A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

No we don't as we do not know everything about the universe. Your statement is in error.

It is not an error. Nothing can produce itself.

 

[omega2xx]

False conclusion based on inductive reasoning thus can not be a universal statement. We know of cause as we discover the cause, we do not assume and call it a day.



False conclusion based on the errors point out above and previously. It seems absurd does not mean it is. Also you didn't read my comment but brought up a different subject. My point was about causeless effects not something creating itself from nothing.

Read what you reply to....

"All I needed to do was establish that an event has no known cause thus the claim that "all" events have a cause is in error. Besides you are asking me to prove a negative which I can not, nor anyone, do."

I haven't ask you to do anything. I have only made direct statements and we DO NOT need to know the cause if we have the object. We only need to know that if it exists, it has a cause. Nothing can produce itself.

 

[omega2xx]

Please explain to me oh wise one, how it's impossible. I'd love to see this.

It is very simple---dead elements can't be the source of life. Science even acknowledges that. Science has been trying to create life for years and they have the materials that make up life. They have failed. So how can you explain how it happened by accident.

We can also take another step back. It is impossible for matter to create it self out of nothing. That is a no-brainer. WE can say the same thing about energy.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You have absolute4ly no way of knowing that and it is illogical to say DNA is a process. It is illogical for us to KNOW, with few exceptions, that since all living things have DNA to suggest the first one did not.

DNA isn't a process, the evolution of DNA from simpler self-replicating peptides and protein synthesis is a process.
Secondly, saying that all living things have DNA must mean that the original things had DNA is silly, like saying that there is no super continent today means there never was, when that's clearly not the case. For a long time all living things with hearts only had three or less chambers. For a long time there were no polar ice caps. History is full of variance and DNA is no exception. We know RNA precedes DNA and we know self-replicating peptides precedes RNA.

First you have absolutely no evidence as to what the first life for was.

Other than the mentioned above, all of the hypercell and ur cell and montmorillanite clay experiments and common sense. Assuming that early cells had DNA is like assuming that sabertooth cats had scales. Just because we don't have skin imprints doesn't mean we can't understand how biologically that makes no sense.

Second no cell is simple, they are all complex because they all contain DNA and finally DNA is so complex, it could not have happened by accident. That would be like a strong wind blowing thru a junk yard and producing a Boeing 707.

Modern cells have DNA. Hyper cells and Ur cells do not, they don't even have a nucleus, cytoplasm and a cell wall (as we know it. More like a lipid bilayer). This is what I'm talking about strawmanning abiogenesis and evolution. You clearly don't have a working knowledge of what scientists are actually saying, so you make up something you think sounds implausible and then tear it down, neverminding that it's not actually representational of what's being claimed.

Every one in the public school system for the past 50 years has had the ToE pushed down our throats and if they went to college, the brain washing continued.

I wish you would have actually retained what you learned then, if you learned much at all.
Once again though, abiogenesis is not and has never been a part of evolutionary biology. Any more than the study of birds includes the study of insects. They're two entirely separate fields.
And less than 30% of Christians world wide have any problem with evolution. Young-Earth creationism is an outdated, outmoded and quickly disappearing phenomenon.

 

[omega2xx]

DNA isn't a process, the evolution of DNA from simpler self-replicating peptides and protein synthesis is a process.
Secondly, saying that all living things have DNA must mean that the original things had DNA is silly, like saying that there is no super continent today means there never was, when that's clearly not the case. For a long time all living things with hearts only had three or less chambers. For a long time there were no polar ice caps. History is full of variance and DNA is no exception. We know RNA precedes DNA and we know self-replicating peptides precedes RNA.

It is illogical to say the first life form did not have DNA since all life forms not have it. What cause the exception? As i said before, DNA is far to complex to have happened by accident. Name one thing in history that show there has been variances in DNA and the evidence that the first life form, which do not even have a clue what it was, did not have DNA. There are variances in the DNA of and ape and of a man. That is how we know man did not evolve from apes.

Other than the mentioned above, all of the hypercell and ur cell and montmorillanite clay experiments and common sense. Assuming that early cells had DNA is like assuming that sabertooth cats had scales. Just because we don't have skin imprints doesn't mean we can't understand how biologically that makes no sense.

Assuming the first life form did not have DNA, and every living thing since then does, is worse than asduming sabertooth cats had scales.

Modern cells have DNA. Hyper cells and Ur cells do not, they don't even have a nucleus, cytoplasm and a cell wall (as we know it. More like a lipid bilayer). This is what I'm talking about strawmanning abiogenesis and evolution. You clearly don't have a working knowledge of what scientists are actually saying, so you make up something you think sounds implausible and then tear it down, neverminding that it's not actually representational of what's being claimed.

What I KNOW, is that you have no way of knowing the first life form did not have DNA. I also KNOW that you do not have a clue as to what the first life form was and how it got here. Since you don't know what it was or what it became, you can't say dogmatically it did not have DNA.

I wish you would have actually retained what you learned then, if you learned much at all.
Once again though, abiogenesis is not and has never been a part of evolutionary biology. Any more than the study of birds includes the study of insects. They're two entirely separate fields.
And less than 30% of Christians world wide have any problem with evolution. Young-Earth creationism is an outdated, outmoded and quickly disappearing phenomenon.

Abiogenesis was once a part of tht evolutionary theory. Goggle "primordial soup."

When the evolutionists have painted themselves into a corner, they ALWAYS bring up religion. I have not mentioned it, so why do you? The subject is science, Stick to that. If you want to discuss religion, start a thread on it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It is illogical to say the first life form did not have DNA since all life forms not have it. What cause the exception? As i said before, DNA is far to complex to have happened by accident. Name one thing in history that show there has been variances in DNA and the evidence that the first life form, which do not even have a clue what it was, did not have DNA. There are variances in the DNA of and ape and of a man. That is how we know man did not evolve from apes.



Assuming the first life form did not have DNA, and every living thing since then does, is worse than asduming sabertooth cats had scales.




What I KNOW, is that you have no way of knowing the first life form did not have DNA. I also KNOW that you do not have a clue as to what the first life form was and how it got here. Since you don't know what it was or what it became, you can't say dogmatically it did not have DNA.



Abiogenesis was once a part of tht evolutionary theory. Goggle "primordial soup."

When the evolutionists have painted themselves into a corner, they ALWAYS bring up religion. I have not mentioned it, so why do you? The subject is science, Stick to that. If you want to discuss religion, start a thread on it.

I feel like I'm just going to repeat myself if we keep going, because you seem to be just restating things I've already answered.
Primordial soup isn't a part of evolution because evolution is about inheritable traits through replication and reproduction not how life initially formed, we already know RNA is older than DNA therefore there were cells without DNA and there are simpler self-replicators which don't require either, etc etc. If you really are interested in learning what abiogenesis is actually about, there's a really good (albeit slightly inflammatory) video that walks you through the steps of actual abiogenesis start here:
http://viewpure.com/v8nYTJf62sE?start=0&end=0

 

[Animore]

It is very simple---dead elements can't be the source of life. Science even acknowledges that. Science has been trying to create life for years and they have the materials that make up life. They have failed. So how can you explain how it happened by accident.

We can also take another step back. It is impossible for matter to create it self out of nothing. That is a no-brainer. WE can say the same thing about energy.

It is true that abiogensis covers life from non-life. It is not true that it covers life creating itself. Abiogenesis occurs, as far as my knowledge goes, when through a process of electrical and chemical reactions on inorganic material (which is random in nature) life is created. We think f life as special, and of course it is, but that does not mean it can not be created with a root of non-life.

Here's a link to a study on it (ha, study, as in the website and a literal study on it...I'll walk myself out)
http://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html

 

[Animore]

I have watched the film. It is interesting, although the gaps in knowledge of Big Bang Cosmology are large, and always will be.

Well, sure, I don't deny that. However, it is the most probable thing to have happened.

 

[viole]

The first thing you need to explain is how something created itself out of nothing.

Either your question has general validity or there are things for which the question is not applicable. In the latter case, your question is moot since I could tell you that the natural world, or the existence of something instead of nothing, is one of those things for which it is not applicable.

If it is the former, then you should also conclude that the God you believe in, whatever flavor of God you happen to believe in, created Himself out of nothing, since we can assume He did not have an external meta God who created Him.

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

Okay, so let's say that it is the creating of the material universe. Poof, there it is. Nothing. It's simple really. If there is nothing, there is no God at that time. It's a huge cop-out to say that he exists "beyond space and time." If He existed beyond space and time, He wouldn't be interacting with us now. (I'll also say that it's not biblical.)



It's a video running-down the pat Gods thought of, how it's contradictory to science to have believed in such Gods, how it's scientifically improbable to believe in a Biblical one, how a Big Bang can be possible, etc. It'll answer some of your questions.

If God created us, and I believe he did, there is every reason for him to interact with us; Especially because Jehovah loves us and wants us to enjoy a familial relationship with him as human sons and daughters. (Luke 3:38) Generally, I do not view videos or read linked material. If a point can be made, the poster should make it, IMO.

 

[omega2xx]

I feel like I'm just going to repeat myself if we keep going, because you seem to be just restating things I've already answered.
Primordial soup isn't a part of evolution because evolution is about inheritable traits through replication and reproduction not how life initially formed, we already know RNA is older than DNA therefore there were cells without DNA and there are simpler self-replicators which don't require either, etc etc. If you really are interested in learning what abiogenesis is actually about, there's a really good (albeit slightly inflammatory) video that walks you through the steps of actual abiogenesis start here:
http://viewpure.com/v8nYTJf62sE?start=0&end=0

You have no evidence that RNA is older than DNA. You assume that because you assume the first life for did not have DNA, an opinion i guess is not shared by most scientist.

I know what abiogenesis is and FYI, at one time it was included in the TOE. The primordial soup theory was introduced in 1924. That faulty idea did not mention how the soup or the sun that warmed the soup originated. Explaining the origin of matter, energy and life, is the great fly in the evolution ointment.

 

[omega2xx]

It is true that abiogensis covers life from non-life. It is not true that it covers life creating itself. Abiogenesis occurs, as far as my knowledge goes, when through a process of electrical and chemical reactions on inorganic material (which is random in nature) life is created. We think f life as special, and of course it is, but that does not mean it can not be created with a root of non-life.

Here's a link to a study on it (ha, study, as in the website and a literal study on it...I'll walk myself out)
http://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html

 

[omega2xx]

Either your question has general validity or there are things for which the question is not applicable. In the latter case, your question is moot since I could tell you that the natural world, or the existence of something instead of nothing, is one of those things for which it is not applicable.

If it is the former, then you should also conclude that the God you believe in, whatever flavor of God you happen to believe in, created Himself out of nothing, since we can assume He did not have an external meta God who created Him.

Ciao

- viole

IMO we have 2 possibilities; either God is eternal or matter is. Also IMO, it is more logical to believe God is the answer. Even if matter is eternal, lifeless elements cannot produce life. Of course you can include energy and life as also being eternal, bu the more you add to the theory, the less likely is is to be true.

 

[Shad]

It is not an error. Nothing can produce itself.

Yes it is as you do not have the data to support it.

I haven't ask you to do anything.

Irrelevant

I have only made direct statements and we DO NOT need to know the cause if we have the object.

We need to know the cause to claim as cause otherwise it is an assertion.

We only need to know that if it exists, it has a cause. Nothing can produce itself.

Same error again. Besides I can easily take your own claim and place it on to God. God needs a cause if God exists.

 

[omega2xx]

Well, sure, I don't deny that. However, it is the most probable thing to have happened.

It is not unless your can explain the origin of the matter that went bang, and you can't.

 

[omega2xx]

It is true that abiogensis covers life from non-life. It is not true that it covers life creating itself.

It may not says that directly, but unless matter in the universe is eternal, it certainly implies it created created itself and that out of lifeless elements.

Abiogenesis occurs, as far as my knowledge goes, when through a process of electrical and chemical reactions on inorganic material (which is random in nature) life is created. We think f life as special, and of course it is, but that does not mean it can not be created with a root of non-life.

That process was tried and failed and they did not have to start with nothing.

Here's a link to a study on it (ha, study, as in the website and a literal study on it...I'll walk myself out)
http://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html

I an not going to read it, but I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut hole they do not offer any scientiic evidence. I wonder why.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You have no evidence that RNA is older than DNA. You assume that because you assume the first life for did not have DNA, an opinion i guess is not shared by most scientist.

I know what abiogenesis is and FYI, at one time it was included in the TOE. The primordial soup theory was introduced in 1924. That faulty idea did not mention how the soup or the sun that warmed the soup originated. Explaining the origin of matter, energy and life, is the great fly in the evolution ointment.

No, we know RNA is older than DNA both because it contains coding information older than DNA, because of riboswitchitching, basal morphology and genetic coding to acting as genomic material for organisms older than DNA material, uracil converting to thymine to RNA cutting. None of which you know about, but will still claim isn't true despite that pretty much every geneticist and biologist will tell you the same thing.
Which again, is why I'm not feeling disposed to continue this conversation. You just restate claims already rebutted when it's clear you haven't actually done the research or even listen to the rebuttles.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You have no evidence that RNA is older than DNA. You assume that because you assume the first life for did not have DNA, an opinion i guess is not shared by most scientist.

I know what abiogenesis is and FYI, at one time it was included in the TOE. The primordial soup theory was introduced in 1924. That faulty idea did not mention how the soup or the sun that warmed the soup originated. Explaining the origin of matter, energy and life, is the great fly in the evolution ointment.

DNA is 2 strips of RNA held together by hydrogen bonds.(well this isn't 100% true but its a simplified answer to a more complex explanation) For there to be a wall there must be bricks.

Abiogensis is deeply connected to TOE. In fact the study of the earliest forms of life as we make the transition from complex replicating protiens into what it is exactly we define as "life" would no doubt be under the theory of evolution. Though it might be far more correct to say that there is no singular theory of evolution but rather it is a complex super theory comprised of many other theories that link together to form what we know of as The Theory of Evolution. The beginings of how these early chemical compounds began wouldn't be the theory of evolution but more physics and chemistry. But it is that leap from inorganic to organic to bio that is the theory of abiogensis.

The origin of matter and energy is in fact totally seperate from the TOE. The big bang is a different theory all together so it isn't any kind of blight or shortcoming of evolution. We even clearly know the steps between the big bang theory and the creation of the necessary elements as well as the birth of our planet. All of which comes after the big bang but before life.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes it is as you do not have the data to support it.

Right , but I have logic. If I have rock in my hand, it did not create itself. Inanimate objects do not have creative ability, they are dead.

Irrelevant

If you make a statement, it is relevant.

We need to know the cause to claim as cause otherwise it is an assertion.

Not true. I have the rock but knowing its cause is irrelevant.

Same error again. Besides I can easily take your own claim and place it on to God. God needs a cause if God exists.

Right, but God or matter must be eternal. IMO a creation needs a Creator.. Also the processes we know could not have happened randomly. That requires an Intelligent designer. Chaos cannot the the father of order.

 

[Shad]

Right , but I have logic. If I have rock in my hand, it did not create itself. Inanimate objects do not have creative ability, they are dead.

You are making an assertion which is fallacy.

If you make a statement, it is relevant.

You stated you didn't ask me for anything. I said that such a question or even bring up such a point is irrelevant as you must support your claims. This is your burden of proof.

Not true. I have the rock but knowing its cause is irrelevant.

If you do not know the cause then you are asserting a cause without justification.

Right, but God or matter must be eternal.

Special pleading. If everything has a cause then you can not opt-out for the sake of your God. This makes the statement in error.

IMO a creation needs a Creator..

Opinions can be dismissed that are unsupported.

Also the processes we know could not have happened randomly.

Assertion, nothing more

That requires an Intelligent designer.

Assertion based on the previous assertion

Chaos cannot the the father of order.

Rhetoric which is useless.