A Challenge To All Creationists

[Janet Waters]

I think you misunderstood me. I want to know where it says that God created it out of nothing.

You said, "The classical hof the Bible is that God spoke the universe into being from nothing---ex nihil"

Ex nihil. From Nothing. Chapter and verse that says that it was nothing.

For instance, the verse you referenced, Heb 11:3 says, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

Something invisible is something, but it is not nothing. Here it says God created it from something invisible, not that God created it from nothing.

So, chapter and verse that God created it from nothing.

Awesome response!!! I like how you think!!

It is true.....eternal element (eternal matter/ spirit matter) is invisible to mortal eyes.....but spiritual eyes CAN SEE spirit matter as well as that which is eternal in nature (when that person is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and mortal body is transformed). Just as Paul tells us about Moses' experience when he said,

• Hebrews 11:27
  27 By faith he [MOSES] forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as SEEING him [God] who is invisible.
  
  "By faith we understand the word and work of God—The faith of the ancients was centered in Christ—By faith, men subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, and worked miracles." (Scripture heading to the above scripture) It is also through the trial of our Faith that the invisible becomes visible to us, in God's time and in God's own way to fulfill His purposes.
  

 

[gnostic]

Thanks for confirming that you do not know what evidence is. Hint. it is not opinions or rhetoric.

To show you don't understand evidence, post the evidence for natural selection being he mechanism for a change of species.

Actually, omega2xx, you are the one who don't understand what "evidence" is. And clearly you don't understand what Natural Selection is.

In this thread, I have provided you with two real life examples of Natural Selection:

1. HOW viruses developed resistant or immunity to vaccines and antibiotics, by producing new strains of virus.
2. And example of HOW the brown bears, diverging from itself, and those inhabit the frozen wastelands (polar region), become polar bears, physically.

They are evidences of Natural Selection.

Those two examples would be easy to do a little search and little research. I would suggest the latter - the brown bear and polar bear example - to do the research, because it highlight the conditions of two species in two completely different terrains plus climates.

However, I don't think any amount of examples of evidences for Natural Selection would ever meet your specific requirement, because you are far too indoctrinated by this whole creation BS and you are too lazy to do simple research on subjects that people bring up to you.

 

[TheSecretAntitheist]

Every effect has a cause. Automobiles, houses, computers, and wooden spoons do not occur without an intelligent maker. How much less logical to assume DNA, molecular machines, and other brilliant "products" are not the result of a superior Intellect and a Designer and Fabricator brilliant beyond measure.

So who created this designer?

 

[omega2xx]

You make Kent Hovind so proud!

It is amusing that out of the creation scients you pick one that may not be qualified. You make Satan so proud.

 

[omega2xx]

Maybe actually try clicking on the link as there is scientific evidence for you to see from studies that have been done.

I have quite reading links. Those who reference them do not understand what is evidence. If you want to cut and past the evidence they offer, be my guest, but you will not find any. prove me wrong.

However, as we've seen in the past, you really have no inclination to do the research, much preferring ignorance on such matters. Hey, that's your choice, and you have a right to it, granted.

A statement mad for ignorance. You ASSUME I have not done research because I reject what you accept by faith alone. Why do you continue not providing an example of natural selection being the mechanism for a change of species. If you don't everyone will know what I kine---YOU CAN'T

BTW, ever have the flu or catch a cold? Any idea how this relates to evolution?

Hint: viruses mutate.

You have no real evidence they mutate. Hint: A virus remaining a virus is not evidence of evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

I think you misunderstood me. I want to know where it says that God created it out of nothing.

You said, "The classical hof the Bible is that God spoke the universe into being from nothing---ex nihil"

Ex nihil. From Nothing. Chapter and verse that says that it was nothing.

For instance, the verse you referenced, Heb 11:3 says, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

Something invisible is something, but it is not nothing. Here it says God created it from something invisible, not that God created it from nothing.

So, chapter and verse that God created it from nothing.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, implies for nothing. If you don't accept that I certainly can't change your mind nor do I want to.

 

[omega2xx]

The word "speciation" is a technical term to signify the event of a speciation, i.e. a species is created. That's what the word means. You might consider the changes of a fruit fly of not being a new species, i.e. a non-speciation event, but you can't say that speciation doesn't produce a new species, it's like saying eating is not eating. The word itself "speciation" means "event that produces a new species."

Fruit flies remaning fruit files is not an excample of evolution no matter what you call it.

 

[omega2xx]

Actually, omega2xx, you are the one who don't understand what "evidence" is. And clearly you don't understand what Natural Selection is

Clearly you do not. Characteristics are based on the gene pool of the parents and they do not change because of the environment. The environment can't affect the gene pool.

In this thread, I have provided you with two real life examples of Natural Selection:

1. HOW viruses developed resistant or immunity to vaccines and antibiotics, by producing new strains of virus.

What is so hard about understanding a virus remaining a virus IS NOT evidence of evolution? If some of the viruses did not have some immunity, they would have become extinct.

1. And example of HOW the brown bears, diverging from itself, and those inhabit the frozen wastelands (polar region), become polar bears, physically.

You did not given any evidence. You gave an example of two different bears, There is absolutely no evidence a brown bear evolved into a polar bear. That is absurd.

They are evidences of Natural Selection.

As I said, you do not understand what is evidence.

Those two examples would be easy to do a little search and little research. I would suggest the latter - the brown bear and polar bear example - to do the research, because it highlight the conditions of two species in two completely different terrains plus climates.

However, I don't think any amount of examples of evidences for Natural Selection would ever meet your specific requirement, because you are far too indoctrinated by this whole creation BS and you are too lazy to do simple research on subjects that people bring up to you.

You finally got something right. I am not willing to accept speculation as evidence.

 

[Shad]

Answer---What makes you think I have ever beaten my wide?

I was point out when a flawed question has no answer. Like your question regarding a single mutation producing a new species. Your question was flawed as a single mutation does not produce a new species.

First, speciation does not result in a new species.

Yes it does although through processes you have no knowledge of

Second I ask you to give me an example of natural selection being the cause of a change of species.

No you didn't. You asked the following "post the evidence that support "natural selection," not "post evidence of natural selection producing a new species. See the difference?

You have changed the subject, because you can't provide of natural selection causing a change of species.

You never asked this question so no you are changing the question after it has been answered as either you are unable to type out a proper question to begin with or as I believe an ad hoc rescue to cover the answer exposing a flaw in your thinking

You also can't provide an exampel of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species.

Irrelevant question as this is not how evolution works. To parrot you "What makes you think a single mutation produces a new species?"

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Showing you do not understand genetics and are willing to accept what evolution scientists say by faith alone. How sad.

Hilarious ignorance considering you are still repeating a flawed question. It is really sad that you refuse to educate yourself on the topic you discuss then ask stupid questions. Back to school with you son.

It doesn't matter, they remained pepper moths.

Duh. Did I say it was a new species? No I didn't. You are making up what I say in your head into a strawman. Another display of your lazy and fallacious thinking. Well done son.

Do you really not understand that for evoultion to be true THE SPECIES MUST CHANGE?

Do you understand that I provided example of natural selection not speciation? Get a biology text book so you can look up these words as you still have no idea what half the words people use in comment to you actually mean.

Your ignorance is hilarious

 

[Ouroboros]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, implies for nothing. If you don't accept that I certainly can't change your mind nor do I want to.

No it doesn't imply it at all. It's your interpretation of it, but I didn't ask which verse do you take and interpret to mean it. I asked which verse says it. You claim the Bible says it, but then you have to show that it does. There's a reason to why Ex Nihil wasn't an obvious theological idea for quite some time. So it's up to you to give evidence for your belief. Where does it say in the Bible "from nothing"? Come on, you can do it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Fruit flies remaning fruit files is not an excample of evolution no matter what you call it.

You said that speciation wasn't an example of new species. You didn't say fruit flies wasn't an example of evolution. Don't move the goal post here and change what you said. You most definitely said that speciation was not a matter of bringing a new species, but the word does mean exactly that. It means "process of new species". Now, you're saying that fruit flies aren't example of speciation, and that's your right to have that opinion, but you can't have an opinion about what a word like "speciation" means since it is made to mean exactly this.

I'm not arguing with you about the specific evidence in evolution of fruit flies. I was arguing with you about your use of the word. Can't you see?

 

[omega2xx]

I was point out when a flawed question has no answer. Like your question regarding a single mutation producing a new species. Your question was flawed as a single mutation does not produce a new species.

If one can't do it, no number can. You say something like that because you can't proved even one example a mutation causing a change of species. You are just blowing smoke

Yes it does although through processes you have no knowledge of

Name the process and without eve knowing what you have in mind, it will not be evidence of evolution.

No you didn't. You asked the following "post the evidence that support "natural selection," not "post evidence of natural selection producing a new species. See the difference?

It doesn't matter. You can't do either one. If you could, you would have already done it.

You never asked this question so no you are changing the question after it has been answered as either you are unable to type out a proper question to begin with or as I believe an ad hoc rescue to cover the answer exposing a flaw in your thinking

Quit beating around the bush. Take either one and post the evidence. Actually it come out the same which exposes the flaw in you thinking.

Irrelevant question as this is not how evolution works. To parrot you "What makes you think a single mutation produces a new species?"

I have never said one will produce a new species. I say no amount will produce a newe species.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Why do you just beat around the bush?

Hilarious ignorance considering you are still repeating a flawed question. It is really sad that you refuse to educate yourself on the topic you discuss then ask stupid questions. Back to school with you son.

It always seem that way to those who are ignorant of the subject.


Duh. Did I say it was a new species? No I didn't. You are making up what I say in your head into a strawman. Another display of your lazy and fallacious thinking. Well done son.



Do you understand that I provided example of natural selection not speciation? Get a biology text book so you can look up these words as you still have no idea what half the words people use in comment to you actually mean.

Your ignorance is hilarious[/QUOTE]

Your ignorance is sad and pathetic. That is why you continue to blow smoke and think opinions are evidence. Your indoctrination is complete.

 

[omega2xx]

You said that speciation wasn't an example of new species. You didn't say fruit flies wasn't an example of evolution. Don't move the goal post here and change what you said. You most definitely said that speciation was not a matter of bringing a new species, but the word does mean exactly that. It means "process of new species". Now, you're saying that fruit flies aren't example of speciation, and that's your right to have that opinion, but you can't have an opinion about what a word like "speciation" means since it is made to mean exactly this.

I'm not arguing with you about the specific evidence in evolution of fruit flies. I was arguing with you about your use of the word. Can't you see?

Your definition of convenience is irrelevant---fruit files remaining fruit flies is not evidence of evolution. Unless speciation results in a new species, the definition is wrong.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your definition of convenience is irrelevant---fruit files remaining fruit flies is not evidence of evolution. Unless speciation results in a new species, the definition is wrong.

The word "speciation" means the event or process of species coming about. It's not my definition of convenience. It's a definition by the scientific community. The word means what it means. You might disagree on some evolutionary process being a speciation event or not (like the fruit fly), but it doesn't change the definition of the actual word.

I'm not here in this thread trying to convince you of evolution, but I just react on misuse of the words and claiming the Bible says things without backing it up. After all, this thread had the purpose to discuss creationism, not evolution. Actually, evolution was not even supposed to be allowed to enter the discussion. The goal was to prove creationism WITHOUT talking about evolution. So your insistence on complaining about evolution is just showing even more that creationism has nothing to stand on. Its "evidence" lies in complaints about evolution only. It can't stand on its own.

 

[omega2xx]

The word "speciation" means the event or process of species coming about. It's not my definition of convenience. It's a definition by the scientific community. The word means what it means. You might disagree on some evolutionary process being a speciation event or not (like the fruit fly), but it doesn't change the definition of the actual word.

I'm not here in this thread trying to convince you of evolution, but I just react on misuse of the words and claiming the Bible says things without backing it up. After all, this thread had the purpose to discuss creationism, not evolution. Actually, evolution was not even supposed to be allowed to enter the discussion. The goal was to prove creationism WITHOUT talking about evolution. So your insistence on complaining about evolution is just showing even more that creationism has nothing to stand on. Its "evidence" lies in complaints about evolution only. It can't stand on its own.

You have said speciation results in a new species. Unless it does, and it doesn't, the definition is wrong. Evolution can't be proved.

 

[Ouroboros]

You have said speciation results in a new species. Unless it does, and it doesn't, the definition is wrong. Evolution can't be proved.

No. I'm saying that the word means "the event or process which leads to a new species". It's not a wrong definition. That IS the definition. Look it up instead of arguing that it's not. It has nothing to do with proving evolution or not. It's just a word that means exactly what it means, regardless if speciation can happen or not. The word's meaning doesn't mean what it stands for necessarily is true. Unicorn for instance is a word that means a horse with a single horn on its head. They don't exist, but the word still means what it means, same with speciation. It means what it means regardless of actual speciation is happening or not!

 

[Sapiens]

You have said speciation results in a new species. Unless it does, and it doesn't, the definition is wrong. Evolution can't be proved.

No. I'm saying that the word means "the event or process which leads to a new species". It's not a wrong definition. That IS the definition. Look it up instead of arguing that it's not. It has nothing to do with proving evolution or not. It's just a word that means exactly what it means, regardless if speciation can happen or not. The word's meaning doesn't mean what it stands for necessarily is true. Unicorn for instance is a word that means a horse with a single horn on its head. They don't exist, but the word still means what it means, same with speciation. It means what it means regardless of actual speciation is happening or not!

BTW: Nothing in science is "proven," and Evolution is as well "proven" as any other and better than most scientific theories.

 

[Sapiens]

You have said speciation results in a new species. Unless it does, and it doesn't, the definition is wrong. Evolution can't be proved.

Nothing in science is "proven." Evolution is as well "proven" as any other, and better than most, scientific theories.

 

[Ouroboros]

BTW: Nothing in science is "proven," and Evolution is as well "proven" as any other and better than most scientific theories.

I know that. I consider evolution to be one of the most supported theories out there. It's more founded in actual evidence than astrophysics.

My beef with Omega is that he claims that speciation is not speciation, and I'm trying to make him understand that the word means what it does, and its meaning and definition is separate from any proof, evidence, conviction, etc. That the word means what it means doesn't change the truth either way of the subject itself. But misuse of a word only creates confusion.

And he still fails miserably accepting or meeting the criteria of the actual discussion.

 

[Sapiens]

Most anti-evolutionist fall down at the beginning of the discussion. They can not define "species" or "kind" or whatever and thus the ensuing conversation is complete and utter Jabberwocky.