One will know evolutionist, and I have forgotten his name said the odds are like a hurricane blowing through a junk yard and producing a Boeing 707.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Challenge To All Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
One will know evolutionist, and I have forgotten his name said the odds are like a hurricane blowing through a junk yard and producing a Boeing 707.
Do you give that same ethe the evolutionist who go off subject or just to the creationists?
I have quit read the evo links that are suppose to offer evidence for evolution. The NEVER do. Prove me wrong and cut and paste the evidence those sites offered. I will put on my prophecy hat and predict you will not be ab le to provide even 1 pit of evidence.
Cosmology is the poster child for wild guesses. My prophecy hat is still one and I predict you can't offer one piece of evidence for what cosmology has guessed at.
What people say is irrelevant. What they can prove is the only thing that matters, especially in science. Nothing in your last statement has any evidence suporting it, and evolutionist NEVER go back to the beginning----how did stars create themselves out of nothing?
Now go back to the beginning and explain, scientifically of course, how the thins you mentioned came into existence.
That is what Physics guesses what happened and it refutes what the Bible says---The Bible says God did , Physics says they did it themselves and that out of nothing. Physics didn't explain that paret did they?
I am never concerned about wild speculation. Maybe you should be concerned that my explanation is the right answer.
He really doesn't need math to explain what is impossible.
Really -- and you consider this wisdom?
What do you suppose the "scientific odds that you would exist on this planet" in precisely the way you do at this moment? Hugely less than the odds you give for abiogenesis.
And yet, surprise, surprise -- here you are!
The laughable attempts made to try to justify stuff you simply are incapable of grasping just floors me --- but I suppose it's easier than actually learning anything.
What is laughable is trying to compare something that has happened and can be seen, to something that is impossible to happen.
What is even more laughable, make that sadder, is your evos default position is ALWAYS you are incapable of understanding. How insulting and self-serving. It is you who has bought a bag with chicken legs sticking out and thinks there is a chicken inside the bag. When you open the bag, you will know the truth. O let me think, what does the truth do? Now I remember, it sets us free.
What is meaningless is that life created itself out of lifeless elements. The odds for that happening are a big fat ZERO. That it did is a lie, a dammed lie of evolutionists.
Any one taking the theology from the watchtower, has a serious problem.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Theories of nucleosynthesis are tested by calculating isotope abundances and comparing those results with observed results. Isotope abundances are typically calculated from the transition rates between isotopes in a network. Often these calculations can be simplified as a few key reactions control the rate of other reactions.
There are a number of astrophysical processes which are believed to be responsible for nucleosynthesis. The majority of these occur in shells within stars, and the chain of those nuclear fusion processes are known as hydrogen burning (via the proton-proton chain or the CNO cycle), helium burning, carbon burning, neon burning, oxygen burning and silicon burning. These processes are able to create elements up to and including iron and nickel. This is the region of nucleosynthesis within which the isotopes with the highest binding energy per nucleon are created. Heavier elements can be assembled within stars by a neutron capture process known as the s-process or in explosive environments, such as supernovae, by a number of other processes. Some of those others include the r-process, which involves rapid neutron captures, the rp-process, and the p-process (sometimes known as the gamma process), which results in the photodisintegration of existing nuclei.
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/4/4.26.full
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/4/4.30.full
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html
http://www.universetoday.com/24190/how-does-a-star-form/
http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/solsys_star.php
https://www.reference.com/science/stars-form-7d9a9180ad248282
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/16/7153.full
Stars form from "nothing" all the time. We observe their "creation" and monitor their progress daily. They do so via wholly natural processes, not requiring any supernatural or magical input from an invisible space wizard. If you have a telescope, I can advise you on where to turn it in the night sky to watch this process on your own.
Theories of nucleosynthesis are tested by calculating isotope abundances and comparing those results with observed results. Isotope abundances are typically calculated from the transition rates between isotopes in a network. Often these calculations can be simplified as a few key reactions control the rate of other reactions.
There are a number of astrophysical processes which are believed to be responsible for nucleosynthesis. The majority of these occur in shells within stars, and the chain of those nuclear fusion processes are known as hydrogen burning (via the proton-proton chain or the CNO cycle), helium burning, carbon burning, neon burning, oxygen burning and silicon burning. These processes are able to create elements up to and including iron and nickel. This is the region of nucleosynthesis within which the isotopes with the highest binding energy per nucleon are created. Heavier elements can be assembled within stars by a neutron capture process known as the s-process or in explosive environments, such as supernovae, by a number of other processes. Some of those others include the r-process, which involves rapid neutron captures, the rp-process, and the p-process (sometimes known as the gamma process), which results in the photodisintegration of existing nuclei.
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/4/4.26.full
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/4/4.30.full
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html
http://www.universetoday.com/24190/how-does-a-star-form/
http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/solsys_star.php
https://www.reference.com/science/stars-form-7d9a9180ad248282
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/16/7153.full
Stars form from "nothing" all the time.QUOTE]
Stars today already have matter to work with, The original ones did not.
Tell me how the first star created itself. If you can do that, I will jump the fence and join you.
No of you pictures are evidence, They are all speculative and much of that is not based on something that has been proven. People can make up formulas and make them predict whatever the speculator wants them to.
The truth is science cannot know how matter, energy and life came into being and IMO, the most logical answer is "God did it." The more we learn about real science, the more it points to an Intelligent Designer.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I need you to break up those quotes properly so I can respond.
Okay, quickie question: what is in it for those "damned evolutionists" to construct such an elaborate, expensive lie? What is in for the thousands of universities around the world (where they teach actual science) to go along with this big lie?
And the corollary question: what is in it for the religious institutions (and by the way, not even all of them) to deny it?
And I will give you what I think are the answers, by the way: to the first (the evolutionists and universities) they get a convenient way to explain WHAT THEY ACTUALLY FIND AND OBSERVE. And the religions? They get to keep their fantasy speculation for which there actually isn’t any evidence whatsoever. As the courts (where EVIDENCE is tested) repeatedly demonstrate.
Are you telling us that at least one religious viewpoint is incorrect? Any others?
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Hahaha, sir. You are quite naive. Abiogenesis is the key to your entire belief system. Good luck with that.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
My link was included in my post.
http://www.benotconformed.org/odds-of-abiogenesis.htm
It doesn't matter what the numbers are. Your theory of abiogenesis is more impossible than it would be to find a watch in the desert and assume it assembled itself by "chance."
Forgive me but I have to laugh at anyone who would think abiogenesis possible. It's quite a reach for a person who is willing to go that far to deny God's existence.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Really -- and you consider this wisdom?
What do you suppose the "scientific odds that you would exist on this planet" in precisely the way you do at this moment? Hugely less than the odds you give for abiogenesis.
And yet, surprise, surprise -- here you are!
The laughable attempts made to try to justify stuff you simply are incapable of grasping just floors me --- but I suppose it's easier than actually learning anything.
Okay. Let's see your theory of exactly how the first life form came to be.
It's okay, take your time. I'll wait.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Actually the odds are considerably more worse than that. I have read that the chances of abiogenesis happening on this planet in an optimum environment are 1(42 zeroes):1 against.
Wow. These diehard atheists have a great deal of faith indeed.
Why? That has nothing whatever to do with the subject of evolution -- which it somehow seems impossible to get across to some posters on the forum.
Suppose I were to suggest that enough water, properly applied, could put out a fire? Would you demand I tell you the precise origin of fire before you would consider whether water would douse it? Same thing. Evolution is not abiogenesis, nor does it ever make any such claim.
And now over to you: suppose you tell us all exactly which life (or lives) you suppose that your god created -- and how you know. Take your time, I'll wait.
So, physics is bad, too? Because that is what it says, with the same strength biologists argue about evolution. So, I find it odd that you guys get so emotional about evolution when even basic physics destroys the plausibility of your biblical accounts. Which should not be surprising considering the expected knowledge of the authors of the bible.
So, what's next in the list of bad science? Shall we proceed with geology, or do you prefer neuroscience?
Your call.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Oxygen is generated inside the core of huge stars, and it becomes available when they get supernova.
That's it. If you rationalize this to accomodate the bible, and your beliefs, I am happy for you.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
If they failed to make a serious attempt I would, which is the case here. No creationist has made any attempt to present a convincing case for creationism.* It's all been unsupported claims, trite remarks, off topic irrelevancies---usually in regard to evolution or its relation to abiogenesis---ongoing arguments over side topics, or posts wherein the poster just likes to hear himself talk. Thing is, I'm still waiting for some semblance of a convincing case.
Even your own case, which comes down to your opening and closing remarks, is no more than several unsupported claims and a request.
"A creation needs a Creator [Why?]
100's of processes that work the same way every time needs an Intelligent Designer. [Why?]
A system that works the same needs an Intelligent Designer. [Why?]
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." [Support the claim, and why would this "fact" demand creationism and rule out God's use of evolution?]
Make a case for evolution using proven science. [Irrelevant request, AND exactly what I said would be unacceptable]
* If I happen to have missed it please share.100's of processes that work the same way every time needs an Intelligent Designer. [Why?]
A system that works the same needs an Intelligent Designer. [Why?]
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." [Support the claim, and why would this "fact" demand creationism and rule out God's use of evolution?]
Make a case for evolution using proven science. [Irrelevant request, AND exactly what I said would be unacceptable]
.
Last edited: