A Challenge To All Creationists

[JakofHearts]

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.

Didn't mention or imply anything regarding evolution or the big bang.

 

[Animore]

Didn't mention or imply anything regarding evolution or the big bang.

Then which "theory" are speaking of, in which would involve the bringing-abouts of life?

 

[JakofHearts]

Then which "theory" are speaking of, in which would involve the bringing-abouts of life?

Abiogenesis?

 

[Animore]

Abiogenesis?

Ah. In that case, abiogenesis does not involve anything concerning something being created out of nothing. There are several theories about this, one involving asteroids containing small molecules that had the potential to become life. I'm sure there's plenty if you look it up.

 

[Animore]

@JakofHearts I apologize, I've made a mistake. In a very rough fashion, abiogenesis does concern how life can come fro non-life. Does this mean it's improbable? Absolutely not.

 

[Skwim]

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

Sorry, but a claim without a convincing argument or evidence doesn't get you off the ground.

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..?..

If it was truly playing with words, yes. But holding someone to the definitions of a word or idea and not letting them equivocate is not playing with words. It's holding them responsible for what they say within the context of the issue. Need to maintain that black is white in order to make your point? Fine, but don't expect others to buy into it.


.


.

 

[Shad]

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


.

No I haven't. I attacked an inductive conclusion that is veiled as deductive conclusion. To say all effects have a cause means that we know of all effects and have identified all causes of said effects. Since humans have done neither the conclusion is false. I merely provided an example in which there is no known cause thus defeats the conclusion presented.

You do not understand how to spot inductive conclusions masquerading as a deductive one, nothing more

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

 

[JakofHearts]

Sorry, but a claim without a convincing argument or evidence doesn't get you off the ground..

An argument...

Ever heard about the fine tuning argument?

At the moment, the fine tuning does seem to be validated by scientists in a number of fields. Here's one article on water: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.900-waters-quantum-weirdness-makes-life-possible/

Is it a solid argument for the existence of God? I believe so. Your other options are really not reasonable in any sense, and the skeptics have opted to go beyond science into speculative plausibilities and absence of evidence. However, should a person to be persuaded by this alone? I would call naive. I'd recommend their approach be on the basis on the accumulation of evidences for the existence of God, and as such, that it would develop a case that is compelling enough, in the sense that one is well in their rational rights to embrace the possibility of God's existence.

And the cumulative cases for God's existence is quite impressive.

 

[Reggie Miller]

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.

See post # 63.

 

[Skwim]

An argument...

Ever heard about the fine tuning argument?

Is it a solid argument for the existence of God? I believe so.


Your other options are really not reasonable in any sense, and the skeptics have opted to go beyond science into speculative plausibilities and absence of evidence. However, should a person to be persuaded by this alone? I would call naive. I'd recommend their approach be on the basis on the accumulation of evidences for the existence of God, and as such, that it would develop a case that is compelling enough, in the sense that one is well in their rational rights to embrace the possibility of God's existence.

And the cumulative cases for God's existence is quite impressive.

I've heard of it and it's not solid at all.

​

In any case, the existence of god isn't the issue. The issue is to

MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION

​

And if you don't see the difference then I respectfully suggest you either bone up on the issue or just watch from the sidelines.


.

 

[JakofHearts]

I've heard of it and it's not solid at all.

​

In any case, the existence of god isn't the issue. The issue is to

MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION

​

And if you don't see the difference then I respectfully suggest you either bone up on the issue or just watch from the sidelines.


.

The counter points have been applied but as I mentioned they are unscientific claims; at best the claims are debatable but the fine-tuning argument remains logically coherent backed by scientific studies in numerous fields, the evidence speaks for itself.

But like I said this is but one argument of many and when compiled it is reasonable to believe that there was and is a creator. Which leads me to your argument that I cannot bring forth the existence of God which I personally see as the real issue here. The argument for God's existence means we have the creator = creation. So to say it isn't the issue to me is a denial of the obvious.

 

[Skwim]

The counter points have been applied but as I mentioned they are unscientific claims; at best the claims are debatable but the fine-tuning argument remains logically coherent backed by scientific studies in numerous fields, the evidence speaks for itself.

But like I said this is but one argument of many and when compiled it is reasonable to believe that there was and is a creator. Which leads me to your argument that I cannot bring forth the existence of God which I personally see as the real issue here. The argument for God's existence means we have the creator = creation. So to say it isn't the issue to me is a denial of the obvious.

The subject isn't creation, but creationISM.

MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION
​

CreationISM, as a process that stands in opposition to biological evolution.


.

 

[JakofHearts]

The subject isn't creation, but creationISM.

MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION
​

CreationISM, as a process that stands in opposition to biological evolution.


.

You stated you wanted an argument to support the claim that I made and I provided one. With that it only logically leads that creation or one aspect of it is a reasonable stand to take or to have.

If you insist on ignoring that fundamental point I am making then there isn't much to work with to formulate an argument through the biological lens without talking about evolution which is a big part of biology, but here's one:

Which is more complex: the worlds fastest super-computer, the worlds most advanced robotic system, the Space Shuttle, or, an Earthworm?

Answer: The earthworm. Nobody knows how to make an earthworm. The DNA and its reproductive system is beyond anything ever created by man.

1. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?

2. What would you think if someone firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the super computer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?

 

[Skwim]

You stated you wanted an argument to support the claim that I made and I provided one. With that it only logically leads that creation or one aspect of it is a reasonable stand to take or to have.

No it doesn't.

My challenge is: MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION.

You answered that challenge about the validity of creationism by saying: "It's simple really, only life can create life."

In turn I said: "Sorry, but a claim without a convincing argument or evidence doesn't get you off the ground." (still talking about creationism)

To which you posted "An argument... Ever heard about the fine tuning argument?" An argument referring to the precision of nature’s physical constants. A feature that some say potentially points to a creator, which isn't an argument for creationism at all. You then continued on about creation.

Which forced me to reminded you that "

The subject isn't creation, but creationISM.

MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION

CreationISM, as a process that stands in opposition to biological evolution.​

Which you continue to reject in favor of what you want to argue. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

If you insist on ignoring that fundamental point I am making then there isn't much to work with to formulate an argument through the biological lens without talking about evolution which is a big part of biology, but here's one:

Of course I'm going to ignore the fundamental point you're making because it isn't relevant. You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble if in the beginning you would have simply said "I can't MAKE A CONVINCING CASE FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION" and left it at that.


.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

It was stated - correctly in my opinion - that ALL life can ONLY come from OTHER LIFE - and indeed in all instances we thus far know of, only something living can produce another living organism.. As said we simply can not make ORIGINAL life at all - are totally clueless as to how it happens - we can not bring back to life anything dead - and again science is totally clueless as to what life or death ACTUALLY is - ALL we CAN do is REPLCATE that WHICH ALREADY LIVES... Ergo we see that according to all the evidence available, that indeed life CAN only come from that which ALREADY LIVES

Working from this established fact of existance, we should then be able to work out this "missing element" that makes the difference BETWEEN life and death - and that missing element as explained IS THE MIND ITSELF - remove the mind completely from the body form and the body form dies permanantly - "loses its power supply" - literally so

(we even see this clearly in our nightly sleep cycles Folks)

MIND is the POWER that DRIVES THE CREATION - all creation on every level of creation from fully ABSTRACT none material through to fully "solid manifest world with lifeforms" - it is MIND that causes it all..

Skwim; Hmm - Am I arguing black it white..?...lol....This will confuse you then....lol...try to see and appreciate - that ACTUALLY black IS indeed white - two extremes of the SAME PHENOMENA ....Black can NOT exist WITHOUT white - and visa versa..The one element does not exist without the other element to define it and CAUSE it to be apparant...This is so with ALL phenomena you will ever encounter or experience - you can only ever HAVE that experience BECAUSE the other pole is there to DEFINE it for you...When you see something that is white, you DEFINE It AS white BECAUSE you have BLACK to compare it to...Take away either extreme and your ability to define the phenomena fails - this duality is once again a property of MIND and yes indeed ALL phenomena follow this dualistic arrangement of opposing extremes - yin and yang TOGETHER cause form ONE CONCEPT one WHOLE existance - black and white are indeed the SAME phenomena viewed form a different persepcetive is all

Let it sink in and try to appreciate it - then perhaps see after all - abiogenesis and evolution ARE likewise part of the SAME phenomena - fully integral to each other, fully dependant one upon the other - abiogenesis and the start of life COULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT ABSTRACT EVOLUTION (for sake of definiton) that forms atoms molecules and "solid matter - and this then becomes a "physical evolution" that fine tunes and details the organism so created... You may wish to try to define it as two seperate process - just as you imagine black is seperate from white - but Im sure eventually you will realise your error... The one aspect can not exist without the other - they CAUSE each other to become apparant...

CretionISM is valid and legitimate - the world you experience out there was called into Being BY a Primal Mind that we have termed Divine "god" - evolution also IS valid and legitimate - but - it is merely a TOOL that this Divine Mind had devised for it Self to help in this endeavour as it sets about reaching its fullest and most intimate understanding of Self...As said - it all comes from the abstract realms outside time and space as we experience it - which are purely the domain of a Mind - and the process drives forward to REPRODUCE that mind here in an individual manner and individual lifeform...THROUGH the DIRECT EXPERIENCES that all those individual streams / seeds of mind accumalate here in life, so the greater entity that IS mind itself - that IS Divine itself - attains and REALISES its deepest Self understanding,gains its crucial gnosis...It is all about this Primal Divine Mind and this gnosis it seeks...Human Beings are fully designed and created on purpose to seek out and come to understand the Divine - it is our purpose and intent for being here....Even science itself IS seeking the Divine, though they may not realise or admit it of course

Why do you need to insist that creationISM is in "opposition" to this physical evolution..?...On what do you base that assumption..??

And can you see that actually "evolution" was already happeneing BEFORE life began but in a a fully abstract manner...Evolution pushed quantum particle to fom atom to form molecule to form solid matter and REACH that stage where abiogeneis becomes possible....Do you see this ABSTRACT evolution..??..

if not then can YOU explain first - where DID all that "physical matter" even come from to begin with..?...Surely, thats the REAL CRUCIALquestion regarding all this isnt it..??..

 

[omega2xx]

.



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

* As in, convince the non-creationist.

That's all folks​

.

A creation needs a Creator---100's of processes that work the same way every time needs an Intelligent Designer. A system that works the same needs an Intelligent Designer.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The heavens are declaring the glory of God.

Science says matter cant create itself out of nothing.

Science says energy can't create itself out of nothing.

Science says life can't be produced from dead elements.

Science says an offspring can't receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of it parents.

Science says a nose can't become a blowhole.

Time will not change scientific laws.

Make a case for evolution using proven science.


I gave in and admitted that God was God---C.S. Lewis

 

[omega2xx]

A convincing case, or at least the appearance of one.


.

If it is convincing, why don't you accept it?

 

[omega2xx]

I realize this was two days ago, but I realize no one has made a response to your comment.

The fallacy in this is that we know who made these tools, and devices. We can go check the records for these vehicles, to see who made what, and when it happened. We have video footage of such creations. Do we have video footage for the creation of life and organic structures? Do we have records of a Creator God doing such things, besides a thousands-of-years old collection of scriptures, written by ancient scribes? Yet, we have fossil records, etc. to support evolution and the idea of abiogenesis.

You missed the analogy. The things mentioned did not create themselves, They all had an Intelligent designer. Matter, energy and life did not, can not, create itself, especially out of nothing. The things mentioned already had the necessary elements to finish the job.

You have no fossils to support abiogenesis. In fact there can be no fossil for the first life form---DUUH. You have no fossils of what evolution use to clams was the first life form. Even to of you best know fossilest, claim their are not intermediate fossils---Whenever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear suddenly not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates---Ernst Mayer. Gould says basically the same thing. You don't even know what the first life form was or what it evolved into. Evolution is the poster child for 100+ years of unscientific guessing.

Also, I think you're forgetting that proteins, DNA, etc. at its current state right now is the result of millions and millions of years of evolutionary process. It wasn't just a snapping of fingers and POOF! Complex organic material!

You are ignoring the FACT that there is no evidence DNA has evolved, and their is no logical or scietific reason to think it has except to give those who have put their faith in Darwin, who lwas not a scientist, hope they have not believed in vain.

You also don't seem to know that DNA does not link species, it separates them.

If there was any finger snapping, nothing had no fingers until God created fingers. However "God SAID" and it happened.

I gave in and admitted that God was God---C.S. Lewis

 

[omega2xx]

How about a lack of evidence? And I mean "evidence" outside of personal faith.


.

You missed the analogy. None of the things mentioned created themselves. They were all created by an intelligent designer out of existing materials.

 

[omega2xx]

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

Originally The TOE included abiogenesis, but it became and embarrassment to them because they originally said, the first life form was a SIMPLE, one celled life form. Since DNA, science KNOWS no life form is simple,