A Challenge To All Creationists

[gnostic]

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

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.

More evidence of an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.

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

Saying God did not do it is not evidence.

Sicence is, evolution is not.

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

I don't think you realise that you have shot yourself in the foot.

From all of the above, it is clear to me that you don't understand science, you don't understand biology, and you are utterly and hopelessly clueless about cosmology of the universe.

You don't what evidence mean, because you are clearly confusing evidences with your personal belief, and you don't understand the methodology of finding evidences and verifying them.

If you understood science, you would know that science such arbitrary and subjective concepts as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. These "omni-" are theological concepts, and have no bearing in science.

The fact that you "believe" that an Intelligent Designer make it very clear to me that you have no interests in science.

The Intelligent Design is no different from primitive Neolithic cultures in which used to believe in superstitions, like the sun, moon, rain, trees, mountains, etc, have spirits.

I am wasting my time with a primitive, who cannot understand and will never understand science, because you are too far gone being indoctrinated Presbyterian teachings.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I don't think you realise that you have shot yourself in the foot.

From all of the above, it is clear to me that you don't understand science, you don't understand biology, and you are utterly and hopelessly clueless about cosmology of the universe.

You don't what evidence mean, because you are clearly confusing evidences with your personal belief, and you don't understand the methodology of finding evidences and verifying them.

If you understood science, you would know that science such arbitrary and subjective concepts as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. These "omni-" are theological concepts, and have no bearing in science.

The fact that you "believe" that an Intelligent Designer make it very clear to me that you have no interests in science.

The Intelligent Design is no different from primitive Neolithic cultures in which used to believe in superstitions, like the sun, moon, rain, trees, mountains, etc, have spirits.

I am wasting my time with a primitive, who cannot understand and will never understand science, because you are too far gone being indoctrinated Presbyterian teachings.

Hmm... that's exactly what I would expect a non-Creationist to say.

You don't know because you don't know because you don't know...

 

[JerryL]

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.

Can you establish that the universe did, in fact, "come into being"? Can you describe what that means. Please be specific.

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

This is called "false equivalence".

For example: I say you used to be a unicorn and you say you didn't. Which should most people believe is true and why?

Saying God did not do it is not evidence.

True. You might, for example, say that you've never murdered a 5-year-old. What evidence can you offer?

Since you have none: Should you be in jail? Why not?

Sicence is, evolution is not.

That's not even really a sentence. You might as well say "logic is not hungrier'.

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

Whatever your excuse for not defending your claims: it remains an excuse.

 

[JerryL]

Hmm... that's exactly what I would expect a non-Creationist to say.

You don't know because you don't know because you don't know...

Hmm... that's exactly what I would expect a YEC to say.

 

[omega2xx]

Can you establish that universe did, in fact, "come into being"? Can you describe what that means. Please be specific.

Since we have a universe, it had to have come into existence unless you have some evidence it has always existed. If you do't understand "come into being," There is little need to continue this discussion

This is called "false equivalence".

For example: I say you used to be a unicorn and you say you didn't. Which should most people believe is true and why?[/QUOTE]

I don't care.

True. You might, for example, say that you've never murdered a 5-year-old. What evidence can you offer?

Since you have none: Should you be in jail? Why not?


That's not even really a sentence. You might as well say "logic is not hungrier'.


Whatever your excuse for not defending your claims: it remains an excuse.

I don't care.

 

[JerryL]

Since we have a universe, it had to have come into existence unless you have some evidence it has always existed. If you do't understand "come into being," There is little need to continue this discussion

It may well have always existed.

Or time may be such an integreal part of the universe that both concepts "come into being" and "always existed" make no syntactic sense.

For use to even begin to discuss how it "came into being", we must first establish that it did... and you've done no such thing.

I don't care.

I don't care.

You should; because they are identical to the problem you claim to care about.

 

[gnostic]

Hmm... that's exactly what I would expect a non-Creationist to say.

You don't know because you don't know because you don't know...

Have you read of some of his comments?

A lot of replies demonstrated just how little omega2xx understood biology, or even science in general.

And he has repeatedly made assumptions that only atheists accept evolution. Does he realise that there are many more Christians than atheists that accept evolution as the explanation for biodiversity?

Because that's what evolution is mainly about. It is about adapting.

It has nothing to do with the origin of first life, which is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution required ancestors and descendants, abiogenesis is about how the first chemical molecules becoming the first living matters, which required no passing of genes, from generation to generation.

Do you think all Christians don't accept who are biologists by profession, don't believe in evolution to be the accepted explanation for biodiversity?

Did you know that Charles Darwin was a Christian most of his life, and was never an atheist?

In the last couple of decades of his life, he had leaning towards agnosticism, but never towards atheism, but even more importantly he had never once renounced being a Christian.

 

[omega2xx]

It may well have always existed.

"May well" is not very convincing. If I have to choose between something being eternal, I will stick with God.

Or time may be such an integreal part of the universe that both concepts "come into being" and "always existed" make no syntactic sense.

Speak for you self. The only thing that makes sense to me is that a creation needs a Creator and one the works perfectly all the time, needs an Intelligent Designer. To believe that a universe such a our has always existed, takes more faith than the size of a mustard seed, and all the faith I need to believe God did it, is one that size.

If you had to bet your life on the universe being eternal or a God that is eternal, where would you put you money?

For use to even begin to discuss how it "came into being", we must first establish that it did... and you've done no such thing.

What both of us believe, if you really believe the universe is eternal, can only be accepted by faith alone.

You should; because they are identical to the problem you claim to care about.

I don't have a problem. That part of my theology is set in cement and you will never be able to falsify it.

The heavens are declaring the glory of God---Psa 19:1

 

[JerryL]

"May well" is not very convincing. If I have to choose between something being eternal, I will stick with God.

It isn't supposed to "be convincing". It's one of the flaws in your position.
"If I have to chose" is not convincing.

Speak for you self. The only thing that makes sense to me is

I'm speaking for basic logic and evidence... things you are ignoring.

If you had to bet your life on the universe being eternal or a God that is eternal, where would you put you money?

Universe.

What both of us believe, if you really believe the universe is eternal, can only be accepted by faith alone.

I don't believe it is, I don't believe it's not. I believe the things that are reasonably evidenced.

I don't have a problem. That part of my theology is set in cement and you will never be able to falsify it.

Many (most?) flat-Earth believers are the same.

 

[omega2xx]

It may well have always existed.

"May well" is not very convincing. If I have to choose between something being eternal, I will stick with God.

Or time may be such an integreal part of the universe that both concepts "come into being" and "always existed" make no syntactic sense.

Speak for you self. The only think that makes sense to me is that a creation needs a Creator and one the works perfectly all the time, needs an Intelligent Designer.

For use to even begin to discuss how it "came into being", we must first establish that it did... and you've done no such thing.

What both of us believe, if you really believe the universe is eternal, can only be accepted by faith alone.

You should; because they are identical to the problem you claim to care about.

I don't have a problem. That part of my theology is set in cement and you will never be able to falsify it.

The heavens are declaring the glory of God---psa 19:1

 

[omega2xx]

It isn't supposed to "be convincing". It's one of the flaws in your position.
"If I have to chose" is not convincing.

Actually you have chose, you just wont admit it.

I'm speaking for basic logic and evidence... things you are ignoring.

Who died and made final determer of what is logical, and you certainly have no evidence for what you chose. Basic logic says a creation needs a Creator.

Universe.


I don't believe it is, I don't believe it's not. I believe the things that are reasonably evidenced.

If you believe something, you have made a choice and their is no evidence for what you believe, let alone reasonable evidence.

Many (most?) flat-Earth believers are the same.

Another stupid remark made by someone who just wanted to make a derogatory remark about Christians. Even in that time, the educated know the earth was not flat, land there were many Christians in that day because they were the most educated. Many of them were fluent in 2 languages, are you?

 

[Shad]

Actually you have chose, you just wont admit it.

One can choose to suspend picking from either.

Basic logic says a creation needs a Creator.

Tautology.... You have yet to show what you think is a creation is in fact one. Merely calling something a creation does not make it true.

 

[JerryL]

Actually you have chose, you just wont admit it.

I find that I have no choice in my beliefs. But you are off topic.

Who died and made final determer of what is logical, and you certainly have no evidence for what you chose. Basic logic says a creation needs a Creator.

There is no "determer"[SIP] of "what is logical"; it simply is.

Your claim is tautological; but it's also unrelated to the topic (you've not shown that the universe is "a creation".)

If you believe something, you have made a choice and their is no evidence for what you believe, let alone reasonable evidence.

What belief are you talking about? There's no belief mentioned by me in the text you've quoted

Another stupid remark made by someone who just wanted to make a derogatory remark about Christians. Even in that time, the educated know the earth was not flat, land there were many Christians in that day because they were the most educated. Many of them were fluent in 2 languages, are you?

What time are you talking about? Who said anything about Christians being flat-earthers? Indeed: when did I mention Christians at all?

I speak 2 languages fluently and 3 more functionally (assuming we are *not* counting "fictional" languages like "Klingon",or I could add a little to this list). I can get bits and pieces of a half-dozen others, though I've no idea why you would ask.

 

[omega2xx]

One can choose to suspend picking from either.

DUUH

Tautology.... You have yet to show what you think is a creation is in fact one. Merely calling something a creation does not make it true.

[/QUOTE]

I don't need top prove it to anyone but myself. If you had to bet your life on the correct answer , would choose it has always existed or it was created? You can chose not to answer if you choose.

 

[omega2xx]

I find that I have no choice in my beliefs. But you are off topic.


There is no "determer"[SIP] of "what is logical"; it simply is.

Ofd course ther is but what you this is logical,k I might think is illogical. How do we determine who is right.

Your claim is tautological; but it's also unrelated to the topic (you've not shown that the universe is "a creation".)

I am not trying to prove anything.

What belief are you talking about? There's no belief mentioned by me in the text you've quoted

I haves said their wasI ask a simple question. Are you afraid to answer it?

What time are you talking about? Who said anything about Christians being flat-earthers? Indeed: when did I mention Christians at all?

Get real. We both know that is a derogatory statement infering Christians are ignorant of science.

[QUOTEI speak 2 languages fluently and 3 more functionally (assuming we are *not* counting "fictional" languages like "Klingon",or I could add a little to this list). I can get bits and pieces of a half-dozen others, though I've no idea why you would ask.[/QUOTE]

It seems you have difficulty understanding plain English.

 

[JerryL]

Ofd course ther is but what you this is logical,k I might think is illogical. How do we determine who is right.

I can attempt to illuminate you to specific errors; but that's about it.

Of course: it would help if you would assert an established logic principle (say: the reflexive principle) and then plug-in your claims.

I am not trying to prove anything.

I didn't say you were. I said that the claim you made was tautological.

I haves said their wasI ask a simple question. Are you afraid to answer it?

Your question is unanserable because it's based on a false premise.

An example: "Why did you chose to leave your homeworld and come to Earth?"

Since you did not leave your homeworld and come to Earth; you cannot answer the question. Similarly: since I did not assert a belief in the quoted text: I cannot defend said belief.

Get real. We both know that is a derogatory statement infering Christians are ignorant of science.

It's news to me that Christians are ignorant of science. I'll get right on telling the likes of Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus.

It seems you have difficulty understanding plain English.

That's an unsupported insult and a subject change (again).

 

[Shad]

DUUH

You only present two options. I presented a third that is neither of the ones provided by you

I don't need top prove it to anyone but myself.

Then do not expect to people to take your seriously when making claims about the universe.

If you had to bet your life on the correct answer , would choose it has always existed or it was created?

Finite but uncreated. You again only present option you want to present rather than other possible option which do not fall into your false dilemma

You can chose not to answer if you choose.

I did. I pointed out your fallacious argument.

 

[omega2xx]

I can attempt to illuminate you to specific errors; but that's about it.

Then do it.

Of course: it would help if you would assert an established logic principle (say: the reflexive principle) and then plug-in your claims.

I will accept any principle you want to use.

I didn't say you were. I said that the claim you made was tautological.


Your question is unanserable because it's based on a false premise.

Any question can be answered. The one I ask certainly can be.

An example: "Why did you chose to leave your homeworld and come to Earth?"

Since you did not leave your homeworld and come to Earth; you cannot answer the question. Similarly: since I did not assert a belief in the quoted text: I cannot defend said belief.

Answer---I did not leave my homeworld and come to earth. See how easy it is? Not only that, my question was about WHICH you would choose. That can be answered and it is not based on a false premise.

It's news to me that Christians are ignorant of science. I'll get right on telling the likes of Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus.

OK I assumed something not in evidence. I assumed you are like most of those who accept evolution and say Christians don't understand science. My bad.

You threw the first stone. If you want to keep this civil, put away YOUR INSULTS.

At this moment: I really think I am on a third-grade playground. Your posts simply aren't coherent.

My comments are easily understood. Be specific. Post something I said and explain why it is not coherent. Then I will explain it to you.

 

[omega2xx]

You only present two options. I presented a third that is neither of the ones provided by you

congratulations.

Then do not expect to people to take your seriously when making claims about the universe.

'Some will take me seriously, some will not. I do not expect all to take me seriously. FYI, I don't take what you say seriously.

Finite but uncreated. You again only present option you want to present rather than other possible option which do not fall into your false dilemma



I did. I pointed out your fallacious argument.

No, you poinTed out your OPINION.

 

[JerryL]

Then do it.

I have several times.

I will accept any principle you want to use.

Logic

Answer---I did not leave my homeworld and come to earth. See how easy it is? Not only that, my question was about WHICH you would choose. That can be answered and it is not based on a false premise.

That was answered. Now you are telling me that you didn't like the answer. That's too bad... why won't you give the reason for leaving your homeworld?

OK I assumed something not in evidence. I assumed you are like most of those who accept evolution and say Christians don't understand science. My bad.

You threw the first stone. If you want to keep this civil, put away YOUR INSULTS.

Can't keep what you don't have and "did not".

My comments are easily understood. Be specific. Post something I said and explain why it is not coherent. Then I will explain it to you.

The nature of incoherence is that explaining why it's incoherent often requires that it be coherent to explain.