A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

The clouds? From the slight inhomogeneity in the background cosmic radiation.

OK, what is the origin of cosmic radiation?

Obviously. i am not in the business of writing things without thinking about them.

No you don't seem to be. However, present the evidence for what you write or admit you don't have any. I can't prove God exists and is the Creator of the universe, but my belief is more than faith. IMO a creation needs a Creator; a universe where all he processes work perfectly all the time, also need an Intelligent Designer.

I is a mystery to me why intelligent people accept something without supporting evidence. I accept "after their kind," because it is proven 1000's of times every day.

I am not in the business of fairy tales about living happily ever after, either.

Ciao

- viole

If you accept something without any supporting evidence , IMO you are.

 

[omega2xx]

Adam has never been observed nor is an of science but of religion.

Not necessary as PROVED b y your own life---Adam produced homo sapian children. Your parents did the very same thing. There has NEVER been an observation of anything else being produced.

OTOH no one has ever observed a species producing anything other that what it was---after their kind is observed every day.

You can not observe every time a form of life reproduces so you are still using a sampling of things you observe to make a claim about things you have not observed.

It is not necessary to observe every form of life reproduced. When something has happened the very same way billions of times and not once any different. That is proof it has always happened that way and will continue to happen the very same way. For the sake of your belief, you are willing to deny the obvious.

Evolution certainly makes claims about things it has not observed. Why do you have a different standard for it?

Besides specialization has been demonstrated so a to b does happen.




Specialization has been observed in flies and flowers just from what I remember learning in biology class.

There is been variation within the species, but these variation have not change the species. Because of the gene pool and because of dominant and recessive genes, there will alwasy be variation, but none result in a change of species.

 

[omega2xx]

I see no reason to continue this coversation if you insist on being so ridiculously close-minded, and frankly, ignorant. Failure? Seriously? e opened up a brand new world of scientific discovery. I could hardly call that a failure.
Good. I was afraid I would have to continue reading your blather. It is amusing that when those who think they are so intelligent have to resort to insults when you can't provide the evidence these close minded ask for. What is a failure is people like you who are willing to accept what the evolution evangelist preach. If it isn't to late, you better spit that kool-aid out.

Oh geez, I used to think the faith argument was the biggest cop-out ever. But now that has met its match. "Who's to say that wasn't what happened in Genesis?" Are you serious? I made no arguments even talking about that. I suppose that's just the endless compatibility of religion. If they get debated into a corner, they just adapt with science, despite believing or all this time and accepting the "faith trumps" ideal.

Another amusing thing is that when the evos can't make their point scientifically, they always resort to religion as if that is what I base my beliefs on. Sine I have not mentioned God, or Genesis or religion, why have you?

What's the problem with that? No one said that those elements didn't exist. Obviously they had to exist. The point is, life was created out of non-organics.

Here is the usual evo rhetoric for which they can only offer unsupported, unscientific opinions. Saying something is not evidence. How do you know the had to exist. What evidence do you have that life was created out of non-organics? NONE, but you believe it any way. Very scientific thinking. You also failed to explain how that is possible. That is because you can't; have no evidence to support what you say.

If you're not too lazy or close-minded, I will direct you to this link:

http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/abiogenesis.html

I will prove you don t understand evidence. Without reading your link, I dogmatically say it does not offer any scientific evidence to support evolution. Now put up or shut up or cut or cut and paste the evidence they presented. Or do the honest thing and admit you can't.

Faith also has the power to lower brain function, apparently. I love how God loves to waste our time.

Another stupid remark you can't prove. If anyone considers this discussion a waste of time, but still participates in it, it questions their intellect. Of course it also point to a closed mind, or maybe a mind that is so open, their brains have fallen out. I report, you decide.

Since you are going to run away, don't forget to cover your ears and yell as loud as you can, it ain't true, it ain't true.

 

[omega2xx]

*yawn*
So you have no math to show?
No worries.
I knew it was nothing more than a big steaming pile of bull.... wishful thinking on your part.

Talk is cheap, prove what you say or admit you can't. That would be the honest thing to do.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

OTOH no one has ever observed a species producing anything other that what it was---after their kind is observed every day.

As I replied earlier to another post, you're expecting to witness "monkey into man", or some comparable large-scale change in an organism. The fact is that by the very definitions of evolution that kind of change takes more time than any of us will ever have.

However, what do you think of bacteria that become resistant to our antibiotic attacks on them? This is a form of evolution, like it or not. It is "proof" for those willing to accept it. The bacteria have produced "beyond their kind". And it is something we can see within a lifetime because it is a more simple organism, and their reproduction rate is at a drastically higher frequency.

Or are you still stuck on requiring "monkey into man" as the base level of "proof" you require?

 

[metis]

What other matters? Since infinity has not numerical value, no formula using it can be reliable.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity and look under area 2.

It is an hypothesis but it is neither viable nor fairly logical. They really don't use any proven data in their wild guesses.

Well, you just fell into your own trap.

How far back does God go, and what created God? If you believe God always was-- that's "infinity".

And then you talk about "wild guesses"? As for me, I don't assume one way or another [see my signature statement at the bottom of the page for clarification], but you sure do.

 

[omega2xx]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity and look under area 2.
.
Well, you just fell into your own trap.

From you link: Infinity (symbol: ∞) is an abstract concept describing something without any bound or larger than any number.

Did you not understand your own link?

How far back does God go, and what created God? If you believe God always was-- that's "infinity".

God has always existed. That is eternal, not infinity.

And then you talk about "wild guesses"? As for me, I don't assume one way or another [see my signature statement at the bottom of the page for clarification], but you sure do.

"Whatever" is an assumption.

 

[omega2xx]

As I replied earlier to another post, you're expecting to witness "monkey into man", or some comparable large-scale change in an organism. The fact is that by the very definitions of evolution that kind of change takes more time than any of us will ever have.

Definitions are not evidence. Anyone can say anything, Then they must backup what they say or admit they can't. Who do they explain, scientifically of course, how time changes the laws of genetics?

However, what do you think of bacteria that become resistant to our antibiotic attacks on them? This is a form of evolution, like it or not. It is "proof" for those willing to accept it. The bacteria have produced "beyond their kind". And it is something we can see within a lifetime because it is a more simple organism, and their reproduction rate is at a drastically higher frequency.

It always amuses me that evolutionist think a species remaining the same specie is evidence of evolution. It ain't. Think about this. If some that bacteria did not have some anti resistance to the antibiotic, they would have all died. Then necessary mechanism takes to long to cause them to survive. Your won words shoot you in the head---evolution takes more time than any of us will ever have.

Or are you still stuck on requiring "monkey into man" as the base level of "proof" you require?

I am not stuck at all, you are.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It always amuses me that evolutionist think a species remaining the same specie is evidence of evolution. It ain't. Think about this. If some that bacteria did not have some anti resistance to the antibiotic, they would have all died. Then necessary mechanism takes to long to cause them to survive. Your won words shoot you in the head---evolution takes more time than any of us will ever have.

That any organism can see even the amounts of change we have seen in them over the RIDICULOUSLY SHORT TERM that humans have been accurately recording history (think domestic dogs and cats - whose differences are wide and varied from the handful of true predecessors there were) - it surprises me that anyone still fights so adamantly against evolution. I'll grant you that a Toy Pomeranian and a Tibetan Mastiff are still the same species - but look at the variance there and tell me you don't believe it can go even further. In my opinion you're crazy if you think that's the extent of it.

 

[metis]

From you link: Infinity (symbol: ∞) is an abstract concept describing something without any bound or larger than any number.

Did you not understand your own link?



God has always existed. That is eternal, not infinity.



"Whatever" is an assumption.

Sorry to say ghat you really do not know what you're talking about as far as the use of infinity is concerned because it is used in some equations, which was spelled out in what I linked you to. How in the world could you have missed that???

And then your denial of you using assumption after assumption is actually quite laughable because it's so obviously wrong to anyone who is literate. And then you blindly accept your own assumptions but reject even the basic ToE that not only is well-verified but even stands to common sense, and then you also assume that the general drift of a majority of the cosmologists as far as the beginning of our universe is wrong.

And they you compound these absurdities with saying that "Whatever is an assumption"?!

Oh, my aching head.

 

[McBell]

Talk is cheap, prove what you say or admit you can't.

You would be much better off paying better attention to the tangents you butt into half cocked.
For that is EXACTLY what I am telling the other member...

That would be the honest thing to do.

I completely agree.
If he is not going to support his math claims with the math....

 

[viole]

OK, what is the origin of cosmic radiation?

The Big Bang. And least according to cosmology. But the right question should have been "what caused those inhomogeneities"? Because in a totally homogeneous cosmic background there would not be stars, probably.

No you don't seem to be. However, present the evidence for what you write or admit you don't have any.

I write a lot. So, I am not sure what you mean. That God did not create the Universe? Ot that Mother Goose didn't? I disbelieve equally both scenarios, amongs a multitude of scenarios.

I can't prove God exists and is the Creator of the universe, but my belief is more than faith. IMO a creation needs a Creator; a universe where all he processes work perfectly all the time, also need an Intelligent Designer.

Well, of course a creation needs a creator, otherwise it would not be a creation to start with. I argue that this is not a creation at all.

I is a mystery to me why intelligent people accept something without supporting evidence.

You mean like belief in Apollo? Are you addressing Plato?

I accept "after their kind," because it is proven 1000's of times every day.

Yes, but not necessarily every millions of years. And if you go far enough, there were not even days. You believe in kinds because that is what the Bible says. But the Bible says a lot of things, like water before the stars that, as we have seen, makes no sense according to what we know today. There was NO oxygen before the first stars formed and died.

So, how can you take it so seriously when it gets so wrong right at page one? On physics, not only biology. How did you manage to reach page two without switching into "reading fiction now" mode?

That is the true mystery.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Reggie Miller]

*yawn*
So you have no math to show?
No worries.
I knew it was nothing more than a big steaming pile of bull.... wishful thinking on your part.

Oh, yeah. So yeah, it is about 50% likely that abiogenesis occurred. Happy now?

 

[Reggie Miller]

If those two assumptions are required, as you say, then please explain to those watching at home why you would chose the greater unknown.

A god that can create Universes is, by definition, intricately more complex than the Universe that it can create. If you have a problem with the Universe being without cause, why are you not equally as critical of an even more complex entity existing without cause?

Also, if we are to admit, as you say, that you can't prove either position one way or another, why does it seem more logical to you to choose the option with the least amount of evidence supporting it?

God's word supports Creation, along with common sense. Unless you can come up with some way in which something arose from nothing you have already lost the argument.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

It's common sense since it is so obvious. To reject Creation is just to reject sound common sense.

 

[McBell]

Oh, yeah. So yeah, it is about 50% likely that abiogenesis occurred. Happy now?

you have still not shown the math.

 

[McBell]

Unless you can come up with some way in which something arose from nothing you have already lost the argument.

Except you have not shown there was ever a time when there was "nothing".
So your false dichotomy does not work.

 

[Reggie Miller]

you have still not shown the math.

No, but I did give you a link. And you know the chances are pretty slim so just stop saying, "show me the math." You going to show me the math that proves what I posted wrong? Then kindly shut up about it.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Except you have not shown there was ever a time when there was "nothing".
So your false dichotomy does not work.

I don't have to, since you can't prove that there was always "something." You also can't prove there is no God. So you're argument here is moot.

 

[McBell]

No, but I did give you a link. And you know the chances are pretty slim so just stop saying, "show me the math." You going to show me the math that proves what I posted wrong? Then kindly shut up about it.

NO, I do not know the chances are pretty slim.
You have been completely unsuccessful in showing, out side the choir, that the chances are anything.

I did not make any math claim.
I merely requested you present the math that supports your math claim.
You have revealed you are merely parroting the bold empty math claims of others.

Since we both know that you have no math to support your parroted bold empty math claim, you should really stop making them.

 

[McBell]

I don't have to, since you can't prove that there was always "something." You also can't prove there is no God. So you're argument here is moot.

What argument(s) have I presented?
Please be so kind as to present the post numbers.

I merely pointed out your false dichotomy.