A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-evidence-exists-for-abiogenesis

The last link literally had a title of "Abiogenesis: Definition, Theory, and Evidence"

I have quit reading evo links. They NEVER provide any evidencne. Why don't you prove me wrong by cutting and pasting the evidence that link offered?

 

[omega2xx]

Perhaps you got me confused with another member.
It is not "my" theory of abiogenesis.

It does matter, not only what the numbers are, but also how they were arrived at.
Your making the bold false claim it does not matter makes taking you seriously extremely difficult.

Again you must have me confused with another member.
I do not "deny" gods existence.
It would have to be shown that god exists before god could be denied.

Another point that makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Maybe this will help. I could care less if you take me seriously.

 

[omega2xx]

ah, so when people say that the odds of your particular god existing is far to great for it to exist, no math is required?

I understand that bold empty claims are fine for you.
They are not for me.

If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation, that He exists. Blaise Pascal

 

[omega2xx]

Also what some don't seem to understand is that life evolved within the context of the environment, not the other way around. IOW, if there was substantially less oxygen, then there probably would be the same adaptations as we now see with many if those indigenous people who live at the base of the Himalayas and Andes whereas they tend to have a larger lung capacity and a somewhat higher metabolism than most.

What you don't understand is that I am asking for the original source of oxygen and the mechanism that keeps it at the right level in the universe for life to continue.

If you want to attribute it to stars, then tell me how stars originated out of nothing.


If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation, that He exists. Blaise Pascal

 

[omega2xx]

Who's saying matter just popped into being? Science says it came out of the after effcts of the Big Bang, whose origin, while not known, isn't said to have just popped into being from nothing. And this is a far more rational explanation than positing a super-human being as the cause.

Are you serious? Where did the matter that went bang originate? Also there is no scientific evidence for the BB. You need to face the FACT that evolution has no scientific evidence for the origin of anything,

"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts become set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers"---Fred Hoyle

If you mean absolute randomness as in events without a cause, no I don't. Any perceived randomness has a causational origin, and it's this causational relationship between cause and effect that's behind the eventual order we now have.

Give me an example of an event that had no cause.

I quite agree, but so what? The Universe didn't begin in an arbitrary state. It began in a very specific state we call the Big Bang. I can only imagine you picked this up from some creationist web site like The Institute for Creation Research which is famous for misquoting science and misleading its readers.

You don't know how the universes started. Therefore you do knot know if it started in an arbitrary state, You can't use the BB THEORY unless you can explain the origin of matter. You do realize the BB requires something to go bang, right. You also need to explain the origin of the energy that caused the BB. ?Also consider this, the energy strong enough to throw matter into the farthest depths of the universe would be so strong, the stars would have been pulverized.

, gain, yo

 

[omega2xx]

Now, here you demonstrating with great clarity that you really do not have an understanding of science at all, and that while those of us talking to you in English about science, you are listening in Sanskrit and unable to even understand what we’re saying.

Your smug, self-serving and insulting remark is typical of those who can't produce the evidence for their faith in Darwin. If you can't keep the discussion free from such remarks, it make me wonder if you have the intellect to discuss the subject in a civil manner. If you can't,then don't expect me to continue with you.

First, the question of “how oxygen originated.” Oxygen isn’t some magic thingy.

Why don't you try using grown up talk instead of silly children talk?

It’s merely an atom with 8 protons in its nucleus (and some neutrons). Those 8 protons are there because the enormous energies at the cores of giant stores smashed smaller atoms together. Smash 2 hydrogen atoms together and you get helium. It’s still just protons and neutrons (and electrons according to the number of protons). Nobody “originates” helium. Same for oxygen.

AS usual you have not addressed the question. what is the origin of the protons?

Second, on “regulating just the right amount.” Earth did not begin with and oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere, but acquired one as anaerobic early aquatic organism (blue-green algae) began using energy from the Sun to split molecules of H2O and CO2 and recombine them into organic compounds and molecular oxygen (O2). This is photosynthesis. Some of the photosynthetically created oxygen combined with organic carbon to recreate CO2 molecules. The remaining oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere, touching off a massive ecological disaster with respect to early existing anaerobic organisms. As oxygen in the atmosphere increased, CO2 decreased.

Doo you eve offer any evidence?

High in the atmosphere, some oxygen (O2) molecules absorbed energy from the Sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays and split to form single oxygen atoms. These atoms combining with remaining oxygen (O2) to form ozone (O3) molecules, which are very effective at absorbing UV rays. The thin layer of ozone that surrounds Earth acts as a shield, protecting the planet from irradiation by UV light.

What was the origin of the atmosphere, the 02 molecules,sun etc.

The amount of ozone required to shield Earth from biologically lethal UV radiation, wavelengths from 200 to 300 nanometers (nm), is believed to have been in existence 600 million years ago. At this time, the oxygen level was approximately 10% of its present atmospheric concentration. Prior to this period, life was restricted to the ocean. The presence of ozone enabled organisms to develop and live on the land. Ozone played a significant role in the evolution of life on Earth, and allows life as we presently know it to exist.

I have, in fact "dumbed this down" quite a bit. It is a lot more complex than that.

The earth itself, under the influence of the sun and our own flora and fauna regulates the oxygen in our atmosphere – and we can expect, as evolution and planetary change continue, that the amount will change over time. Will this cause another catastrophe for the aerobic life forms that now exist? Oh, probably. Buy likely not something you or I should worry about.
Okay, Science Guy – tell us exactly what those “laws” are. Remember to begin with the Monk Gregor Mendel and bring us up to how those “laws” are understood today. Or are you just going to spout another unattested, unsupportable, uncheckable assertion with the usual lack of recourse to any actual science?[/QUOTE]

What is dumbed down is an explanation with absolutely no evidence. It is explanation like that , that show you do not understand science. You have only parroted what other evolutionist have parroted.

Lets make this simple: How did matter come into existence? Please no sites. If you want to quote a site, fine.

 

[omega2xx]

Wait...
I have my own whale experts?
How long has this been thing?
Jeez, I never knew....

You have no whale experts. Their story should start with "once upon a time,": and end with "and they lived happily ever after."

]Any explanation given will go over your head.

IOW, your whale "experts can't scientifically exlaine whale evolution. Now tell me something I don't alread know.

You do understand that you are nothing but a play toy for boredom relief, right?

Don't forget your mommie told you not to play in the street.

 

[omega2xx]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/






Your are not reading your posts and replies. I provided a link regarding genetics and evolution. You said you do not read evolution links yet I linked a university program which teaches how genetics is link with evolution.





No you don't as you claim things are unfalsiable thus that is not science. MY example of the fruit fly was specialization. You want a fly to turn into a dog or something but this is your lack of education regarding evolution





No. There has been no evidence to overturn theories. This does not make something unfalsiable. Again demonstrating you know nothing about science



Actually evolution does and my example of fruit flies does.




Yes I do as I can easily spot your errors regarding science such as confusing proof with evidence and thinking ideas theories are unfalsiable.



Besides your errors in science you have stated nothing worth refuting. There is no point in refuting error based on a lack of education regarding science.



Stating you do not understand science is not an insult but a conclusion based on the errors you have made.




Irrelevant as this fits within evolutionary theory





Then it isn't science



Irrelevant as evolution accepts this as part of it's theory





You do not understand what sampling is. When you observe x amount of things from a possible Y amount that is a group sampling. This is inductive reasoning as you can not extend to a universal





Stick to it as you do not understand science, inductive reasoning, falsifiable not what sampling observations are.

I never answer post that lone. All they have is the usual, unscientific rhetoric with no evidence.

I will give you an explanation of sampling. If you take a random sample of several different species and observe what their offsprings are, it will ALWASY be provable evidence that "after their kind" is 100% true 100% of the time. That alone rejects evolution and is evidence I know more about science than you do.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If you want to attribute it to stars, then tell me how stars originated out of nothing.

They did not originate out of nothing. "Nothing" is a state that has never existed.

https://www.nap.edu/html/aanm/web/tier2text/orgins.htm
"The Origins of Stars and Planets

Like the giant galaxies in which they appear, stars and their planets form when clumps of gas and dust contract to much smaller sizes. During the first phases of star formation, each of these contracting clumps was too cool to produce visible light. Within these clumps, the attraction of each part for all the other parts caused the clumps to shrink steadily, squeezing their material into ever-smaller volumes. As the clumps continued to contract, the resulting increase in density caused a corresponding rise in temperature at the clumps' center. Eventually, as this central temperature rose above 10 million degrees, atomic nuclei began to fuse. The onset of nuclear fusion, which marks the birth of a new star, occurred nearly 5 billion years ago in the case of our Sun. In the case of the oldest stars that shine, this onset of nuclear fusion began 10 to 14 billion years ago."

Also there is no scientific evidence for the BB.

Galaxial Red Shift - Everything is moving away from everything else. Why is that? Why are there no stars or galaxies measured to be older than 13.7 billion years?
Microwave Background - This was the first great confirmation of the Theory. There's a "boundary", and a "hum" to the Universe, just hanging out in the background, still crackling all these billions of years later. Why is it there? Where did it come from? What caused it?
Cosmic Neutrinos - This is the last great prediction of the Big Bang Theory. It was confirmed this year after decades of study. Why are they there? What is their purpose? Where did they come from?

Give me an example of an event that had no cause.

You can't take the position that all things require a cause, but somehow exempt your creator deity from having said cause... It's an intellectually dishonest position to hold, unless you are going to be as equally critical of the concept of deity, which you are not.

So, outside of some quantum fluctuations, I can't say that anything is without cause. But it's still a broad generalization that we do not know to be Universally true. Therefore, this is a lost point of attack by creationists. It does equal damage to any position founded on the modern Theory of Knowledge.

What was the origin of the atmosphere, the 02 molecules,sun etc.

As I've already shared with you earlier, it's called Nucleosynthesis. Without an unthinkable number of star lifetimes preceding it, the materials necessary for the formation of our planet would not have existed. There would be no material to accrete in the Planetary disc around the Sun without the process of Nucleosynthesis forming heavier elements in the bellies of stars, being later ejected into the interstellar medium upon their deaths. How can an atmosphere form around a planet that doesn't exist? Why are lighter elements found further away from the center of a stellar object? Do rocks sink in water?

These are the questions that you're asking - and you don't even realize it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

"Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons, primarily protons and neutrons."

"With the formation of stars, heavier nuclei were created from hydrogen and helium by stellar nucleosynthesis, a process that continues today. Some of these elements, particularly those lighter than iron, continue to be delivered to the interstellar medium when low mass stars eject their outer envelope before they collapse to form white dwarfs. The remains of their ejected mass form the planetary nebulae observable throughout our galaxy."

"Supernova nucleosynthesis within exploding stars by fusing carbon and oxygen is responsible for the abundances of elements between magnesium (atomic number 12) and nickel (atomic number 28).[1] Supernova nucleosynthesis is also thought to be responsible for the creation of rarer elements heavier than iron and nickel, in the last few seconds of a type II supernova event."

"Stellar Nucleosynthesis
Core fusion increases the atomic weight of elements and reduces the number of particles, which would lead to a pressure loss except that gravitation leads to contraction, an increase of temperature, and a balance of forces.[1] A star loses most of its mass when it is ejected late in the star's stellar lifetimes, thereby increasing the abundance of elements heavier than helium in the interstellar medium."

This is how the Universe works. It's observable, daily.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What you don't understand is that I am asking for the original source of oxygen and the mechanism that keeps it at the right level in the universe for life to continue.

If you want to attribute it to stars, then tell me how stars originated out of nothing.

You make the implicit claim that an intelligent designer can appear out of nothing (or merely exist without cause). Why can we not make a similar claim for something infinitely simpler -- the basic energy of the universe? Once we have that -- all the rest is easy!

If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation, that He exists. Blaise Pascal

Yuck, Pascal's Wager. It is a failure on so many levels, not least because it suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation – there are only 2 possibilities, when in fact, there are many more.

In any case, it is an absolute failure because it also assumes that you can fool God – you don’t really believe, but you’ll pretend for the sake of the Wager. That would make for something a little less than an omniscient deity, don’t you think?

 

[metis]

What you don't understand is that I am asking for the original source of oxygen and the mechanism that keeps it at the right level in the universe for life to continue.

If you want to attribute it to stars, then tell me how stars originated out of nothing.

I asked you a question several days ago that logically might well answer the above, but you know so little about cosmology that you can't figure it out. Maybe come back when you finally get some help to understand that there's an alternative that actually is so logical one should even have had to study cosmology to figure it out.

 

[viole]

OK, how did the stars originate? Did you forget to tell me how the right balance of oxygen is maintained?

The star originated from the gravitational pull of a cloud of hydrogen. And if the star is massive enough, then it starts synthesizing atoms heavier than helium. Until it cannod hold the pressure anymore and explodes, releasing al it made inside.

The right amount of oxygen is maintaned by plants, I think. They split molecules with oxygen into their components. It is what they discard in order to live. In the same way our left-overs help bacterias, and plants too, plants poo helps us, so to speak.

Ciao

- viole

 

[omega2xx]

They did not originate out of nothing. "Nothing" is a state that has never existed.

https://www.nap.edu/html/aanm/web/tier2text/orgins.htm
"The Origins of Stars and Planets

Like the giant galaxies in which they appear, stars and their planets form when clumps of gas and dust contract to much smaller sizes. During the first phases of star formation, each of these contracting clumps was too cool to produce visible light. Within these clumps, the attraction of each part for all the other parts caused the clumps to shrink steadily, squeezing their material into ever-smaller volumes. As the clumps continued to contract, the resulting increase in density caused a corresponding rise in temperature at the clumps' center. Eventually, as this central temperature rose above 10 million degrees, atomic nuclei began to fuse. The onset of nuclear fusion, which marks the birth of a new star, occurred nearly 5 billion years ago in the case of our Sun. In the case of the oldest stars that shine, this onset of nuclear fusion began 10 to 14 billion years ago."


Galaxial Red Shift - Everything is moving away from everything else. Why is that? Why are there no stars or galaxies measured to be older than 13.7 billion years?
Microwave Background - This was the first great confirmation of the Theory. There's a "boundary", and a "hum" to the Universe, just hanging out in the background, still crackling all these billions of years later. Why is it there? Where did it come from? What caused it?
Cosmic Neutrinos - This is the last great prediction of the Big Bang Theory. It was confirmed this year after decades of study. Why are they there? What is their purpose? Where did they come from?

You can't take the position that all things require a cause, but somehow exempt your creator deity from having said cause... It's an intellectually dishonest position to hold, unless you are going to be as equally critical of the concept of deity, which you are not.

So, outside of some quantum fluctuations, I can't say that anything is without cause. But it's still a broad generalization that we do not know to be Universally true. Therefore, this is a lost point of attack by creationists. It does equal damage to any position founded on the modern Theory of Knowledge.



As I've already shared with you earlier, it's called Nucleosynthesis. Without an unthinkable number of star lifetimes preceding it, the materials necessary for the formation of our planet would not have existed. There would be no material to accrete in the Planetary disc around the Sun without the process of Nucleosynthesis forming heavier elements in the bellies of stars, being later ejected into the interstellar medium upon their deaths. How can an atmosphere form around a planet that doesn't exist? Why are lighter elements found further away from the center of a stellar object? Do rocks sink in water?

These are the questions that you're asking - and you don't even realize it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

"Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons, primarily protons and neutrons."

"With the formation of stars, heavier nuclei were created from hydrogen and helium by stellar nucleosynthesis, a process that continues today. Some of these elements, particularly those lighter than iron, continue to be delivered to the interstellar medium when low mass stars eject their outer envelope before they collapse to form white dwarfs. The remains of their ejected mass form the planetary nebulae observable throughout our galaxy."

"Supernova nucleosynthesis within exploding stars by fusing carbon and oxygen is responsible for the abundances of elements between magnesium (atomic number 12) and nickel (atomic number 28).[1] Supernova nucleosynthesis is also thought to be responsible for the creation of rarer elements heavier than iron and nickel, in the last few seconds of a type II supernova event."

"Stellar Nucleosynthesis
Core fusion increases the atomic weight of elements and reduces the number of particles, which would lead to a pressure loss except that gravitation leads to contraction, an increase of temperature, and a balance of forces.[1] A star loses most of its mass when it is ejected late in the star's stellar lifetimes, thereby increasing the abundance of elements heavier than helium in the interstellar medium."

[QUOTEThis is how the Universe works. It's observable, daily.

Your whole post is meaningless. All you have done is show the universe in it current condition as we know it. It says nothing about its origin., And you do not know if if a state of nothing never existed. Are you really suggesting mater, energy and life have always existed? That they are eternal? If you want to go that way, then you have to allow that God is eternal and always existed.

How do you know the expansion of the universe was not how it was originally created? It seems highly unlikely that the universe has always existed, much less one that has perfect order. Imo you need much more faith than I do.

 

[omega2xx]

You make the implicit claim that an intelligent designer can appear out of nothing (or merely exist without cause). Why can we not make a similar claim for something infinitely simpler -- the basic energy of the universe? Once we have that -- all the rest is easy!

You get to make any claim you want to. It seems like there are only 2 possibilities. The universe is eternal or God is eternal. For us, both seem impossible, but IMO, it takes much more faith to believe the universe is eternal..Especially one that has perfect order.

]Yuck, Pascal's Wager. It is a failure on so many levels, not least because it suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation – there are only 2 possibilities, when in fact, there are many more.

It is such a comfort to have someone in the forum, more intelligent that Pascal. Why don't you name 2 more possibilities.

In any case, it is an absolute failure because it also assumes that you can fool God – you don’t really believe, but you’ll pretend for the sake of the Wager. That would make for something a little less than an omniscient deity, don’t you think?

Pascal's wager does not even hit at fooling God.

Let me put it another way that you only need to think about. If you are right, it doesn't matter what I believe. If I am right, it is critical what you belieive.

 

[omega2xx]

I asked you a question several days ago that logically might well answer the above, but you know so little about cosmology that you can't figure it out. Maybe come back when you finally get some help to understand that there's an alternative that actually is so logical one should even have had to study cosmology to figure it out.

You finally got something right. I know very little about cosmology. IMO, they have even less ability prove their wild guess than the evolutionists do.

 

[omega2xx]

The star originated from the gravitational pull of a cloud of hydrogen. And if the star is massive enough, then it starts synthesizing atoms heavier than helium. Until it cannod hold the pressure anymore and explodes, releasing al it made inside.

How can ycreate matter? Where did this cloud of hydrogen originate?

The right amount of oxygen is maintaned by plants, I think. They split molecules with oxygen into their components. It is what they discard in order to live. In the same way our left-overs help bacterias, and plants too, plants poo helps us, so to speak.

Ciao

- viole[/QUOTE]

I am glad you admitted that is something you think. You must have been reading the books on cosmology to think up stuff like that. Once upon a time....and they live happily ever after.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Your whole post is meaningless. All you have done is show the universe in it current condition as we know it.

There is no other known method for the synthesis of heavier elements. If you know of any, please produce such knowledge. (I will be patiently waiting.)

Just a few posts ago you did not know where such elements originated - now you are apparently a critic of the physical processes behind their origin... It's amazing to watch you do this so consistently.

As soon as you view something as being contradictory to your preconceived conclusions, you reject it as being without merit and supported by "no evidence." You've yet to answer a single question that I've posed to you regarding what these factual observations mean - how or why they exist - and what conclusions you can draw from them. That's rather telling, don't you think?

It says nothing about its origin.

Unless you are unable to read, they say everything about their origins.

And you do not know if if a state of nothing never existed.

There is no evidence, anywhere, ever, that "Nothing" has ever been a state of existence. Incredible simplicity we can posit. Nothing, however, is current impossibility given what we know.

Are you really suggesting mater, energy and life have always existed?

Two of those three things, yes.

That they are eternal?

So far as we know, yes.
We are contained within the whole of this Universe. We have yet to discover anything but circumstantial evidence to suggest that there are other universes, parallel universes, etc. All of the matter and energy that we know to exist currently has always existed in one form or another, contained within this bubble that is at least 13.7 Billion years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

If you want to go that way, then you have to allow that God is eternal and always existed.

No, you do not.
Positing that a supreme being more complex than the whole of the Universe somehow exists without evidence is a huge stretch from making factual statements about our current knowledge of existence.

How do you know the expansion of the universe was not how it was originally created?

Like with most of your questions, because there is no evidence to suggest such a thing.

Current trajectories of Spatial objects are stable and predictable. They can be tracked, forward and in reverse. Reversing all of the known and measured objects brings us to a point in space and time when the whole of this Universe was crammed into a single place...

What conclusion can you draw from those observations?

It seems highly unlikely that the universe has always existed, much less one that has perfect order.

The Universe has not always existed. We can fairly accurately date it via the processes that you've been made aware of over the past couple of days. But the matter and energy that exist within this Universe must have always existed, so far as we know.

Again, if you feel differently, please explain why. Do you have any evidence at all to support your current position?

Also, perfect order is a red herring. It's a subjective quality applied by theists to support their mythology. As with most things, there's nothing to compare it against. There's no metric or standard that you can use to support the claim of perfect order. Anything that "works" is going to give an illusion of design.

Which came first, the creek or the creek bed? Both answers will present your position with a problem.

Imo you need much more faith than I do.

Every single thing that I've posted to you is supported by factual evidentiary observation and can be witnessed daily, if you so choose to take the time.

Nothing that you have posited can share such a claim.

 

[metis]

You finally got something right. I know very little about cosmology. IMO, they have even less ability prove their wild guess than the evolutionists do.

LOL! Don't you realize the oxymoron above?

BTW, when dealing with what might have started our universe, you might be surprised that cosmology might just have something to offer about that.

 

[Skwim]

Are you serious? Where did the matter that went bang originate? Also there is no scientific evidence for the BB. You need to face the FACT that evolution has no scientific evidence for the origin of anything,

"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts become set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers"---Fred Hoyle

Give me an example of an event that had no cause.

You don't know how the universes started. Therefore you do knot know if it started in an arbitrary state, You can't use the BB THEORY unless you can explain the origin of matter. You do realize the BB requires something to go bang, right. You also need to explain the origin of the energy that caused the BB. ?Also consider this, the energy strong enough to throw matter into the farthest depths of the universe would be so strong, the stars would have been pulverized. ain, yo

.


.​

 

[Shad]

I never answer post that lone. All they have is the usual, unscientific rhetoric with no evidence.

Empty claim used as an excuse, nothing more.

I will give you an explanation of sampling. If you take a random sample of several different species and observe what their offsprings are, it will ALWASY be provable evidence that "after their kind" is 100% true 100% of the time.

You are taking a sampling of observations and making claims regrading things not observed based on what you have observed. We can not observe every creature reproducing at all times everywhere. This you are making an inductive conclusion, nothing more.

That alone rejects evolution and is evidence I know more about science than you do.

No as evolution accepts species reproduce. All you have done is confirm a part of evolution but since you lack knowledge of evolution itself you make an error in thinking this overturns evolution, it doesn't.