A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

No doubt.

That is what characterizes "real science", doesn't it?

Ciao

- viole

Not at all. East is east and west is west, and never the two shall meet. I never mix religion into a discussion of science. Actually all science is true or the search for truth using proven scientific principles.

 

[omega2xx]

I have. Multiple times. You ignored all of them. In fact, you flat out said you refuse to click on links for evidence and requested I cut and paste the evidence for you - which I did. You still ignored it.

What you cut and pasted was not evidence. It was only parroting what the link said.

I didn't say that at all. Take note that I referred to consensus of the empirical EVIDENCE, not consensus of opinion.

There is no empirical evidence.

Then you should accept the TOE, if you accept the sciences I listed.

I accept they are sciences, I do not accept everything they say. It seems you do.

See above. Or many of my previous posts to you, earlier in the thread.

We have a different definition of "evidence." Evidence can be repeated and observed.

When this discussion gets to this point, it is time to quit.

However, if you wan't to continue, I will make it simple and just discuss one standard evolution doctrine---mutations.

Post the evidence that mutations are a mechanism for a change of species.

 

[omega2xx]

The theory of evolution is not about the origin of matter or life. It's about the diversity of life on earth.

That's a cop-out. The TOE started by trying to explain the origin of life: Darwin---the ORIGIN of the Species. Have you never heard of the "primordial swamp?"

When you can empirically demonstrate the existence of a god capable of creating the universe, that's when I'll believe it. Not before.

This discussion is not about religion, it is about science. When you produce the empirical evidence for a change of species, I will believe it , not before.

 

[omega2xx]

It is not necessarily more logical. But for sure, it is more question begging.

Ciao

- viole

It is more logical, unless you have some evidence matter, energy and life is eternal. Even if life is eternal, evolution is still not true if they stick to the guess that the first life form was a single celled blob of some kind. They originally described it as a simple cell, but then DNA blew that guess out the the water they originally said life started in.

 

[omega2xx]

Since you have not been able to show the universe was created....

I understand that you will not allow that fact to hinder you.

You have yet to show how matter, energy and life originated. I undestand that you will not allow that FACT to hinder you.

 

[omega2xx]

That's all amount to the same thing as saying you believing in fairies.

Highly irrational wishful fantasy, whether you believe in creator or in fairies.

Believing in a creator deity that can create something from nothing or perform miracles by incantation of some words sound like witchcraft or magic to me. That's good for fairytale, but not so convincing in real life...unless you are superstitious primitives.

Once upon a time a nothing said to another nothing, we can be come something if we try hard enough. The other nothing said, can we really? The first nothing said of course we can. So they huffed and the puffed and they suddenly popped into matter. The first noting said, see, now we can become something else. So they huffed and they puffed and becaeme energy. l the second nothing said, this is fun, lelts try to become life. The first nothing said it is impossible for life to originate from lifeless elements, but the tried and suddenly out of the primordial ooze popped a simple, living cell. The second nothing, that had become something said, there is no stopoing us now, unless some idiot discovers DNA. For many years they lived happily ever after.

 

[McBell]

You have yet to show how matter, energy and life originated.

It is not me saying they originated by god, now is it?

I undestand that you will not allow that FACT to hinder you.

I have no problems with saying "I do not know".
Thus the fact is, in fact, not a hindrance for those not making claims how they originated.

 

[metis]

I have no problems with saying "I do not know".
Thus the fact is, in fact, not a hindrance for those not making claims how they originated.

Supposedly when the Buddha was asked if there was a creator-god, his response was that the question was irrelevant. Since he didn't explain his response, it was left up to his followers to try and connect the dots.

What they concluded was that what may have started all was not important, but what's happening today is. Also, there was the question as to exactly how would a deity that supposedly created all come into existence by itself? IOW, things do not appear to happen all by themselves, so why should anyone assume that some creator-god just popped into existence, uncaused. And then why should one assume that this supposed creator-god always was when our experiences seems to indicate that everything appears to be in a continuous process of changing.

And then there's the question as to who was there to see it happen in order to know if there was a creator-god, creator-gods, or none of the above?

So, my point is in agreement with yours above, namely that I don't think saying "I don't know" is a sign of weakness, especially when compared to believing that which cannot in any way be objectively determined.

Just a thought.

 

[omega2xx]

It is not me saying they originated by god, now is it?

I didn't say they originated with God either.

have no problems with saying "I do not know".
Thus the fact is, in fact, not a hindrance for those not making claims how they originated.

I am glad you don't need anything to give you confidence for somethig that has no evidence.

 

[McBell]

I am glad you don't need anything to give you confidence for somethig that has no evidence.

To be completely honest with you, the whole "beginning of the universe" debate is nothing more than a dick measuring contest.

We do not know how it began.
We will not likely know in my life time.
Perhaps never.

As for evidence, you render the word useless with your double standards.

 

[omega2xx]

To be completely honest with you, the whole "beginning of the universe" debate is nothing more than a dick measuring contest.

We do not know how it began.
We will not likely know in my life time.
Perhaps never.

As for evidence, you render the word useless with your double standards.

Thanks for admitting you don't know. That is more than most of the evos are willing to do.

What is my double standard? Be specific.

 

[metis]

Thanks for admitting you don't know. That is more than most of the evos are willing to do.

From what I've read from many here at RF, that's really not true as most have stated that the ToE simply does not deal with BB cosmology.

 

[omega2xx]

From what I've read from many here at RF, that's really not true as most have stated that the ToE simply does not deal with BB cosmology.

You are probably right, but the BB does frequently come into any discussion of the TOE,

 

[McBell]

You are probably right, but the BB does frequently come into any discussion of the TOE,

I know, right?
Sad that creationists have nothing new to present.

 

[omega2xx]

I know, right?
Sad that creationists have nothing new to present.

What is even sadder is that the evolutionist are blowing a horn that makes no sound.

WE don't need something new, when the old is good enough. If we added something new, it would be admitting what we originally and continually say was wrong.

I love to tell the story to those who know it best, seem hungering and thirsting to hear it like the rest.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Not at all. East is east and west is west, and never the two shall meet. I never mix religion into a discussion of science. Actually all science is true or the search for truth using proven scientific principles.

Haha, that's a laugh. Most scientific principles are not proven and a lot of them cannot be proven. Most science is guesswork, then an attempt to confirm the guess to a high degree of accuracy. What I hate is basing the accuracy on assumption, which scientists are famous for doing.

 

[Reggie Miller]

From what I've read from many here at RF, that's really not true as most have stated that the ToE simply does not deal with BB cosmology.

No, but it does indirectly depend upon it.

 

[Reggie Miller]

As much as those who believe in the TOE would love to dodge abiogenesis theories, without a creator the theories must be adequately explained. So far they woefully have not been.

 

[metis]

No, but it does indirectly depend upon it.

It really doesn't. The basic ToE simply does not go back to the BB, nor is it reliant even on accepting the BB. Nor does accepting both the ToE and the BB mean rejecting Christian/Jewish scriptures. Most Christian theologians, for example, do accept both, but only as long as it is understood that God was behind them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Think perhaps he means family tree?

Though I have no idea why he would want that.

Maybe? And I don't know either.