use whatever they can to keep their income.

you've made so many wild and ridiculous claims that require evidence, yet not a single one.

hah wow, you dont research too many things on your own do you? all you gotta do is read the back of most food boxes and even google a few things. preservatives are bad for the human body, thats why some food companies are trying to find ways to get them out of foods. because they are bad for the human body and are being forced out of foods because people finally caught on.

oh lordy lordy lord
if it's so easy to find, it's your duty t provide it

the earth isnt even millions of years old. our magnetic field limits the age of the earth to less than 25,000 years old. the earth has lost 6% of its magnetic strength over that past 150 years. and of course if you throw millions of years in there that fixes everything? uhm no, you have to have millions of years or else your theory look even more dumb.

2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

1. While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

2. There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).

3. Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.
4. Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.

That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-108) or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .

oh that makes a lot of sense. how do you know you can if you havent yet? thats like me saying I can fly like superman... I havent but I can.

evidence? from what materials? what experiment are you refering to?

and getting the buliding blocks for life does not give you life. it gives you the material for life. now put all these things in the right order (btw which is thousands of things that have to be in precise order). I can get a bunch of wood together, doesnt mean I can build a house, I gotta have the right pieces, right sizes, etc...

and aspirin and ibuprofen do fix the cause of the problem...

have you ever read the warning labels? you will see what I am talking about.

theories make predictions
that's how we knew we'd find a discrepancy between the DNA of humans and that of other apes.
that's how we knew we'd find certain tetrapod fossils
we used a theory to make a prediction that came true.

and a ridiculously high number of chances were given for these things to arise, and they're far less complicated than a house and don't require "thousands" of parts.

you didn't address the function of aspirin or ibuprofen
they treat the cause of headaches, that's how they work.
the symptom is pain

hereis a link on othehr reasons why white flour is bad for you (white flour is how they make white bread (duh)).

How does alloxan cause diabetes? According to Dr. Hari Sharma's Freedom from Disease(snip)

im sure you can google each of the items I gave you and find that they are good for the heart and circulation system,

you just want to know how I know they removed it from bread... linky
most sites wont publish this sort of information because they would rather you buy drugs than bake your own bread.

oh and what does wikisay about vitamin deficiency? this page includes some cancers?

Developed countries “tended to have cancers linked to affluence or a "Western lifestyle" – cancers of the colon, rectum, breast and prostate – that can be caused by obesity, lack of exercise, diet and age

wonder why they only say some cancers... probably because they want people to believe that all cancers are different when they are not. different locations in the body but the same issue.

fine I will, doesnt mean you are gonna believe it.
wiki link for nutrition proves many of the things I have same before.

lead in vitamins:
link 1

Most worrisome, according to ConsumerLab.com president Dr. Tod Cooperman, is that one product, The Vitamin Shoppe Multivitamins Especially for Women, was contaminated with lead.

link 2

you mentioned before lead being found near vitamins? of course its near the vitamin, its in the same dag-on pill! ignorance isnt bliss

...lead cannot be found in vitamins
lead can be found near a vitamin
but not inside of it...
unless you're talking about a multivitamin, which simply contains many vitamins
but i don't think you have anything to back this claim up anyway

oh and here is how Vitamin b17 works
VB17

If you believe in God the logic of how B17 kills cancer will be easy to accept and understand when you realise that God has given our bodies a natural defense against cancer which is determined by the food or junk we eat in our diet.

and for the rest of the vitamin deficiencies you can just google those yourself,

im sure over half of them appear on wiki (good source)

I already showed you half, must I go on to prove you even more wrong? havent you had enough?

and recent studies hide a lot of things because all they care about is money.

Originally posted by Methuselah
lol ok man whatever you say, lets review... shall we?

you actually said "...we can. we haven't, but we can" and this makes no sense at all. how do you know we can if we havent? doing it would actually prove that we can. you fail to see that your own logic is a failure.

i cant believe you just made that contrdicting statement. mutations arent new information, it is either A. a loss of information B. a scrambling of existing information C. a copying of existing information
none of these make anything new, adaptation is something that is already available it just has to rearrange information. mutations never make anything new, and are almost always 100% non-beneficial.

you're parroting the misconception that dinosaurs were reptiles.

well lets look at the definition of Dinosaur - means "terrible lizard" last I checked, lizards are reptiles

and yes your archeoptryx has been debunked already many times many places on the internet.

and the velociraptor? hah why didnt they show that in Jurassic Park?

scales do not count as feathers, just because they are made from the same protein doesnt make them the same. hairs to not count as feathers either.

you should porbably do some independant research on reptiles and their growth to find out how we got dinosaurs (formerly known as dragons) in the first place.

uhm are you sure you understood those two references he gave? you might want to re-read those two and understand what he said. first of all he said it was absurd to even think that the eye evolved form natural selection, then he goes on to say that even the theory itself of how it could have happened is more of the imagination and not really a good theory.
man we really need to work on your comprehension skills.

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

yeah and guess what, the trilobytes are still trilobytes and shark and still sharks... this only proves what the bible says... "they will bring forth after their kind".

Trilobites are extinct arthropods that form the class Trilobita

you blow me away with you logic. so this proves that "all plants and animals throughout all space and times are related to each other"? <<< Origin of species quote <<<
uhm no, it just proves that variations happen. thats alll it proves.

geologic dates were made up out of the clear blue sky and today they call it science, oh and he just so happened to get the dates correct? todays scientists do not disagree with the dates in the geologic time scale. i dont think so. radiometric dating would not even be feasible if the geologic cullumn had not been erected first.

this is what evolutoinists use to date their fossils and rocks. they use index fossils to date the strata and and same with dating the fossils. its all based on flawed logic.

the earths magnetic field losing strength due to a pattern of reversals? I wish ignorance was bliss but its not...

the theory of magnetic reversals is very unscientific and it only takes common sense to figure out that it didnt happen.

dude I can make that same prediction using the bible. there is a different between man and ape, between fish and lang animals, between birds and insects... the bible already made this claim, evolution cannot take credit for this.

oh yeah you must have forgotten that "they can, they havent, but they can"... they dont know what the chances are, they give a number because if they didnt, they would look stupid to their audience.

the headache is not youor problem, your headache is telling you about a problem. just like the oil light is telling you about a problem. a headache without pain wouldnt be a headache now would it?

hang on ill be back after i bust my gut laughing

dude you logic just blows me away. i think the cheese done fell out of your sandwich.