A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

You are making an assertion which is fallacy.

No it isn't.

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.

You have made a lot of claim an have not supported them so are they also irrelevant?

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

Since you did not present any supporting evidence, that statement is irrelevant.

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.

What is more likely to be eternal, God or matter?

Opinions can be dismissed that are unsupported.

That is why I dismiss all of yours.

Assertion, nothing more

That's fine as long as you apply the same standard to your assertions.

Rhetoric which is useless.

Including yours.

 

[Shad]

No it isn't.

Yes you have as you have not bother to identify a cause you just assume it.

You have made a lot of claim an have not supported them so are they also irrelevant?

I have made no claim that is not backed by academia and has been for decades.

Since you did not present any supporting evidence, that statement is irrelevant.

No that would make it unsupported not irrelevant. Irrelevant is when a topic has no connection with another. Use a dictionary. If you want evidence enroll in a few biology courses at university as you wil;l learn about the evidence, learn how to make inferences and conclusion regarding the data we have. You will then learn to create models which explain the data

What is more likely to be eternal, God or matter?

Matter as we have evidence that matter exists. However this does nothing to resolve your acceptance of "Everything has a cause"

That is why I dismiss all of yours.

Mine isn't an opinion. I am communicating knowledge that you do not have.

That's fine as long as you apply the same standard to your assertions.

I made no assertions.

Including yours.

No, try again son.

 

[viole]

IMO we have 2 possibilities; either God is eternal or matter is.

Matter has the advantage of having evidence to exist.

Also IMO, it is more logical to believe God is the answer.

Which God? Apollo? There are so many. And if you had evidence that only one is true, because of miracles or whatever, why do you need cosmology at all to justify your faith in that one?

Even if matter is eternal, lifeless elements cannot produce life.

You forgot to say "IMO".

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.

I don't need to postulate that life is eternal, since I have no problem to imagine life arising from lifeless things, as you would call them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[omega2xx]

Yes you have as you have not bother to identify a cause you just assume it.

The fact that I don't know the cause, does not mean there was not one. We have oxygen in our atmosphere. That is a fact. Do you know its cause?


Not true. If I have a lifeless element in my hand, it had to have had a cause. Whether I know the cause or irrelevant. Lifeless elements have no creative ability. They are dead. Now tell me what the dead can do.

I have made no claim that is not backed by academia and has been for decades.

Nothing you have said is backed up by real science.

How can I know if you do not present the claims they make.
Besides making a claim is a far cry for proving it. Evolution makes 100's of claims and they have yet to scientifically prove anyone of them

No that would make it unsupported not irrelevant. Irrelevant is when a topic has no connection with another. Use a dictionary. If you want evidence enroll in a few biology courses at university as you wil;l learn about the evidence, learn how to make inferences and conclusion regarding the data we have. You will then learn to create models which explain the data

IOW you can't produce any real evidence. All you can do, is parrot the usual evo rhetoric. What you need is a very basic course in genetics.

Matter as we have evidence that matter exists. However this does nothing to resolve your acceptance of "Everything has a cause"
OK, then explain how matter came into existence.

Mine isn't an opinion. I am communicating knowledge that you do not have.

That is your assertion. If you don't provide any evidence for the knowledge, it remains only you assertion. What knowledge do you have that I don't?

I made no assertions.

That is amusing since you just made a statement for which you have no evidence. Your whole premise is that since I reject evolution, I don't understand it. That is an assertion, because I understand it much better than you have shown so far.

How ever lets look at some statement and if you provided any evidence, I missed it.

Let me remind you of some things you have said but did not offer any evidence.

“We do not know everything abut the universe.” While that is probably true, you can't provide the evidence to support it,

You said I ask you to do something. I haven't.

You said “we have to know the cause, otherwise it is an assertion. Again no supporting evidence. You said I have made an assertion which is a fallacy. Again, no evidence, only your assertion.


Mentioning God as a special pleading that explains the creation. I did not do that. I mentioned a Creator is the most logical answer to the questions of beginnings.

So to be honest, play by your own rules.

If I have previously replied too this post, and I may have, just ignore this one.

 

[omega2xx]

Matter has the advantage of having evidence to exist.

The question is how did matter come into existence.

Which God? Apollo? There are so many. And if you had evidence that only one is true, because of miracles or whatever, why do you need cosmology at all to justify your faith in that one?

There is only 1 God; there are many gods. If you want to know about any of the gods, go to the library and look in the fiction section.

You forgot to say "IMO".

It wasn't necessary.

I don't need to postulate that life is eternal, since I have no problem to imagine life arising from lifeless things, as you would call them.

I did not call them that , real science did and it acknowledges, life cannot originate from non-life. Real science does not work from imagination. That is the arena of evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with DNA either, simple self-replicators existed before DNA, so DNA is also a process of evolution.

Not true. DNA is the main element in life. Since all living thing we know of have DNA, it is logical to consider that t he first life did also.

Anyway, the simple cell abiogenesis talks about didn't have any sort of nucleic acid based replication at all, and don't resemble any simple life that exists today.

Since you have no idea what that cell was, or what it evolved into, your statement is just another wild guess the evolutionist had to make to give the faithful hope they have not believed in vain. Since the discovery of DNA, we KNOW no cell is simple.

The problem with what creationists have a problem with is they very rarely take the time to actually read what the science is about. Choosing instead to stick with strawman or thoroughly out of date science education as if you could criticize neuroscience with phrenology.

The trouble with most evolutionist is they do not require scientific evidence that supports their opinions. That makes them gullible. I stick to the basics which even a cave man can understand. You don't even understand the basics of genetics, which refute evolution.

Evolutionist call everything a strawman when they can't support their opinions with scientific evidence,

FYI, there are creation scientist who are far more qualified than you are who reject evolution.

 

[Shad]

The fact that I don't know the cause, does not mean there was not one.

Doesn't mean there is a cause either

We have oxygen in our atmosphere. That is a fact. Do you know its cause?

Plants, volcanism, and plate tectonics.

Not true. If I have a lifeless element in my hand, it had to have had a cause.

This is an assumption, nothing more

Whether I know the cause or irrelevant.

It matters.

Lifeless elements have no creative ability. They are dead. Now tell me what the dead can do.

\]

Irrelevant question and points.

Nothing you have said is backed up by real science.

Such as? Empty claim

How can I know if you do not present the claims they make.
Besides making a claim is a far cry for proving it. Evolution makes 100's of claims and they have yet to scientifically prove anyone of them

Take a few biology course at a university level.

IOW you can't produce any real evidence. All you can do, is parrot the usual evo rhetoric. What you need is a very basic course in genetics.

Yawn. Genetics has support evolution for decades. You are out of date.

 

[omega2xx]

DNA isn't a process, the evolution of DNA from simpler self-replicating peptides and protein synthesis is a process.

There is no scientific evidence to support that opinion.

Secondly, saying that all living things have DNA must mean that the original things had DNA is silly,

Not unless you have evidence it did not have DNA, and real science says all living thing, with few exceptions have DNA. Do really think DNA could evolve from what is less complex?

like saying that there is no super continent today means there never was, when that's clearly not the case.

Land masses do not operate on biological principles. They do not evolve.

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.

I could fin not site that says it is a proven fact that RNA preceded DNA. They all used words like, "seems" 'It is possible," "one possible solution," etc. No definite statements.


www.dnaftb.org/26/ said RNA was an intermeditary. Now if that is true, DNA had to come first.

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.

Irrelevant since you have no idea what the first life form was and no evidence it did not have DNA.

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.

I have not made up anything. I just keep reminding you that you have no evidence to support what you say. you are trying to somethng as fact that science does not say has been proven. That is worse than making up something.

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.

I expect the usual snide remarks when the person can't defend their position scientifically. Did you learn to do that on the playground in the third grade? Evolution did include abiogenensis originally, but when the had not real evidence to support the original guess(single, simple cell)they separated the 2.

And less than 30% of Christians world wide have any problem with evolution. Young-Earth creationism is an outdated, outmoded and quickly disappearing phenomenon.

Another irrelevant statement made when evolutionist can't defend the guesses of evolution. They always bring in religion, even when the other person does not. Let's stick to the subject---science.

 

[omega2xx]

Doesn't mean there is a cause either

Planets, volcanism, and plate tectonics.

Get serious. None of those things can produce oxygen. This is an assumption, nothing more and not eve a good one.

Take a few biology course at a university level.

Take your own advise, but make sure it includes the laws of genetics.

Yawn. Genetics has support evolution for decades. You are out of date.

Just another of your assumptions and also not a good one . If anything genetics and the fossil record supports "after their kind." That is proven thousand of times every day and it can't be falsified.

 

[viole]

The question is how did matter come into existence.

What do you mean with matter? Things wth positive energy?

There is only 1 God; there are many gods. If you want to know about any of the gods, go to the library and look in the fiction section.

Mmh. I tried. They are all under the "religions" section. Including yours, whatever that is.

It wasn't necessary.

Fine. What about this one, then: there is no god!

I did not call them that , real science did and it acknowledges, life cannot originate from non-life. Real science does not work from imagination. That is the arena of evolution.

What is real science? Anything that does not contradict an ancient book written by goat herders?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The fact that I don't know the cause, does not mean there was not one. We have oxygen in our atmosphere. That is a fact. Do you know its cause?

Yes, oxygen, like all heavier elements finds its origin in the core of massive stars and it is released when the star explodes.

By the way, oxygen is required for water. And therefore, water cannot predate the stars.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

Get serious. None of those things can produce oxygen. This is an assumption, nothing more and not eve a good one.

Plants actually do, you are horrible uneducated regarding photosynthesis. Volcanoes do release oxygen which is a fact you can easily confirm. Plate tectonics does as well as it releases various gases from within the Earth.

Take your own advise, but make sure it includes the laws of genetics.

Considering I have taken several university level biology courses and these do show the links with genetics and evolution your point is moot

https://www.sfu.ca/biology/undergrad.html

Just another of your assumptions and also not a good one .

Not at all as per the above.

If anything genetics and the fossil record supports "after their kind."

Not at all.

That is proven thousand of times every day and it can't be falsified.

This claim is not scientific as it is unfalsifable. This claim is inductive as it is based on a sampling thus can not be a universal claim. This claim does not contradict modern science as it accepts that species do reproduce....

 

[omega2xx]

What do you mean with matter? Things wth positive energy?

Most matter is dead. it has no positive energy. Matter consist of all inanimate materials.

>>Mmh. I tried. They are all under the "religions" section. Including yours, whatever that is.

Then take you pick and put your faith in the one you think has the best story.

Fine. What about this one, then: there is no god!

The heavens are declaring the glory of God---Psa 19a
The fool has said ind his heart, "there is no God." ---Psa 14:1a

What is real science? Anything that does not contradict an ancient book written by goat herders?

Real science works with proven facts to prove/disprove theories. I wonder why evolution is still in the theory category? Actually I don't wonder, I know. Too bad you don't.

It the OT was written by goat herders, and ignorant statement, they were very smart goat herders. Did you know that one of Cain's sons invented the forge? Could you make a forge? If not he must have been smarter than you are.

Another son invented the lyre, the pipe and music. Can you invent a musical instrument? If not he must have also been smarter than you are.

Those who think the ancient men were ignorant cave dwellers are the ignorant ones. They may not even be intelligent enough to herd goats/

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, oxygen, like all heavier elements finds its origin in the core of massive stars and it is released when the star explodes.
I doubt if that is true, but it is irrelevant unless you have evidence as to how the start came into being, and you don't have a clue.

By the way, oxygen is required for water. And therefore, water cannot predate the stars.

Ciao

- viole

Not true. When God created water, the water included oxygen.

 

[viole]

Most matter is dead. it has no positive energy. Matter consist of all inanimate materials.

What? i was talking of the energy you can measure in electronvolts.

Then take you pick and put your faith in the one you think has the best story.

Is that the criteria you use to pick faiths?

As for the rest: please make an effort to use the quote feature.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

So, biology is bad. Physics is bad, too.

Do you have a field of science that is OK for you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[omega2xx]

Plants actually do, you are horrible uneducated regarding photosynthesis. Volcanoes do release oxygen which is a fact you can easily confirm. Plate tectonics does as well as it releases various gases from within the Earth.

they do not produce the oxygen, they contain oxygen that is released. Oxygen originated in cyanobacteria, which makes the oxygen. Oxygen can't exist without those microbes. But that is how oxygen continues to exist. When God created teh heavens, they included oxygen.

Considering I have taken several university level biology courses and these do show the links with genetics and evolution your point is moot

Wonderful. Then you should be able to explain how the offspring of parents with no gene for bones in their gene pool l can ever have a kid with bones..

https://www.sfu.ca/biology/undergrad.html

I have quit reading evo links. They NEVER provide any scientific evidence. So prove me wrong and cut and paste the evidence that link provided.

This claim is not scientific as it is unfalsifable. This claim is inductive as it is based on a sampling thus can not be a universal claim. This claim does not contradict modern science as it accepts that species do reproduce....

Of course it is scientific. As I said, it is PROVEN 1000's of times every day. The fact that it is unfalsifiable, makes it true. It is not based on sampling, it is based on what can be observed 100% and is repeated every moment of every day.

 

[omega2xx]

What? i was talking of the energy you can measure in electronvolts.

Irrelevant. What is dead has no energy.

Is that the criteria you use to pick faiths?

As for the rest: please make an effort to use the quote feature.

Ciao

- viole

Sorry about the quote function. I use to belong to a forum for many years that used a different format and at times I use it automatically and forget to check my post.

 

[omega2xx]

So, biology is bad. Physics is bad, too.

Do you have a field of science that is OK for you?

Ciao

- viole

All science is good---Evolution is not science based.



Knowledge of physical science will not console me for ignorance of morality in time of affliction, but knowledge of morality will always console me for ignorance of physical science. Blaise Pascal

 

[Shad]

they do not produce the oxygen, they contain oxygen that is released.

Photosynthesis does as it separates it from co2. Beside you asked the cause of oxygen in the atmosphere. I provided the answer. You are moving the goal posts.

Oxygen originated in cyanobacteria, which makes the oxygen. Oxygen can't exist without those microbes. But that is how oxygen continues to exist. When God created teh heavens, they included oxygen.

No cyanobacteria produces oxygen via photosynthesis. Oxygen can exist without those microbes in many forms including co2 which is used in photosynthesis.

Wonderful. Then you should be able to explain how the offspring of parents with no gene for bones in their gene pool l can ever have a kid with bones..

This question is pure nonsense. You have the genes for bones as you are a human thus your child with have these genes as well.

I have quit reading evo links.

It is from a university.... Anti-education too I see...

They NEVER provide any scientific evidence. So prove me wrong and cut and paste the evidence that link provided.

They actually do just not to your petty standards. Look up evolution and fruitlfilies

Of course it is scientific.

No as nothing in science is unfalsifiable. Anything that is claimed is not science. This is a basic axiom of science. Your lack of education is acknowledged.

As I said, it is PROVEN 1000's of times every day.

So what this does nothing to undermine evolution and is basic observation any primitive could have done.

The fact that it is unfalsifiable, makes it true.

Merely claiming as such does not make it so. Sampling can not create a universal.

It is not based on sampling, it is based on what can be observed 100% and is repeated every moment of every day.

Yes it is as you said "1000s of times" thus this is a sampling of 1000s..... Do you know what sampling means? Again this does nothing to contradict evolution and only establishes the Bible contains observations anyone can make....