A Challenge To All Creationists

[gnostic]

I never said that only atheists believe these things, but only that most atheists do.

Then why bring up atheists up at all?

Being a theist or atheist (and even agnostic) have absolutely no bearing on science.

Charles Darwin himself was a Christian, who has a leaning towards agnosticism, but he tried to separate the science from religion, because they are not the same things. In one of his letters, he clearly stated that he was never an atheist.

And it is not science, if you cannot be objective, with preconceptions and biased belief.

I believe God's word. That includes the entire book of Genesis. I don't care how old the Earth is, it doesn't matter to me. I don't believe anyone or anything that contradicts anything in the 66 main books of the Bible, I don't care what anyone else says.

No one can prove the Genesis account of creation is incorrect because it is correct. It is impossible for God to lie.

Now you know where I stand.

Look, Reggie.

I really don't care if you believe in God or in Jesus or in the Bible. What you believe in, about religion, a deity or scriptures, would fall under theology, not science.

And such belief and faith is a personal choice, is it not?

You can believe what you believe, in all manner regarding to religion.

But religion is not science.

None of these - that you believe in - exhibited knowledge in science.

In the nutshell, science (I am not talking about evolution or the Big Bang, just science in general) is a method of acquiring knowledge about the physical and natural world, through observation (examples of observation, like evidences, experiments, testing, measuring).

Scientists that actually work in real science, don't talk of proofs, proving or absolute. Real science involved in evidences (not proof) and in probability.

Science required all evidences to be testable, regardless of one person's belief.

And there are 3 possible statuses for any possible evidence:

1. True
2. False
3. Inconclusive

And no scientist would rely their whole work, on a single evidence.

Scientists must test their hypotheses (or theories) as many times as necessary.

The more tests a scientist do, the more available the data. Doing so many tests would decide if the hypothesis or theory is:

(A) valid, therefore probable, therefore it's TRUE,
(B) debunked, therefore highly unlikely, or FALSE.​

Other reasons for performing so many tests, is there might be errors or anomalies in the test results.

More tests are performed by other scientists, independently from the author of the theory or hypothesis, hence PEER REVIEW.

The whole purpose of peer review is to test the findings of the original scientist(s), to find if there are errors.

Do you remember what I said about science? That it all have to do with "probability".

When you are performing experiments or tests, the results will be probable true, probable false, or it would be inconclusive. You will tally up all these results, and which ever is a majority, is the one you go with.

There is one other probable outcome, that I didn't mention the 4 option:

If a scientist has written a paper, which is UNTESTABLE, then that would be the same if it was "false" or a failure. That's a paper that is considered unfalsifiable or unscientific, because you cannot test it.

This is a reason why things like God, Satan, angels, demons, miracles, afterlife, are alll considered religion, not science, because they are "untestable".

Can you test god that he exist?

Unless everyone, including atheists, can see god, hear god, and know he is really there without relying on "belief" and "faith", then religion is not science.

Have you met god? Or is your belief is based on a couple of millennia of hearsays of supposed prophets, messiah or disciples?

To me, your belief is no better than superstition.

One more thing. The bible were written by men, not God. All those books and epistles, everyone of them were written by men.

Genesis was written by several people in the Iron Age. There are no evidences for any part of Genesis existing before The Iron Age. There are no evidences for Moses being the read author of Genesis...in fact, there are no evidences for for Moses himself or his exodus.

I don't even have to rely on science to showed that Genesis is false.

For instance, Genesis state that before the Flood and before the Tower of Babel. That's false because there are several different recorded written languages, that predated the proposed dates of the Flood (between 2340 - 2104 BCE, depending on how you read ).

Genesis 10 (10:6) also claimed that many of cities and kingdoms didn't exist before the Flood.

For instance Egypt. Egypt was supposedly the son of Ham.

But archaeological evidences showed that the Egyptians have been around, at least 4000 BCE, the two kingdoms have been united as one Egypt, since 3100 BCE, hieroglyphs have existed at the same time (3100 BCE). The Great Pyramid of Giza existed in the 4th dynasty (2613 - 2498; built by the 2nd king of that dynasty, Khufu). But the 1st ever pyramid was built in Saqqara, Egypt, was by the 1st king (Djoser) of the 3rd dynasty.

So Egyptian civilisation has existed for centuries before this imaginary global flood, and before the "supposed" Tower of Babel.

Genesis 10 (10:10) also say that many of the great cities in Mesopotamia were found by Nimrod, son of Cush and grandson of Ham, including the city of Uruk, or Erech.

But Uruk was built before the beginning of the Sumerian civilisation in 3100 BCE. In fact, between 3600 and 3100 BCE, Uruk was a largest city in the world, was at its cultural peak.

But Uruk is even older than that that. It was found as early as 5000 BCE.

So another claim in the Genesis that's wrong.

Also, in Genesis (11:28), this it state that Abram (later Abraham) originally came from Ur "of the Chaldeans". But the Chaldeans didn't exist before 1200 BCE.

Ur used to be a seaport city on the coast of Persian Gulf, before 1600 BCE, but erosions caused the area known as Chaldea, a marshland, with the Gulf shore increasingly receding back, until it is in the current shoreline since 1000 BCE.

This indicate to me that the Genesis was never written in the 2nd millennium BCE Bronze Age.

So Genesis is neither science book, nor is it a history book.

 

[omega2xx]

Pretty simple really....the evidence supports the big bang model and it has generated numerous predictions that were later confirmed.

Not true. There is no scientific evidence that supports the BB, so it did not support any predictions. Let me head off the main reason the evos think support the BB--the universe is expanding. How do you know God did not create the universe so it would continue expanding?

Any energy strong enough to continue pushing stars and planets million of light years away, would have made them all dust and killed any chance of life coming into existence.

You can't even explain where the matter that went boom, came from, and you can't explain where that much energy came from. Without scientific evidence for that, it is the BB THEORY that is blown up.

 

[omega2xx]

I agreed that you don't have to have any degree in science.

I am not scientist. I have never claim to be one. I am more of engineer than a scientist, but a lot of what I have studied, do involved in science in one form or another, which I will explain later.

But getting back to you, omega2xx.

Actually, you don't have basic understanding of science. Even I can tell that you don't know what you are talking about.

That is a statement made in ignorance. You believe that if I reject evolution it is because I don't understand science. It is just the opposite I reject evolution because I do understand it and you don't understand the basic of genetics.

Business Administration is not a science course. And I don't understand why your BS would involved in taking zoology and archaeology, since they have no relations to Business Administration.

I assume it was to give the students a more rounded education.

And just because you had taken 2 units, this zoology and this archaeology, don't make you expert in either these two different fields.

It would help is you didn't accuse me of something have not said.

Have you actually worked as zoologist or in the field as archaeologist?

Have you ever worked as a biologist?

]You have argued with Metis quite a lot, revealing what little education you have in the things you have been discussing. Metis' studies in anthropology, actually involved in archaeology, and have actually worked in the fields. So, I think your one-subject in archaeology don't beat Metis' years of experiences in the field.

IMO anthropology is not a true science. If if it is, it doe snot operate under the same conditions as bioloogy. Biology can actually prove/disprove theories.

Science involved more than just understanding the theories.

If you actually study science at all, that reading and understanding theories only constitute 35-40% of science, the rest involved in experiments and testings...unless you are a theoretical physicist.

Don't change the subject. This is not about my understanding of theories and i understand the TOE as well as you do. This about science. If you knew even the basics of genetics, you would know it refutes evolution. You keep exposing your ignorance of science,k not mine.

Theoretical physicist, don't involved much of tests or experiments, because a large part of their time, involved in finding mathematical solutions (eg solving mathematical equations, hence PROOF).

Why do you keep changing the subject?

Evolution is not theoretical science, it's empirical science.

The post one thing it has proved? Do you really undeerstnd what empirical imples?

Your wilful ignorance is not recognising that there are ample evidences to support evolution (that's why it is not theoretical), and I don't mean just fossils. Anyone involved in biological researches, particularly in modern medicine and pathology, especially in the areas of vaccines and antibiotics, have to have solid grounding in evolution, in order to understand viruses and viral diseases.

Your wilful ignorance continues to believe a virus remaining a virus is evidence for evolutdion, showing you do not really understand what evolution preaches.

I have actually several times already, I did two different courses:

1. Civil Engineering (1984 - 1987)
2. Computer Science (1996 - 1999)

Both courses are bachelors in Applied Science, one majoring .

An engineering degree is no better to understand biology, than is a business degree.

When I became a Christian, I looked at both sides of the coin. I read what creation scientist said and what evolution scientists said. The creation scientis always refuted with science. IMO, you need to turn the coin over and read what the scientist at ICR say.

Unless you are willing to do that, you will remain in ignorance of real science.

 

[omega2xx]

Absolutely preposterous. Do you know, for instance, that the full title of "Evolution" is the "Theory of Biological Evolution"?

But please. Do explain to us the purpose of the appendix, or wisdom teeth, if evolution is so refuted by biology.

If evolution was true we would not have wisdom teeth and an appendix. Medical science continues to discover truth about the human body. Wisdom teeth have a purpose and maybe one day real science will find the purpose of the appendix, unless you think discovery of such things is complete.

Your turn. Explain how the nose of a land animal evolved into the blowhole of a sea creature.

What in the TOE would cause a land animal surviving quite well on land, would caused it to evolve into something where the environment might be far more hostile to its survival? Where is natural selection when you really need it?

 

[omega2xx]

Then you rejected them BEFORE you had the educational opportunity to actually learn anything about them. Do you do this with all topics?

What I learned later only confirmed how smart I was earlier.

And this is simply and patently false -- as in untrue. All of them, by a very, very large majority, support, not refute evolution. You simply do not actually know what you are talking about, and yet speak as if you had some actual authority -- which you clearly do not.

Unless you can offer some evidence, you are only confirming your wilful ignorance of real science. Anyone who thinks the nose of a land animal can become the blowhole of a sea creature, has a long way to go to understand real science and is not able to separate fact from fiction.

The story of whale evolution should start with once upon a time, and end with and dthey all livie happily everafter.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Then why bring up atheists up at all?

Being a theist or atheist (and even agnostic) have absolutely no bearing on science.

Charles Darwin himself was a Christian, who has a leaning towards agnosticism, but he tried to separate the science from religion, because they are not the same things. In one of his letters, he clearly stated that he was never an atheist.

And it is not science, if you cannot be objective, with preconceptions and biased belief.

Look, Reggie.

I really don't care if you believe in God or in Jesus or in the Bible. What you believe in, about religion, a deity or scriptures, would fall under theology, not science.

And such belief and faith is a personal choice, is it not?

You can believe what you believe, in all manner regarding to religion.

But religion is not science.

None of these - that you believe in - exhibited knowledge in science.

In the nutshell, science (I am not talking about evolution or the Big Bang, just science in general) is a method of acquiring knowledge about the physical and natural world, through observation (examples of observation, like evidences, experiments, testing, measuring).

Scientists that actually work in real science, don't talk of proofs, proving or absolute. Real science involved in evidences (not proof) and in probability.

Science required all evidences to be testable, regardless of one person's belief.

And there are 3 possible statuses for any possible evidence:

1. True
2. False
3. Inconclusive

And no scientist would rely their whole work, on a single evidence.

Scientists must test their hypotheses (or theories) as many times as necessary.

The more tests a scientist do, the more available the data. Doing so many tests would decide if the hypothesis or theory is:

(A) valid, therefore probable, therefore it's TRUE,
(B) debunked, therefore highly unlikely, or FALSE.​

Other reasons for performing so many tests, is there might be errors or anomalies in the test results.

More tests are performed by other scientists, independently from the author of the theory or hypothesis, hence PEER REVIEW.

The whole purpose of peer review is to test the findings of the original scientist(s), to find if there are errors.

Do you remember what I said about science? That it all have to do with "probability".

When you are performing experiments or tests, the results will be probable true, probable false, or it would be inconclusive. You will tally up all these results, and which ever is a majority, is the one you go with.

There is one other probable outcome, that I didn't mention the 4 option:

If a scientist has written a paper, which is UNTESTABLE, then that would be the same if it was "false" or a failure. That's a paper that is considered unfalsifiable or unscientific, because you cannot test it.

This is a reason why things like God, Satan, angels, demons, miracles, afterlife, are alll considered religion, not science, because they are "untestable".

Can you test god that he exist?

Unless everyone, including atheists, can see god, hear god, and know he is really there without relying on "belief" and "faith", then religion is not science.

Have you met god? Or is your belief is based on a couple of millennia of hearsays of supposed prophets, messiah or disciples?

To me, your belief is no better than superstition.

One more thing. The bible were written by men, not God. All those books and epistles, everyone of them were written by men.

Genesis was written by several people in the Iron Age. There are no evidences for any part of Genesis existing before The Iron Age. There are no evidences for Moses being the read author of Genesis...in fact, there are no evidences for for Moses himself or his exodus.

I don't even have to rely on science to showed that Genesis is false.

For instance, Genesis state that before the Flood and before the Tower of Babel. That's false because there are several different recorded written languages, that predated the proposed dates of the Flood (between 2340 - 2104 BCE, depending on how you read ).

Genesis 10 (10:6) also claimed that many of cities and kingdoms didn't exist before the Flood.

For instance Egypt. Egypt was supposedly the son of Ham.

But archaeological evidences showed that the Egyptians have been around, at least 4000 BCE, the two kingdoms have been united as one Egypt, since 3100 BCE, hieroglyphs have existed at the same time (3100 BCE). The Great Pyramid of Giza existed in the 4th dynasty (2613 - 2498; built by the 2nd king of that dynasty, Khufu). But the 1st ever pyramid was built in Saqqara, Egypt, was by the 1st king (Djoser) of the 3rd dynasty.

So Egyptian civilisation has existed for centuries before this imaginary global flood, and before the "supposed" Tower of Babel.

Genesis 10 (10:10) also say that many of the great cities in Mesopotamia were found by Nimrod, son of Cush and grandson of Ham, including the city of Uruk, or Erech.

But Uruk was built before the beginning of the Sumerian civilisation in 3100 BCE. In fact, between 3600 and 3100 BCE, Uruk was a largest city in the world, was at its cultural peak.

But Uruk is even older than that that. It was found as early as 5000 BCE.

So another claim in the Genesis that's wrong.

Also, in Genesis (11:28), this it state that Abram (later Abraham) originally came from Ur "of the Chaldeans". But the Chaldeans didn't exist before 1200 BCE.

Ur used to be a seaport city on the coast of Persian Gulf, before 1600 BCE, but erosions caused the area known as Chaldea, a marshland, with the Gulf shore increasingly receding back, until it is in the current shoreline since 1000 BCE.

This indicate to me that the Genesis was never written in the 2nd millennium BCE Bronze Age.

So Genesis is neither science book, nor is it a history book.

I chose to bring up atheists since they obviously do not accept any Creation theory and therefore must rely on assumptions about how the universe came into existence as we see it today, including abiogenesis theory, which has all kinds of problems. An atheist must explain how life came from non-life, how matter came about, etc. Good luck with that.

The scriptures are inspired by God Himself. The men that wrote them wrote them according to God's will. The scriptures are absolute and infallible. I will not hear otherwise since you cannot so much as prove any of them are not truth. If you can do so, then please do. Otherwise, I accept them as genuine.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If evolution was true we would not have wisdom teeth and an appendix. Medical science continues to discover truth about the human body. Wisdom teeth have a purpose and maybe one day real science will find the purpose of the appendix, unless you think discovery of such things is complete.

Yeah no. Wisdom teeth had a purpose, when our jaws were bigger. Now they just cause problems, come in sideways, or come in broken and rot. Same with the appendix; it had a purpose, back when we needed to digest raw plant matter. Now it just sits in our bodies, inert, waiting to explode and flood our body with toxins.

Explain how the nose of a land animal evolved into the blowhole of a sea creature.

Yeah... it's essentially the same thing. However, you might be startled to know that whales have leg bones.

I'm sure that does some good for swimming, being covered and nothing more than a remnant of evolution - like our appendix.

What in the TOE would cause a land animal surviving quite well on land, would caused it to evolve into something where the environment might be far more hostile to its survival?

A change in the climate and region, of course, that would not be so "quite well" as you think. Similar to how a cooling earth likely forced several theropod species to produce feathers (and they did, we have fossil evidence for that).

Where is natural selection when you really need it?

This ain't Pokémon.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The scriptures are inspired by God Himself. The men that wrote them wrote them according to God's will. The scriptures are absolute and infallible.

Do you know just what that means? It means nothing more than the authors of the bible had their god in mind when they wrote it. A dubious claim, as most of the Old Testament is cultural myth (though it's more applicable as a claim) and the New Testament is all about establishing the power and influence of the church. If I write a poem about Thor, guess what? That poem is inspired by God. It is a divinely inspired poem.

And if the scriptures were absolute and infallible, why are there books that "didn't make the cut", and why have their meanings changed so very often with translation and re-translation? That's not really absolute or infallible. Especially when they contradict themselves, like the three deaths of Judas.

I will not hear otherwise since you cannot so much as prove any of them are not truth. If you can do so, then please do.

Why? You won't hear otherwise. Less self-contradiction makes for better discussion, reggie.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Do you know just what that means? It means nothing more than the authors of the bible had their god in mind when they wrote it. A dubious claim, as most of the Old Testament is cultural myth (though it's more applicable as a claim) and the New Testament is all about establishing the power and influence of the church. If I write a poem about Thor, guess what? That poem is inspired by God. It is a divinely inspired poem.

And if the scriptures were absolute and infallible, why are there books that "didn't make the cut", and why have their meanings changed so very often with translation and re-translation? That's not really absolute or infallible. Especially when they contradict themselves, like the three deaths of Judas.



Why? You won't hear otherwise. Less self-contradiction makes for better discussion, reggie.

Your opinions are noted. Thank you for expressing them.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Thank me by taking it to heart.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Thank me by taking it to heart.

No, thanks. I take to heart God's word instead.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Then don't thank me if it's insincere. That just makes one dishonest.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Then don't thank me if it's insincere. That just makes one dishonest.

It is sincere. I thank you for expressing your opinion. I live in a free country where everyone may express their opinion.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yet what good are opinions if they are not heard, weighed, and considered? Are you listening to learn a different view, or listening to respond? Your conviction that you only take to heart the "word of god" suggests the later. What of my stated opinion do you have to be thankful for? It didn't change the way you see anything. The fact that I can state it? Thank our laws, instead.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Yet what good are opinions if they are not heard, weighed, and considered? Are you listening to learn a different view, or listening to respond? Your conviction that you only take to heart the "word of god" suggests the later. What of my stated opinion do you have to be thankful for? It didn't change the way you see anything. The fact that I can state it? Thank our laws, instead.

I am 100% convinced the word of God is truth. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Why do I need to hear anything contradictory to that?

 

[viole]

Even a cave man with a low 2 digit IQ can see all life, animal and plant life, could not have come from one source.

Since this is slightly offensive, I feel entitled to say that you should replace "even" with "only". And I am being generous by conceding so much as two digits.

Creation scientist show where evolution is not based on science.

There is not such a thing as creation science. By definition of "science".

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was anti-evolution long befre became a creatinist. I rejected that silly idea when I was about 16.

You must be quite proud of yourself for rejecting something before fully understanding it.

The are real science. I love all of them. They all refute evolution, especially biology and genetics.

Then you should accept the theory of evolution. It is science-based. The evidence that supports it comes from almost every scientific field in existence. Biology does not even work without evolution. Nor does genetics.

The ICR has been doing that for over 40 years. If you aren't afraid to have your religion shown to be unscientific, check them out some time. They are much more scientific than talk origins.

I have, and they don't. If they actually did, then creationism would be the accepted, prevailing scientific theory that best fits the available evidence. But it isn't. That designation goes to the theory of evolution.

So again, I'm going to go with the accepted science, independent confirmation and the consensus of evidence, rather than with some lone poster on a religious forum that thinks they've got it all figured out. If you think you do, please feel free to publish your findings in scientific journals. And get ready to collect your Nobel Prize because anybody who could manage to falsify the theory of evolution would surely turn all of science on its head.

The people who have spent their lives studying this stuff accept the theory of evolution as the explanation that best fits the evidence. I'm going with them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is an explanaion not based on science.



I have not said most are not.



The dishonest remark of those ignorant of real science. You can't prove one thing the TOE preaches so how is being ignorant and dishonest.



Even a cave man with a low 2 digit IQ can see all life, animal and plant life, could not have come from one source. One doesn't need a degree in biology to know that is impossible. You don't even know what the first lief form was, so ho can you know what it evolved into. The evo guess as to what the first life from was rejects evolution, if you really understood genetics.



Not necessary. I have read what both sides say, and to date no evolution explanation, include evidence for what they say. He is you chance to prove me wrong and provided the evidence for natural selection. Then show the biology that causes the nose of a land animal to become the blowhole of a sea creature. If you want to talk about dishonesty, start with your whale "exerts."


Creation scientist show where evolution is not based on science.



I have a BS in Business Administration. To graduate we had to have 2 ologies. I took zoology and archeology. You don't need a degree in science to understand basic science. I can read above a 12 grade level and understand what I read.

So now tell me what is your educational background.

Well, if you refuse to look at the evidence, as you have done over and over in this thread, then it's kinda hard to consider it, isn't it?

 

[omega2xx]

Yeah no. Wisdom teeth had a purpose, when our jaws were bigger. Now they just cause problems, come in sideways, or come in broken and rot. Same with the appendix; it had a purpose, back when we needed to digest raw plant matter. Now it just sits in our bodies, inert, waiting to explode and flood our body with toxins.

Most people don't have a problem with their wisdom teeth coming in..



Yeah... it's essentially the same thing. However, you might be startled to know that whales have leg bones.

I'm sure that does some good for swimming, being covered and nothing more than a remnant of evolution - like our appendix.



A change in the climate and region, of course, that would not be so "quite well" as you think. Similar to how a cooling earth likely forced several theropod species to produce feathers (and they did, we have fossil evidence for that).



This ain't Pokémon.[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not only that, but there's the fact that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to our scientific understanding in at least the last 100 years. It remains 100% scientifically irrelevant.

This! ^^^^^