A Challenge To All Creationists

[Jose Fly]

Not true. There is no scientific evidence that supports the BB, so it did not support any predictions.

Empty assertion.

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?

Oh, how convenient. No matter what scientists discover, you come in after the fact and declare "How do you know God didn't do that"?

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.

Thanks for your input.

 

[omega2xx]

Choir sermons only convince the choir.
Thus the reason they are called choir sermons.

One wonders why it is so difficult for you to understand that non choir members are not convinced by choir sermons,,,

One wonders why you think posting a line in a hymn is a sermon.

One wonders why you think I don't KNOW what I say will not convince anyone. I came KNOWING all of what I say to non-believers would be mocked and rejected.

It seems I know more than you do.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Early bacteria.

How did it form? What did it look like? The breakdown of its DNA/RNA? How did it evolve into the next organism, exactly, explain the mutations of the genes, how they happened and why.

With each answer you give me you are going to get at least 4 more questions that you can't answer without making complete guesses. Get ready for a long discussion.

 

[omega2xx]

Empty assertion.

Not on your say so.

Oh, how convenient. No matter what scientists discover, you come in after the fact and declare "How do you know God didn't do that"?

So called scientist are the ones who invented that unproven theory. If the universe is expanding, and it is, God did it unless you have good scientific explanation other than the BB. Those who preach the BB theology never explain when the matter that went bang came from. They also never explain how the sun developed out of the BB.

Thanks for your input.

My pleasure.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How did it form? What did it look like? The breakdown of its DNA/RNA? How did it evolve into the next organism, exactly, explain the mutations of the genes, how they happened and why.

With each answer you give me you are going to get at least 4 more questions that you can't answer without making complete guesses. Get ready for a long discussion.

It is good that you ask questions. It is bad if you ask questions when you have already made up your mind. If the former I'll have as long a discussion as you'd like.

Abiogensis is integral to evolution. I believe that the seperation of abiogensis and evolution is more political than scientific. You have so many people saying that it is a totally seperate study all together. while I agree that the function of studying the two are rather distinct it is inseperable from the theory of evolution as a whole. Evolution as a theory functions just fine without it since even if the answer was "I dont' know" the facts that we have come across still stand. It just means there is more to the mystery. However we are fairly certain that abiogensis occured and within a range of how it may have occured.

The line between life and non-life can be tricky. We struggle with it today even. Viruses for example. However back then the earliest form of bacteria were simple cells with DNA (specifically double helix rather than the earlier single sided RNA which came out of spontaenously created self replicating protiens that increased in complexity over time much as life evolves and changes now) and a double lipid bilayer which created the autonomy of the cell. Differnet structures came later. But the two big ones is the double lipid bilayer and the DNA.

As far as how it changed I'm sure you are already familiar with allele frequences and mutations? If you need more explanation there then we can go into it but for now I will assume you have an understanding of it. The next major breakthrough after several new structures were implimented in the cell over time was cluster formations which marked the begining of complex multicellular life.

 

[Reggie Miller]

It is good that you ask questions. It is bad if you ask questions when you have already made up your mind. If the former I'll have as long a discussion as you'd like.

Abiogensis is integral to evolution. I believe that the seperation of abiogensis and evolution is more political than scientific. You have so many people saying that it is a totally seperate study all together. while I agree that the function of studying the two are rather distinct it is inseperable from the theory of evolution as a whole. Evolution as a theory functions just fine without it since even if the answer was "I dont' know" the facts that we have come across still stand. It just means there is more to the mystery. However we are fairly certain that abiogensis occured and within a range of how it may have occured.

The line between life and non-life can be tricky. We struggle with it today even. Viruses for example. However back then the earliest form of bacteria were simple cells with DNA (specifically double helix rather than the earlier single sided RNA which came out of spontaenously created self replicating protiens that increased in complexity over time much as life evolves and changes now) and a double lipid bilayer which created the autonomy of the cell. Differnet structures came later. But the two big ones is the double lipid bilayer and the DNA.

As far as how it changed I'm sure you are already familiar with allele frequences and mutations? If you need more explanation there then we can go into it but for now I will assume you have an understanding of it. The next major breakthrough after several new structures were implimented in the cell over time was cluster formations which marked the begining of complex multicellular life.

I'll have to dive into this tomorrow. I look forward to it. It is all based on guesswork since you obviously have no idea how it all got started and ended up the way it did.

Tomorrow I'll prove it to you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'll have to dive into this tomorrow. I look forward to it. It is all based on guesswork since you obviously have no idea how it all got started and ended up the way it did.

Tomorrow I'll prove it to you.

Sure thing buddy.

 

[McBell]

It seems I know more than you do.

Fair enough.

 

[Sapiens]

DUUH. Teh firsst life ws the origin of the species. Try understanding what you read.

The only objective evidence is the creation itself, unless you can explain a different source for the existence of matter, energy and life.

Classic argument from ignorance.

Feel free to use you mind to evaluate what is evidence and what is opinion.l Hint---Opinions are not evidence.

We will take that then as your admission that you have no evidence what-so-ever.

 

[gnostic]

You finally got something right. I know very little about cosmology. IMO, they have even less ability prove their wild guess than the evolutionists do.

Actually you still don't know much about cosmology. You are as ill-informed about the Big Bang cosmology as you are about biological evolution.

My problems with you is not about that "you don't know" what either evolution or the Big Bang about, but that you'd pretend to know, and that you refused to actually learn and understand what either of these two very different fields.

You have turned stubborn or wilful ignorance into art form.

 

[omega2xx]

Classic argument from ignorance.

Not until you have some real scientific evidence and you don't. Classic denial of the truth because of ignorance of what is real evidence.

We will take that then as your admission that you have no evidence what-so-ever.

I freely admit that because I understand evidence. To bad you won't admit you have no evidence and accept everything the TOE preachs on faith alone.

 

[omega2xx]

Actually you still don't know much about cosmology. You are as ill-informed about the Big Bang cosmology as you are about biological evolution.

My problems with you is not about that "you don't know" what either evolution or the Big Bang about, but that you'd pretend to know, and that you refused to actually learn and understand what either of these two very different fields.

You have turned stubborn or wilful ignorance into art form.

YAWN

 

[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.

Oh dear. Why do you guys always confuse the evolution of life with the origin of life? Actually I know why. It is a mix of ignorance about the subject and an attempt to defeat it by shooting at not relevant fields of research which are still inconclusive.

And before you get offended by my remark of creationists ignorance, be aware that we are all ignorant about most fields of knowledge. The difference between you and me is that I do not pontificate about things I do not obviously know.

Evolution explains the development of life from that initial cell/replicator, whatever that was. Not how that initial replicator came to be.

It is like astrophysics, concerned with stellar evolution and such, and not with the origin of the the Universe, which would be cosmology. You can know a lot about one without knowing much about the other.

Ciao

- viole

 

[omega2xx]

Oh dear. Why do you guys always confuse the evolution of life with the origin of life? Actually I know why. It is a mix of ignorance about the subject and an attempt to defeat it by shooting at not relevant fields of research which are still inconclusive.

O dear why did evolution quit preaching something they started out with.. Originally the theory started with life beginning in the primordial soup. That idea started in 1924 and abiogenisis started sometime in the 1950's. When they could not prove it, they abandoned it and divide what wa one the same idea. You young whipper snappers need to keep up the best you can.

And before you get offended by my remark of creationists ignorance, be aware that we are all ignorant about most fields of knowledge. The difference between you and me is that I do not pontificate about things I do not obviously know.

I am never offended by remarks from those more ignorant than I am.

Evolution explains the development of life from that initial cell/replicator, whatever that was. Not how that initial replicator came to be.

I know what abiogenesis is, an attempt to escape from the reality of real science. You mention the first living things being a cell, how ignorant is that. First of all you have no supporting evidence. Second how can lifeless elements produce life? Let me help you with that one---IT CAN'T. DNA is far too complex to have originated from lifeless elements. Why do you ignore that FACT?

You don't know what the first life form was and you do not know what it evolved into. Evolution starts with a wild guess and has been guessing ever since. You don't even know that the very guess of first life being a cell, refutes genetics, which you are also ignorant of.

It is like astrophysics, concerned with stellar evolution and such, and not with the origin of the the Universe, which would be cosmology. You can know a lot about one without knowing much about the other.

Ciao

- viole

There is also not scientific evidence for stellar evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not on your say so.



So called scientist are the ones who invented that unproven theory. If the universe is expanding, and it is, God did it unless you have good scientific explanation other than the BB. Those who preach the BB theology never explain when the matter that went bang came from. They also never explain how the sun developed out of the BB.



My pleasure.

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof.
The person who asserts that "God did it" is the one with the burden of proof. End of story. You don't get to say, "We have to accept that God did it until you can prove me wrong." It doesn't work that way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

O dear why did evolution quit preaching something they started out with.. Originally the theory started with life beginning in the primordial soup. That idea started in 1924 and abiogenisis started sometime in the 1950's. When they could not prove it, they abandoned it and divide what wa one the same idea. You young whipper snappers need to keep up the best you can.



I am never offended by remarks from those more ignorant than I am.



I know what abiogenesis is, an attempt to escape from the reality of real science. You mention the first living things being a cell, how ignorant is that. First of all you have no supporting evidence. Second how can lifeless elements produce life? Let me help you with that one---IT CAN'T. DNA is far too complex to have originated from lifeless elements. Why do you ignore that FACT?

You don't know what the first life form was and you do not know what it evolved into. Evolution starts with a wild guess and has been guessing ever since. You don't even know that the very guess of first life being a cell, refutes genetics, which you are also ignorant of.



There is also not scientific evidence for stellar evolution.

On the Origin if Species was published in 1859. The big bang hypothesis was first presented in 1927. You've got your dates wrong and you're are making erroneous claims.

 

[omega2xx]

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof.
The person who asserts that "God did it" is the one with the burden of proof. End of story. You don't get to say, "We have to accept that God did it until you can prove me wrong." It doesn't work that way.

I said "unless." If you believe an expanding universe is evidenced of evolution, it is up to you to provided he evidence. Since we can't see the end of the universe, you don't telly know it is expanding.

 

[viole]

O dear why did evolution quit preaching something they started out with.. Originally the theory started with life beginning in the primordial soup. That idea started in 1924 and abiogenisis started sometime in the 1950's. When they could not prove it, they abandoned it and divide what wa one the same idea. You young whipper snappers need to keep up the best you can.

To realize that we are apes, does not need to resolve the issue of the beginning of life first.

So, abstracting from the beginning of life a few billions years ago, do you agree that we do not need to clarify that before realizing that we and chimps share a common ancestor a few millions years ago? Do you realize that the two issues are unrelated?

If not, why not?

I am never offended by remarks from those more ignorant than I am.

Cool.

I know what abiogenesis is, an attempt to escape from the reality of real science. You mention the first living things being a cell, how ignorant is that. First of all you have no supporting evidence. Second how can lifeless elements produce life? Let me help you with that one---IT CAN'T. DNA is far too complex to have originated from lifeless elements. Why do you ignore that FACT?

I woukd ask all people studying the subject. i suspect they think the DNA was not the first thing that appeared.

You don't know what the first life form was and you do not know what it evolved into. Evolution starts with a wild guess and has been guessing ever since. You don't even know that the very guess of first life being a cell, refutes genetics, which you are also ignorant of.

Yet, we suspiciously look very similar to gorillas. Surely more similar than, say, to a spider. Do you think God likes apes so much to use them as a model for the very pinnacle of His creation?

There is also not scientific evidence for stellar evolution.

Yes, stars have been created in their present form at creation. Like our star, the sun. Which is, incidentally, a second generation star. If you know what it means

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

I said "unless."

Same thing. It's the same as if I said, "We have to accept that magical invisible fairies created the earth, unless you can prove me wrong."

If you believe an expanding universe is evidenced of evolution, it is up to you to provided he evidence. Since we can't see the end of the universe, you don't telly know it is expanding.

How Do Scientists Know the Universe is Expanding?
HubbleSite - Reference Desk - FAQs

 

[omega2xx]

To realize that we are apes, does not need to resolve the issue of the beginning of life first.

Do you ever really look at the evidence they present for such an ignorant remark? I know you don't because there is none. If you understood genetics, you would KNOW that is i mpossib le.

So, abstracting from the beginning of life a few billions years ago, do you agree that we do not need to clarify that before realizing that we and chimps share a common ancestor a few millions years ago? Do you realize that the two issues are unrelated?

If not, why not?

The only thing that needs clarifying is how did the apes, overcome the law of genetics and become something other than an ape>

I would ask all people studying the subject. i suspect they think the DNA was not the first thing that appeared.

The had to come at the same time.

Yet, we suspiciously look very similar to gorillas. Surely more similar than, say, to a spider. Do you think God likes apes so much to use them as a model for the very pinnacle of His creation?

You are much prettier than any ape I ever saw. No. We were made in God's iamge and He is not an ape, so neither are we.

Yes, stars have been created in their present form at creation. Like our star, the sun. Which is, incidentally, a second generation star. If you know what it means

Ciao

- viole

I know new stars can form but do they really have a mommy and a daddy?