A Challenge To All Creationists

[Ouroboros]

I understand it well enough. But since I don't get into assumptions and speculation I don't buy into the theories of abiogenesis or macro-evolution.

Don't buying into something isn't the same as evidence against. It only shows your attitude towards it. It's not evidence of a fact against anything. You're intentionally biased against evolution. That's the problem. Not the evidece.

You have to have a lot of assumptions before you can even get started with either theory. Good luck with it.

Well... That's your view.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm pretty sure basic science classes explain how stars form.

How stars are formed can't be the same process that formed the sun. However their problem is explaining where all the matter that went bang originated. There is no reasonable answer to the origin of the sun.

DNA is still lifeless. It's just a bunch of chemicals strung together in a particular way. Complex carbs don't need to have come from "life", whatever that means, just because "complex" is in the name.

For the most part that is true, but not always---How DNA is living thing?
The only one proof to say DNA is living, just by the process of replication, because that process sometime refers to making new generation of DNA, and that is just like living thing do.
In additional to the process of replication, DNA is responsible for a huge function, it carries and shifts hereditary information and characters from the parents to the offsprings, and that must be done by living thing.

Would depend on the definition of "life". You people want a bacterium to turn into a human the next day. That's not how it works.

How silly. All I want is to explain why a bacterium remaining a backterium is an example of evolution. You people want non-evolutin to be an example of evolutin.

LOL. "I can't crane my neck that much, so I can never figure out how tall the skyscraper is."

I kinda want to live forever because as we've been teaching other apes to use keys, make fire/cook, etc, I'm DYING to know if it's like that obelisk from 2001: A Space Odyssey, speeding up their evolutionary progress.

Monkey see, monkey do.

You remind me of a dude on Judge Judy who tried to "educate" her that the paternity DNA results don't prove he's the father.

You remind me of the dudess who thought ping pong balls was a venereal disease/

]Not sure what you mean. We're still apes, which is why the anti-human bias in the Planet of the Apes franchise doesn't make sense compared to their mantra "ape not kill ape".

That is evolution's third dumbest, necessary, lack of evidence guess they have ever proposed.

So God's made out of dirt too?

No. You seem to forget our great Intelligent Designer, created dirt

Try signing? Most apes who are called humans can do some sort of sign language, and many non-human apes can too. Or message boards, with icons as the responses.

I know sign language. What they use to show was a farce. Another exmple of monkey see, monkey do.

]Actually, this comment kind of unnerves me. Do you honestly feel nonverbal people are less than human?

Ite unnerves me that some peple think they are. I don't feel it, I know it. Why are apes not called home sapian? Let me help you with that---Because the Ain't

For every limitation you think makes humans superior, I can find humans WITH those limitations and we still consider them people.

Irrelevant. ALL HUMANS are classified homo sapian. No ape is.

I know I've met plenty of leeches and roaches.

I love metaphors.

Math.

Give me the formula. My son teaches math and he can tell me if the answer is what they say it is.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well, don't bother. You're just going to post a bunch of speculation based on assumption(s) that don't really amount to a hill of beans, anyway.

My point is to show that abiogenesis & macro-evolution is all just speculation and assumption. I have made that point.

You haven't made the point to anyone's satisfaction. Firstly because abiogenesis requires far fewer assumptions and speculation than 'God did it' and secondly because there is no micro and macro evolution. The same process applies to both and creationists have never demonstrated a wall separating one from the other. Stating that there is a micro and macro evolution is like saying there is a micro and macro plate tectonics. We can, in the entire human life span, only observe a few feet of movement, but that's no reason to assume that they haven't moved thousands of miles based on available evidence.
And the evidence shows small changes in gene inheritance add up to large enough changes for speciation events and beyond.

 

[savagewind]

Hence my view is that life is a fundamental thing/force of nature. It has to be. Planted there by some external supernatural God or not, it has to be integrated and infused in nature for new offspring to become alive.

I call that "GOD". I think, "why the hell not?".

 

[Ouroboros]

I do not really believe that with enough TIME anything can be made with no scheme.
I trust there is a scheme. I do think that there has always been one.

The scheme (Logos) is God.

Doesn't make evolution wrong. It only shows that evolution is the right hand of God's creating power.

 

[Reggie Miller]

You haven't made the point to anyone's satisfaction. Firstly because abiogenesis requires far fewer assumptions and speculation than 'God did it' and secondly because there is no micro and macro evolution. The same process applies to both and creationists have never demonstrated a wall separating one from the other. Stating that there is a micro and macro evolution is like saying there is a micro and macro plate tectonics. We can, in the entire human life span, only observe a few feet of movement, but that's no reason to assume that they haven't moved thousands of miles based on available evidence.
And the evidence shows small changes in gene inheritance add up to large enough changes for speciation events and beyond.

Okay, then, explain in detail using no speculation. You can't do it so don't bother trying.

 

[viole]

Force and matter are not enough to make a machine, which is what each life is imo.

So, what makes you think that God went through that complicated and amoral ordeal that evolution is, in order to reach His goals, if any?

Why not poof what He wants into esistence right away?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

I call that "GOD". I think, "why the hell not?".

See! I think we have very similar views.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Don't buying into something isn't the same as evidence against. It only shows your attitude towards it. It's not evidence of a fact against anything. You're intentionally biased against evolution. That's the problem. Not the evidece.


Well... That's your view.

No, it's fact that you can't seem to come to terms with. You have no proof, no concrete evidence that either abiogenesis or macro-evolution happened. You assume it did based on speculation, yet you continue to say you don't.

Sir, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[viole]

I'm not interested in speculations. But thanks.

You are welcome.

Ciao

- viole

 

[savagewind]

The scheme (Logos) is God.

Doesn't make evolution wrong. It only shows that evolution is the right hand of God's creating power.

Interesting. I meant to write that I do NOT think that there has always been a scheme.
Now we can talk about the Trinity because............LOL

 

[Ouroboros]

Sir, that's your problem, not mine.

Whatever.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Whatever.

AT least you finally admit it. That's a step in the right direction.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Okay, then, explain in detail using no speculation. You can't do it so don't bother trying.

That's not something I need to do so why should I bother? You can't explain, in detail, gravitation without speculation. Yet we accept both the fact of gravity and the theory which explains it because it is the best case for explaining the phenomenon we observe. Abiogenesis and evolution are no different.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, what makes you think that God went through that complicated and amoral ordeal that evolution is, in order to reach His goals, if any?

Why not poof what He wants into esistence right away?

Ciao

- viole

Maybe God wanted to surprise him/her/itself? Create something that would produce something that wasn't thought out or planned, but pseudo-random.

Kind'a like No Man's Sky, if you know what I'm talking about.

 

[viole]

Maybe God wanted to surprise him/her/itself? Create something that would produce something that wasn't thought out or planned, but pseudo-random.

Kind'a like No Man's Sky, if you know what I'm talking about.

Maybe. If God can surprise Himself at all.

Alas, I think that the naturalistic explanation has the advantage of raising less such maybes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

Maybe. If God can surprise Himself at all.

Well. There are of course different views on the omniscience, if it contains prescience as well or not. But I agree. Could God surprise himself or not? Who knows.

Alas, I think that the naturalistic explanation has the advantage of raising less such maybes.

I think Nature as such, all of it taken together, is "God" in every aspect. Instead of thinking of God as a separate entity, I think of God and Nature, all of it as one. And we're part of it/God.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do not believe in God The Supernatural. I believe in God, naturally. To me, God is IT that knows 1 plus 1 makes 2 and every other fact. Are you going to tell me that one added to one does not always make two? If that is true, then I believe God knows that also.

The two don't seem to be connected in any coherent way and your logic doesn't follow.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm not interested in talking about this in general. It's all speculation.

Show me a mutated gene that resulted in one species evolving into a completely different organism. Because that is what had to happen in order for macro-evolution to work.

This is false. You need several thousand mutations accumulating over time in isolated populations for "macro evolution" to happen. There is no "macro evolution" and "micro evolution" processes. They are the same process of biological evolution but simply on different time scales. Earlier in the thread it has already been linked to different organisms undergoing speciation in controlled environments.

 

[Reggie Miller]

That's not something I need to do so why should I bother? You can't explain, in detail, gravitation without speculation. Yet we accept both the fact of gravity and the theory which explains it because it is the best case for explaining the phenomenon we observe. Abiogenesis and evolution are no different.

"because it is the best case for explaining the phenomenon we observe" is speculating to accomodate your need to know. But it isn't fact or truth. So I don't care to hear it.