A Challenge To All Creationists

[gnostic]

The Bible can prove more in 1 chapter than the TOE has proved in 100+ years.

That's a very big BS.

Evolution is biology, a natural phenomena.

The Bible don't explain anything about biology. It cannot even demonstrate basic anatomy and physiology.

Can the bible tell you how a heart, lung, liver or stomach function?

To say such a stupid and bold-face lie is why creationists are laughingstock in this forum.

 

[omega2xx]

You mean like this:
“The involvement of Pax6 and six1 and six3 genes, which encode highly conserved transcription factors, in the genetic control of eye development in organisms ranging from planarians to humans argues strongly for a monophyletic origin of the eye.

Because transcription factors can control the expression of any target gene provided it contains the appropriate gene regulatory elements, the conservation of the genetic control of eye development by Pax6 among all bilaterian animals is not due to functional constraints but a consequence of its evolutionary history.

The prototypic eyes postulated by Darwin to consist of two cells only, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell, were accidentally controlled by Pax6 and the subsequent evolution of the various eye types occurred by building onto this original genetic program. A hypothesis of intercalary evolution is proposed that assumes that the eye morphogenetic pathway is progressively modified by intercalation of genes between the master control genes on the top of the hierarchy and the structural genes like rhodopsin at the bottom.

The recruitment of novel genes into the eye morphogenetic pathway can be due to at least two different genetic mechanisms, gene duplication and enhancer fusion.In tracing back the evolution of eyes beyond bilaterians, we find highly developed eyes in some box-jellyfish as well as in some Hydrozoans. In Hydrozoans the same orthologous six genes (six1 and six3) are required for eye regeneration as in planarians, and in the box jellyfish Tripedalia a pax B gene, which may be a precursor of Pax6, was found to be expressed in the eyes.”
New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors. - PubMed - NCBI

You didn’t even read it, did you?

No, it means that given the available evidence, it is the most likely explanation.

See above for your assertion about genetic pathways.



I don’t understand your question.

Being able to see anything at all, even if it’s only light, could be more advantageous than not being able to see anything at all. Is that what you’re asking?



I don’t know what an “evo link” is. But the links I have provided for you do in fact, contain evidence. As I think I just demonstrated above.

This is false. As demonstrated above.



I will point out quote mines no matter what the discussion. I don’t limit it to evolutionary quotations. I complain about quote mining when I see it because it’s dishonest. As I said. Your assertion is incorrect.

The only thing quote mines reveal is the dishonesty of the quote miner.



So you are stating that it is dishonest to present evidence to back up one’s claims, but it is not dishonest to present partial quotations removed from their context in order to make them appear to say something that they don’t actually say?


That’s great. You should care about what YOU do and how you present your arguments, which was my point.

I never respond to post that long. They are long on rhetoric and short on evidence. Even your first example on the eye is rhetoric. It says what happened but not HOW. Also, you need to start in the middle. Start when there was no life form with an eye and explain how what is needed got started.

The only complaint is when the quote is obviously true and the complainer can't refute it.

There is no basic difference in using a quote that in posting a link. If there is any dishonesty, it is posting a link that is suppose to offer evidence and it only has opinions. The only excuse for doing that is if the presenter does not understand what constitutes evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

Your question doesn’t make sense.

Here are some links to discussions on the evolution of bones that might help clarify and answer your question. Just so you are aware, the underlined names in brackets in the text provide links to other sources of evidence as well.

Where did bone come from?: An overview of its evolution
Evolution of the vertebrate skeleton: morphology, embryology, and development | Zoological Letters | Full Text

By the way, I was talking about having an informed and realistic view of the way science operates, it’s methodology and its terminology.



It reveals yours.


I’m sorry, you are mistaken.

Evolution is fact and a scientific theory. Scientific theories are supported by evidence or they are not scientific theories. There are no proofs. I repeat, there are no proofs.

Evolution will always be called a theory. So will germ theory and cell theory. A scientific theory is the highest level of scientific achievement that can be reached. Evolution is so well evidenced that it is considered a scientific theory.

“The formal scientific definition of a theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).

Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinements as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

…..

In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. “

https://www.nap.edu/read/11876/chapter/2#11

“MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge."
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10

You have no place telling anyone else that they are ignorant of scientific concepts when you haven’t grasped them yourself.

You should have just read it instead. Then you’d know that you’re wrong.

I’m sorry, I guess I’ve mistaken you for someone who cares about believing as many true things as possible, and about learning things and increasing their knowledge base. My bad.

“Evolutionary theory predicts that divergent natural selection will often have a key role in speciation. Working with sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Jeffrey McKinnon at the University of Wisconsin in Whitewater and his colleagues reported in 2004 that reproductive isolation can evolve as a by-product of selection on body size. This work provides a link between the build-up of reproductive isolation and the divergence of an ecologically important trait.

The study was done on an extraordinary geographical scale, involving mating trials between fish taken in Alaska, British Columbia, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Norway and Japan. It was underpinned by molecular genetic analyses that provided firm evidence that fish that have adapted to living in streams had evolved repeatedly from marine ancestors, or from fish that live in the ocean but return to fresh water to spawn. Such migratory populations in the study had larger bodies on average than did those living in streams. Individuals tended to mate with fish of a similar size, which accounts well for the reproductive isolation between different stream ecotypes and their close, seafaring neighbours.

Taking into account the evolutionary relationships, a comparison of the various types of stickleback, whether stream or marine, strongly supports the view that adaptation to different environments brings about reproductive isolation. The researchers’ experiments also confirmed the connection between size divergence and the build-up of reproductive isolation — although traits other than size also contribute to reproductive isolation to some extent.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

[/QUOTE]

KIS. Notice i did not include the last K---You are not stupid.

"Strongly supports" translated means we have no supporting evidence, so as usual we have to guess. Adaption may be true, but it has never been a mechanism for a change of species. In fact Adaption cannot be proved. The gene for rabbit legs does not include legs and "stronger legs." The rabbit may get stronger legs by continually running away from the fox, but it did not inherit them.

 

[omega2xx]

That's straw-man, omega2xx.

Evolution never state it create itself from "nothing".

Right evolution needs to start after those thing have come into existence. So forget evolution for now and explain how those element came into existence. Without them nothing can exist.

Evolution required life to already exist, and with animals, genes are passed through reproduction, from parents to offspring.

That is evolution's first guess and I don't think it is universal. Most admit they don't know.
How much lie existed in the beginning? You are eight that genes are passed through reproduction, but unless the gene pool of the paresnt includes a gene for bones, they will never have a kid with bones. That is one basic genetic reason evolution is impossible.

Evolution is not about origin of first life. The origin of life is mainly the focus of abiogenesis, which is different to evolution. Evolution is focused in the area of biodiversity. [/QUOTE]

Evolution started out including the origin of life---Origin of the species, but trying to explain it without everyone laughing caused them to forget or ignore it.

Clearly, your understanding is no better than that of cave man.

And even that is better than your understanding of genetics.

Natural Selection is about adaptation, where environment, such as climate, terrain, availability of food, etc, can affect the species.

Another example of your ignorance of genetics. The things you mention, even if true, would not be a mechanism for a change of species. It might help the species to survive, it id cannot just the genetic fence and become something other than what it parents were. Also you can't offer one example of natural selection changing a species. That should tell you what I already know.

At some point, tens of thousands of years ago, the brown bear species (Urus arctos), diverge because of the regions they were living. The brown bears that were living in colder regions, had to adapt, where trees don't grow, when ice sheets covered much of the northern regions of Europe, Asia and North America. But this Ice Age weren't as global as previous glacial era.

If that was true, they would have become extinct before evolution could kick in. Not only that, they remained brown bears. Where is the evolution is the species remained the same?

Those that remained in warmer regions remained as they were, but new species gradually arose from the brown bears, producing species that can survive in extreme cold, which we called polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

Or the all moved to where they could find food. There is no evidenced that brown bears ever had thin hair and developed thick hair. That is the usual, necessary guess.

It is not just the white fur that make polar bears different from the brown bears, but the whiteness does help when hunting their prey, where they can hide among the ice. The polar bear developed fur (and hide) that's more water-proof and wind-proof than that of brown bear, so they can survive extreme cold, from wind or the sea they can swim. Brown bears cannot swim in sea.

Although, brown bear can swim in lakes or rivers, they preferred wading than swimming. I am sure you have seen documentaries of brown bears catching salmons; they do by wading, not swimming.

The polar bear's main source of food is sea-seals, which contained high fat contents. The polar bear has more fat than brown bear. If you remember your high school biology, body fat is what help animals insulate themselves from the cold. Because of the higher body fat in polar bears, they don't need to hibernate, like the brown bears, black bears and grizzly bears in the colder seasons.

The polar bears didn't come out of nowhere, omega. It is offshoot of the brown bears.

That's Evolution by Natural Selection at work. A biologist who focused on evolution between brown bears and polar bears would not need to know how life started billions of years ago; they would only need to trace back evidences that go back a couple of hundred thousand of years.

Another example is viruses. Virologists who study viruses and developed vaccines or antibiotics, would only focused viruses of this century and the last century (20th century), because it is not that cultured viruses several centuries or millennia. So virologists and vaccine researchers need solid understanding of evolution, via Natural Selection and Mutation. Vaccine being used, will make future strains of viruses resistant or immune to that viruses.

For you to say that there are no evidences, when it staring at you in the face, only demonstrated your ignorance, or worse, your dishonesty at ignoring or dismissing the evidences.

No, omega. You don't understand evolution and abiogenesis at all.

Right. agree with those who accept speculation by faith alone or you dont' understand. When you have something more than the usual evo rhetoric, get back to me. The truth is you don't understand real science thanks to you uneducation in the public school system

If you understand science (not just biology) at all, you would know that they rely on evidences to verify or refute explanation, not proof. Proof and evidence are different to both scientists and mathematicians.

And there are plenty of evidences to support evolution. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is still relatively young theory, with not as much evidences as there are in evolution, but their focus are different.

Nice try but abiogeneis is as old as the TOE. The both came to the dace at teh saem time.I have not replied to all of your example, they are just the same guesses all evolutionist use and there is not one bit of science to support any of them. They ALL fall victim tot he laws of genetics.

 

[omega2xx]

That's a very big BS.

I can prove after trheir kind, you can't prove even one thing he toe preaches.

Evolution is biology, a natural phenomena.

Evidence you don't understand either term.

The Bible don't explain anything about biology.

Of course it does. It explains why dogs produce only dogs, eagles produce only eagles and whales produce only whale, beans produce beans etc., the list is endless. That lesson in Biology refutes evolution.

It cannot even demonstrate basic anatomy and physiology.

Can the bible tell you how a heart, lung, liver or stomach function?

That is not its purpose. Does a book on biology tell you how a computer works?

To say such a stupid and bold-face lie is why creationists are laughingstock in this forum.

If they are so stupid, it should be easy for a know it all about science like you to show some evidence on anything the TOT preaches, But you CAN'T can you?

If you want to talk about what is stupid, a lie and not based on science look at what you "experts" say about whale evolution.

It is amusing that when you evos can't produce the evidence to support your stories that should start with "once upon a time." and end with "and they lived happily ever after," you you always end up up insulting those who disagree with you. Do you not have the intellect to discuss a subject on its merits, instead of becoming insulting? Evidently not. How sad.

 

[gnostic]

I can prove after trheir kind, you can't prove even one thing he toe preaches.

That's really hilarious, because I haven't seen a single creationist ever explaining what "kind" is, in scientific term.

Of course it does. It explains why dogs produce only dogs, eagles produce only eagles and whales produce only whale, beans produce beans etc., the list is endless. That lesson in Biology refutes evolution.

Sorry, but that's not science.

If this "kind" mentioned in the bible is true, then it should provide specific examples of WHAT "kind" is, and HOW "kind" produces the same "kind".

Genesis 1, 2 or 7 don't describe a single thing about biology, let alone what kind is.

I don't see any of those chapters explain to me about the dog kind, eagle kind or whale kind.

Please cite sources of where it mention dogs, eagles and whales and how your sources explain kinds, because I have not seen any thing in the bible that provide explanation as to what kinds are.

That is not its purpose. Does a book on biology tell you how a computer works?

If you the bible is accurate in biology when you speak of "kind" and such, then it should be able to explain anatomy and physiology of how body or parts of body structure and how they function.

Evolution explain that parts of biology, and more so, because it require the understanding of anatomy and physiology. You can't study genetics without knowledge of anatomy and physiology.

And evolution explored that area, because they are required to know how anatomy and physiology of any animal can "change", "adapt" or "evolve".

And biology is not a computer, so your example is hopelessly poor.

I have already given an real-life example here, with the brown bears vs polar bears. I have already explained how they differ in certain ways.

To say that "bear kind" only bears, is oversimplification of biology, to level of ignorance. It should be explain what kind is, and the bible doesn't do that.

 

[omega2xx]

That's really hilarious, because I haven't seen a single creationist ever explaining what "kind" is, in scientific term.

That seems to be because you have been too busy reading fairy tales and thought they were in the non-fiction section.

Sorry, but that's not science.

If this "kind" mentioned in the bible is true, then it should provide specific examples of WHAT "kind" is, and HOW "kind" produces the same "kind".

Genesis 1, 2 or 7 don't describe a single thing about biology, let alone what kind is.

I don't see any of those chapters explain to me about the dog kind, eagle kind or whale kind.

Please cite sources of where it mention dogs, eagles and whales and how your sources explain kinds, because I have not seen any thing in the bible that provide explanation as to what kinds are.

You give me a scientific example of natural selection causing a change of species and will gladly explain the basics of genetics to you.

If you the bible is accurate in biology when you speak of "kind" and such, then it should be able to explain anatomy and physiology of how body or parts of body structure and how they function.

Don't be silly. That is not the purpose of the Bible.

Evolution explain that parts of biology, and more so, because it require the understanding of anatomy and physiology. You can't study genetics without knowledge of anatomy and physiology.

You can't study genetics and not know the basics, and you don't even know the basics.

[And evolution explored that area, because they are required to know how anatomy and physiology of any animal can "change", "adapt" or "evolve"

Then give me an example os when adaption actually changed the species.

]And biology is not a computer, so your example is hopelessly poor.

You don't even realize my example is perfect. You don't find biology in the Bible, sit AIN'T a biology book. Do you read the Origin of the species to find out how to tune an engine?

I have already given an real-life example here, with the brown bears vs polar bears. I have already explained how they differ in certain ways.

If you called that evidence of evolution, you need someone to read the Origin of the Species t you and explain it as you go alone.

To say that "bear kind" only bears, is oversimplification of biology, to level of ignorance. It should be explain what kind is, and the bible doesn't do that.

What a kind is is the simple thing. It is so simple even a caved man with a 2 digit IQ can understand it.

I noticed you did not make any comment on whale evolution. That one is hard to explain in scientific terms, right? Make that IMPOSSIBLE to explain. Of course you will continue to believe it. That take s a lot more faith than I have.

 

[gnostic]

That seems to be because you have been too busy reading fairy tales and thought they were in the non-fiction section.

And you don't think creating light with magic words "Let the be light", fairytales?

Or creating a living and fully-grown adult human from dust, absurd fairytale, if taken literal?

Or that god can stop and start the sun, during a battle, so they could fight longer, more supernatural fairytale?

Or how about the nonsense of angels (living creatures, or cherubs) possessing 4 wings, four faces that of lion, eagle, ox and man?

You talk of science as being fairytales, but the bible possess stuff more in common to fairytales than science.

Why don't you grow up, omega2xx?

 

[gnostic]

I noticed you did not make any comment on whale evolution.

I have not claimed to know everything about biology, because I am not a biologist, and I don't know much about marine life, so there is really nothing for me to say about whales (and dolphins).

Why should I comment on animals like whales, when I don't know much about them.

But from what I read from your replies, you clearly don't know much about whales too.

 

[omega2xx]

And you don't think creating light with magic words "Let the be light", fairytales?

Or creating a living and fully-grown adult human from dust, absurd fairytale, if taken literal?

Or that god can stop and start the sun, during a battle, so they could fight longer, more supernatural fairytale?

Or how about the nonsense of angels (living creatures, or cherubs) possessing 4 wings, four faces that of lion, eagle, ox and man?

You talk of science as being fairytales, but the bible possess stuff more in common to fairytales than science.

Why don't you grow up, omega2xx?

 

[omega2xx]

And you don't think creating light with magic words "Let the be light", fairytales?

Only if their is no omnipotent God. Can you explain the origin of light?

Or creating a living and fully-grown adult human from dust, absurd fairytale, if taken literal?

Only if there is no omnipotent God. ayou explain the origin of the species.

Or that god can stop and start the sun, during a battle, so they could fight longer, more supernatural fairytale?[/QUOTE]

Do you not understand what "omnipotent" means?

Or how about the nonsense of angels (living creatures, or cherubs) possessing 4 wings, four faces that of lion, eagle, ox and man?

Can an omnipotent God not create anything He wants to?

You talk of science as being fairytales, but the bible possess stuff more in common to fairytales than science.

I have not s aid science is a fairytale, I said the TOE is one. Anyone who accepts a dog-like land animal being in the line of a sea creature, will believe anything the evangelist of evolution tell him.

Why don't you grow up, omega2xx?

Evidently you don't have the mental capacity to discuss a subject without becoming insulting.

The next time you insult me, you can go back to the playground with the other third graders. They have to accept your snotty remarks, I don't.

 

[omega2xx]

I have not claimed to know everything about biology, because I am not a biologist, and I don't know much about marine life, so there is really nothing for me to say about whales (and dolphins).

Why should I comment on animals like whales, when I don't know much about them.

But from what I read from your replies, you clearly don't know much about whales too.

Well at least you admit much of what you beleive is by faith alone. That is more than what most evos will do.

That is because your science knowledge is not a good as mine.

It doesn't take much science knowledge to understand that it is biologically IMPOSSIBLE for the nose of a dog-like land animal to become the blowhole of a sea creature. If you want to talk about fairy tales, put that at the top of your list.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never respond to post that long. They are long on rhetoric and short on evidence. Even your first example on the eye is rhetoric. It says what happened but not HOW. Also, you need to start in the middle. Start when there was no life form with an eye and explain how what is needed got started.

The only complaint is when the quote is obviously true and the complainer can't refute it.

There is no basic difference in using a quote that in posting a link. If there is any dishonesty, it is posting a link that is suppose to offer evidence and it only has opinions. The only excuse for doing that is if the presenter does not understand what constitutes evidence.

Oh, you don't read posts that long. How convenient for you that your refuse to read posts that contain a great deal of evidence that contradict your empty assertions. No wonder you are so ignorant on the subject of evolution. Why would anyone bother responding to you at all then? You're clearly not interested honest discussion. You can't ask for evidence, and then when you receive it claim that you don't read long posts and dismiss it without reading it. I think you've demonstrated that you're not interested in honesty, at least twice now.

Quote mining is dishonest. Period. Don't bother trying to justify it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

KIS. Notice i did not include the last K---You are not stupid.

"Strongly supports" translated means we have no supporting evidence, so as usual we have to guess. Adaption may be true, but it has never been a mechanism for a change of species. In fact Adaption cannot be proved. The gene for rabbit legs does not include legs and "stronger legs." The rabbit may get stronger legs by continually running away from the fox, but it did not inherit them.

No, it does not mean that. This is your second time attempting this now.

You are wrong. You should probably better familiarize yourself with evolution and the scientific method before continuing to comment on things you clearly do not fully understand. Or you should read full posts that contain the evidence you keep asking for and take in some new information. That's if you care about discovering what is actually true.

Adaptation is evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That seems to be because you have been too busy reading fairy tales and thought they were in the non-fiction section.

Sorry, but that's not science.



You give me a scientific example of natural selection causing a change of species and will gladly explain the basics of genetics to you.




Don't be silly. That is not the purpose of the Bible.



You can't study genetics and not know the basics, and you don't even know the basics.




Then give me an example os when adaption actually changed the species.



You don't even realize my example is perfect. You don't find biology in the Bible, sit AIN'T a biology book. Do you read the Origin of the species to find out how to tune an engine?



If you called that evidence of evolution, you need someone to read the Origin of the Species t you and explain it as you go alone.




What a kind is is the simple thing. It is so simple even a caved man with a 2 digit IQ can understand it.

I noticed you did not make any comment on whale evolution. That one is hard to explain in scientific terms, right? Make that IMPOSSIBLE to explain. Of course you will continue to believe it. That take s a lot more faith than I have.

Then it should be easy to explain. Please proceed.

Or you could continue to act in a hypocritical manner by claiming that others are trying to insult you as you simultaneously try to insult others.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only if their is no omnipotent God. Can you explain the origin of light?



Only if there is no omnipotent God. ayou explain the origin of the species.

Or that god can stop and start the sun, during a battle, so they could fight longer, more supernatural fairytale?

Do you not understand what "omnipotent" means?



Can an omnipotent God not create anything He wants to?



I have not s aid science is a fairytale, I said the TOE is one. Anyone who accepts a dog-like land animal being in the line of a sea creature, will believe anything the evangelist of evolution tell him.



Evidently you don't have the mental capacity to discuss a subject without becoming insulting.

The next time you insult me, you can go back to the playground with the other third graders. They have to accept your snotty remarks, I don't.

The TOE is as scientific as it gets. So if you say that the TOE is a fairy tale, you are saying that science is a fairy tale (as you simultaneously push magic as an explanation). You seem to contradict yourself a lot.

 

[jonathan180iq]

"Strongly supports" translated means we have no supporting evidence, so as usual we have to guess.

The fact that you post in response to others on this forum strongly suggests that you exist as a thinking human being - but since, as you say, what that really means is that there is no supporting evidence, we have to guess whether you're a real person or a highly advanced trollbot... The jury is still out.

 

[JerryL]

I never respond to post that long.

Start when there was no life form with an eye and explain how what is needed got started.

Admit it. You are Hermain Cain. You believe a 3 trillion dollar budget can be itemized on two pages (except less: because that wasn't two pages and you considered it "too long to read")!

 

[gnostic]

Only if there is no omnipotent God.

Another thing that you are totally ignorant about. You don't understand the definition of "fairytale".

A "being" that possesses magic or supernatural or divine power, especially that of unlimited power, and who can perform magic, creation or miracle, would be by definition - "fairytale".

A god that say "Let there be light", like some magic words, and light being created out of nothing, actually defy natural law, is magic like when a witch incanting a spell, sounds more like witchcraft.

Creating a fully-grown living adult human from dust, is a example of more magic.

The terms - omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent - is a matter of your personal belief and faith that such a being have such power. That's not evidence, omega, that just simply wishful thinking and primitive superstition.

Say God did it, is not evidence.

Science is about explaining the natural phenomena without superstition and without such clear subjective bias that you are exhibiting.

 

[omega2xx]

Another thing that you are totally ignorant about. You don't understand the definition of "fairytale".

A "being" that possesses magic or supernatural or divine power, especially that of unlimited power, and who can perform magic, creation or miracle, would be by definition - "fairytale".

It is obvious it is YOU who does not understand fairy tale

A god that say "Let there be light", like some magic words, and light being created out of nothing, actually defy natural law, is magic like when a witch incanting a spell, sounds more like witchcraft.

Then with all of your great omniscience, tell me how the universe came into being. l I can assure everyone it will sound more like a fairy tale then it was done by an omnipotent God.

Creating a fully-grown living adult human from dust, is a example of more magic.

More evidence of an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.

The terms - omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent - is a matter of your personal belief and faith that such a being have such power. That's not evidence, omega, that just simply wishful thinking and primitive superstition.

What I say happened is by faith; what you said did not happen is also by faith.

Say God did it, is not evidence.

Saying God did not do it is not evidence.

Science is about explaining the natural phenomena without superstition and without such clear subjective bias that you are exhibiting.

Sicence is, evolution is not.

No more replies until you tell me how the universe came into being.