A Challenge To All Creationists

[Reggie Miller]

Simple. In the same way you can study the evolution of prices without being concerned about where money, or the value we attribute to it, comes from.

Ciao

- viole

So you have this first life form. You have no idea and you don't care where it came from and/or how it came to be. From this life form you have "evolution." Hmm... seems to me that without this first life form you don't have life. So it begs the question...

 

[viole]

So you have this first life form. You have no idea and you don't care where it came from and/or how it came to be. From this life form you have "evolution." Hmm... seems to me that without this first life form you don't have life. So it begs the question...

It does not. Once you have replicators, limited resources, and inheritable errors in the replication mechanisms, the sky is the limit. And not even that.

So, nope. The mechanisms that underlie the genesis of complexity, under the premise of simple initial replicators, has nothing to do with how those simple replicators started.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Reggie Miller]

It does not. Once you have replicators, limited resources, and inheritable errors in the replication mechanisms, the sky is the limit. And not even that.

So, nope. The mechanisms that underlie the genesis of complexity, under the premise of simple initial replicators, has nothing to do with how those simple replicators started.

Ciao

- viole

We will just have to agree to disagree about that. I think that what you just said is a copout that people who do not believe in Creation like to hang their hats on.

 

[Animore]

I do not find convincing the theory that mutations are responsible for all living things. Nor do I believe there is evidence for this. Both snakes and rats continue to thrive, despite one being prey for the other. My main point is nothing happens without a cause. To claim the finely-tuned universe, our amazing planet, and all it's brilliantly designed creatures happened without an intelligent Cause, is a claim requiring extraordinary credulity or purposeful denial, IMO.
The Bible speaks of "men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:18-20)

It's called an analogy.

In the same way that you do not find any convincing evidence for evolution, I do not see any evidence against it. There are fossil records everywhere, along with showings of what creationists like to call microevolution, which is really just a factor of macroevolution. That's how mutation works, you realize. I hope you do. Mutation is NOT just a snap of the fingers and suddenly a totally different organism.

Purposeful denial? I could say the same thing for your side, except we have scientific evidence for our claims. You have...a collection of scriptures. Oh, and miracles that can be explained with the placebo effect.

You claim that things could not happen without an intelligent creator. I'll ask the age-old question: Who created God? If it was no one, then according to your terms, your God is "a claim requiring extraordinary credulity or purposeful denial, IMO." If He was created, then He is not God, but a being that claims He is.

Just because things cannot happen without a cause, does not mean things do not happen at random. As I've stated, we have several theories about the origin of life, but we have assessed that mutations happen at random, not from some God.

 

[viole]

We will just have to agree to disagree about that. I think that what you just said is a copout that people who do not believe in Creation like to hang their hats on.

Well, what I said is only a theoretically possible position. Creationism for the beginning, naturalist for the rest.

However, I never met anyone who believes God created the first replicators but we share the same ancestor with carrots via pure naturalistic unguided means.

And I also think that evolution by natural selection is completely incompatible with beliefs in a Jesus like kind of God. Independently from the origin of life.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

You then went back on your unequivocal assertion that "atomic decay doesn't" have a cause, to "As far as we know there is no cause."

I never went back as we know of no cause thus it has no cause. To do otherwise would be to assume there is a cause that we have not discovered yet based on induction only or gaps in our knowledge. This is possible but entirely speculation.

Now you want to play reasoning games, to distance yourself from your mistaken pronouncement I suspect.

No you want me to prove a negative. I can't. I can only show that we know of no cause thus my point still stands

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Jonathan;

You don't like that I called you on it, do you?

Ah lets just get this part put to bed as they say - its not that above mate and I tell you straight I do nothing Im ashamed of and would speak of it more openly - but my hands are tied as I said elsewhere..SO - I read what you say - and I tell you blatantly - HOW CONVENIANT you may have tried it a few times mate - but no - you are not a stoner at all - if you were then you wouldnt use such disparagng labels as "druggies" - and neither would you continue to use a substance that you think is making you "deluded" - and neither would you identify your primary self with a "brain" or body at all lol - so no mate - pull the other one - if you are a stoner then Im Santa Clause mate - which one is fable..?..lol..I will stand by my earlier statements and just tell you still - you dont REALLY know what you are talking about - do you..?..

But look - as said - its not a cop out - Im rather enjoying the discussion actually - but simply, we are not allowed to discuss it - you may slag me off all you like call me all manner of names for my lifestyle, make all manner of assumptions about it as you already have and use uit to discredit me all you like - I though, am not allowed to utter more than a few words to defend myself here...So be it - I agree by forum rules..I wish I COULD have a full on debate with you about hash, but alas, rules ARE rules - so please just drop it for the sake of the thread...It IS irrelevant....

Back to the important stuff then..??....The hat - you try to make it all important but realise its only ONE example among many others...And YES the hat is at the start of the process - all sources agree eventually it will be fully fossilied - WOULD have become that except now its been removed and so the process interrupted - which leads to the important point you fail to tackle - in that YES the maths IS CORRECT and the logic too....Look - IF that process remains CONSTANT and UNCHANGED then indeed if the hat is 1% per 50 years fossilised, for the sake of debate - then for sure and absolutely the hat will be FULLY fossilised in just 5000 years - and so ONLY IF THE RATE IS CONSTANT - CAN THE MEASUREMENT BE ACCURATE !!! And so I tell you again - we have NEVER had those constant conditions and so the measurements of time are a GUESS...

The hat is but one example offered that shows that yes indeed - they ARE GUESSING - as look - take a fossil - date ONE part get one result - date ANOTHER part get an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RESULT, and often MILLIONS of years different...lol.....Now - EXPLAIN THAT..??...WHY this huge huge discrepancy in the SAME FOSSIL..???....Shows us undeniably they do NOT KNOW FOR SURE the things they purport to be "fact" - they ARE guessing my friend

If those things did not exist prior to a mind being able to perceive them, how did the mind come to be? If they existed prior to perception, then your premise is wrong. You have no way around this.

The Mind is SELF CONCEIVING - the ORIGIN of its own nature - the "ground of all being" - literally so - NOTHING can preceed it - obviously - as it is the FACULTY to PERCEIVE and EXPERIENCE EXISTANCE itself

lol - this IS a recording...........lol

And to just make sure we're clear, as you've stated, I'm not talking about your mind, or my mind. I'm talking about any mind.

Good good - very glad it sank in deep enough - now remember it as its about to become crucial here..

But there are factual reverberations of air and energy without the mind, are there not?

NO - NOT if we remove the ENTIRE MIND from the ENTIRE CREATION - this is what YOU fail to see - despite you claim otherwise you just dont grasp the implication here and the logic of it escapes you fully - without this PRIMAL mind to CAUSE the creation - there is NO CREATION at all - ALL EXISTANCE REQUIRES A MIND TO PERCEIVE KNOW AND EXPERIENCE THAT VERY EXISTANCE

Now as I hinted at before - and as others have picked up on and elaborated further - the FOUNDATION to our material worlds are ABSTRACT - yes..???.....They are all founded on a set of "nartural laws" yes..?...gravity - thermodynamics - conservation of energy etc etc ...BOTH classical physics AND the newly understood quantum principles too, yes..??......Not even "simple" rules - but actually supra complex logical "hard and fast set in stone" LAWS that govern the unfolding universe - yes..?..SO complex actually that even after decades of our best MINDS trying to sort it out, still we just scratch the surface, and so comlex that it requires the PURE LOGIC of mathematics and ONLY manthmatics can be used to describe these ABSTRACT interactions of an ABSTRACT "energetic force"...yes ??... SO comoplex that if ANY of these so called laws are alterded even one tin y tiny percentile amnount, then the entire "creation" would simply FAIL - yes..???......

These natural laws are CRUCIAL - and are seen to PRE EXIST any and all "energetic interaction" as indeed they CAUSE and GOVERN such interaction directly and UNIVERSALLY...The are indeed "set in stone" - unbreakable - except NO - they do NOT ACTUALLY EXIST in or by themselves - nothing PHYSICAL about any of ithis - like the foundational "energy" of all material forms itself - it is ENTIRELY ABSTRACT - IMAGINERY - purely the domain of a Sentient MIND

 

[Shad]

I believe we can identify the one creating all the amazingly complex entities around us. As Romans 1:20 states: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."

Your scripture is irrelevant to me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Evolution without Creation IS abiogenesis. There is no need to attempt to lecture me.

Rubbish. They are different things. Evolution is what happens to living things -- irrespective of how life got lively. It wouldn't matter if God started it, or the Giant Spaghetti Monster waved a magic noodle, or if there really were chemical processes we don't yet understand that resulted in chemicals that could reproduce themselves.

 

[rusra02]

It's called an analogy.

In the same way that you do not find any convincing evidence for evolution, I do not see any evidence against it. There are fossil records everywhere, along with showings of what creationists like to call microevolution, which is really just a factor of macroevolution. That's how mutation works, you realize. I hope you do. Mutation is NOT just a snap of the fingers and suddenly a totally different organism.

Purposeful denial? I could say the same thing for your side, except we have scientific evidence for our claims. You have...a collection of scriptures. Oh, and miracles that can be explained with the placebo effect.

You claim that things could not happen without an intelligent creator. I'll ask the age-old question: Who created God? If it was no one, then according to your terms, your God is "a claim requiring extraordinary credulity or purposeful denial, IMO." If He was created, then He is not God, but a being that claims He is.

Just because things cannot happen without a cause, does not mean things do not happen at random. As I've stated, we have several theories about the origin of life, but we have assessed that mutations happen at random, not from some God.

I believe the evidence strongly supports the reality that a purposeful Creator exists. So who created the Creator? The answer is "From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." Without beginning nor end, the true God Jehovah has no Creator. He is the Source of all life. Can we fully understand how Jehovah can exist forever, has existed forever? No. Is there evidence he has existed into the indefinite past? I think there is, as the estimates of the age of the universe indicate; Jehovah has existed for billions of years.

 

[Animore]

I believe the evidence strongly supports the reality that a purposeful Creator exists. So who created the Creator? The answer is "From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." Without beginning nor end, the true God Jehovah has no Creator. He is the Source of all life. Can we fully understand how Jehovah can exist forever, has existed forever? No. Is there evidence he has existed into the indefinite past? I think there is, as the estimates of the age of the universe indicate; Jehovah has existed for billions of years.

Except, you know, literally in the first few words of Genesis it says "In the beginning."


"We don't fully understand how we was there since the beginning." That's the biggest cop-out I've seen in a while. Didn't Jesus come so that we could "know" God? Even if He was "there in the beginning" He still would need a Creator. Don't you Creationists use the argument "Complex things need a complex creator"? If you use that logic, then God needs a creator. Therefor, in the same way, you can't use the argument that "Something was created out of nothing isn't plausible" argument, because apparently God was there when there was literally nothing.

"I believe the evidence strongly supports a Creator." What evidence? Of evolution? Then how would that support a God? Of God? If there was evidence there would be conversions everywhere, bud.

 

[Skwim]

But, friend, panspermia also requires abiogenesis before it could happen.

Yeah, I wondered if I should bother explaining that we're talking only about life on Earth, but didn't think it would be necessary. Second time I was wrong this year. Oh well.


.

 

[Skwim]

I never went back as we know of no cause thus it has no cause. To do otherwise would be to assume there is a cause that we have not discovered yet based on induction only or gaps in our knowledge. This is possible but entirely speculation.



No you want me to prove a negative. I can't. I can only show that we know of no cause thus my point still stands

C'mon Shad. You've been found out and the game is over. Have a nice turkey day.


.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Abiogenesis as it is termed - and evoluton as it is termed - are indeed the exact same phenomena - obviously....The entire process takes supposedly INORGANIC matter, makes it become organic, then continues to make it become more complex organism with thus far Human Beings the pinnacle and end result..Its the SAME process of EVOLUTION - the only difference is the "stage of development" - with abiogenesis being SPECIFICALLY the cross over point where inanimate object becomes animate "life"..

If we want to look at physical evolution of life itself, in an accurate manner - then we should realise that the WHOLE creation process right from the start, is designed and literally fine tuned TO produce this end result - from start to finish - from ABSTRACT ENERGY before any material matter at all - through to mankind walks the Earth today - is BUT ONE SINGLE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION

This process is not just "evolution" nor is it just "abiogenesis" - these are the later stages perhaps - but it started way way way before ANYTHING happened at all - planned and worked out BEFORE HAND - conceived and held as but one single whole CONCEPT, held withn that Primal Divine Mind I speak of

(This is WHY literally EVERYTHING starts off as FULLY ABSTRACT - it is ALL coming from the One Divine Mind ACTUAL Source of Creation itself)

Animore;

Didn't Jesus come so that we could "know" God? Even if He was "there in the beginning" He still would need a Creator.

Yes my mate DID say that very clearly - then showed us how to attain it directly - to become one WITH that Divine Presence and thus begin to have all the mystery revealed directly

Part of that mystery is realising that my Father is SELF CREATED - as the religion says a VIRGIN spirit - needs NOTHING outside of it Self...And would you (all) see then -this is indeed because it is a MIND that is literally IMAGINING what the Self could BE

To fully understand how such a thing is possible - Just look at your OWN mind - we are MADE IN THAT IMAGE FOLKS - the Divine Mind IS our mind not yet realised, that is all...To see it clearly just stop, pause and literally IMAGINE something that is "brand new" - invent a word - or a tune - create a character for a book, WRITE the entire book - and see clearly you have just called forth a whole "world" from literally NOWHERE - you just IMAGINED a brand new EXISTANCE - and the more you pour your focus INTO that concept the more REAL it will become TO YOUR MIND... ALL creation comes forth like this - the Father is quite literally IMAGINING the entire Creation - calling it forth from the fully ABSTRACT realms OUTSIDE space and time - making it appear as "solid" and "real" - tangeable and EXPERENTIAL, here WITHIN space and time...

Evolution - as one continous process form abstract none material through to manifest bodies living in a solid world -IS the same process - the MIND that is the CAUSE is seekin gits own full understaning of Self - Gnosis - as said, it imagines what it will be - builds a replica model thus to investigate it Self further - and then if appropriate,it deposits a seed of this Mind WITHIN the model thus making it a lifeform - and through the lifeform it explores the entire creation most efficiently - and through SENTIENT lifeforms such as man, it begins to reach back to its Source, to uncover its ultimate truth and origin - thus through mankind becoming as the Christ, fully Divine, so my Father reaches it deepest fullest possible understanding of Self...

Its really not at all as complicated as either religion or science make it out to be Folks - this inherant need for Gnosis drives it all - one process start to finish

 

[Skwim]

Hi Folks..

Abiogenesis as it is termed - and evoluton as it is termed - are indeed the exact same phenomena - obviously....

I know you're just trolling here, but in case someone happens to take you seriously it has to be pointed out that, "Evolution as it is termed" is not abiogenesis. The "IT" being "the process through which the characteristics of organisms change over successive generations, by means of genetic variation and natural selection. It is most commonly defined as "changes in gene frequencies in populations." Something that cannot occur within abiogenesis wherein the pre-life form is not an organism.

But I thank you PeteC-UK for another opportunity to clarify and restate the difference for those who may think abiogenesis is actually "it."


.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Skwim; No mate - not trolling at all lol - just presenting my truth as I see it and experience it.. We can all play with words and definitions if we must - bit pointless though isnt it..?..

The point of the thread was to show how creationism could work WITHOUT evolution, yes..?.. I explained that first post...Then the convo shofted to talk of an aiutomatic genesis of life from inanimate matter someone finally broke the "no evolution" rule and entered that into convo also....Im not trolling here - just explaining how I see all that as but one harmonious Creation process...

I mean - if you want to know where or how life began - and we already worked out the basics right down to chemical interaction and dna itself but did NOT find the origin or cause of life itself....So, the next course to pursue would be to find out how INERT chemiocals themselves came to there - you know the step BEFORE the abiogenesis step

Life is essentially made of CHEMICALS and is governed by their interactions...So if we want to know what life is and how that got here, first we obviously want to know PRECISELY what these chemicals are and how THEY got here...Trace it back far enough and as said it is all coming from a fully ABSTRACT none reality - and it is all governed by yet more ABSTRACT laws of physics yes..?..

And heres the kicker - as we worked all that out, it became overwhelming ly apparant that the universe here is essentially FINE TUNED to bring about a set of precise conditons that are VITAL to life as we know it...As I said before - supra complex NATURAL LAWS (fully abstract) guide and structure ENERGY (fully abstract also) to form "solid matter"...ALTER those natural laws one littlel bit and the matter itself COULD NOT FORM.. A whole "orchestra" of such laws - intricate detailed energetic laws of interaction all working in unison - SEEM TO BE tailor made to bring about life SPECIFICALLY....

Therefore we can now see that ACTUALLY -there is indeed a very good likelyhood that the process BEFORE life begins, IS the same process as life EVOLVES and brings forth HUMAN BEINGS and their SENTIENT MIND.....This seems to be the push for evolution, to bring about a fully SENTIENT form...It is ALL coming FROM the abstract - and that is surely the realm of a MIND - an dit is all pushing that mind to its greatest possible level of Self awareness

One and the same process - the final goal IS the complete Gnosis of Self - the primal mind that causes it All is seeking to indeed, understand it ALL...

 

[JakofHearts]

.



MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION.​

* As in, convince the non-creationist.

That's all folks​

.

It's simple really, only life can create life.

 

[Animore]

It's simple really, only life can create life.

I don't see the point here. Obviously only life can create life. The problem here is this provides no evidence for the creation of life.

 

[JakofHearts]

I don't see the point here. Obviously only life can create life. The problem here is this provides no evidence for the creation of life.

We agree that only life can come from life, so from this perspective the burden of proof is really on the theory that life can come from non-life.

 

[Animore]

We agree that only life can come from life, so from this perspective the burden of proof is really on the theory that life can come from non-life.

A few things here.

1. Evolution is much different than abiogenesis.

2. Neither of them say that life came from non-life.

3. If you're implying the Big Bang, it did not bring life. It brought the ever-expanding universe. If we put the whole "creation" of the universe by way of big bang, etc. in a calendar, life sprang up late in the year.