Yes, but the claim that oxygen is formed inside stars comes from physics, not evlotionary biology. You seem to disagree with that also.
Ciao
- viole
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Challenge To All Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Yes, but the claim that oxygen is formed inside stars comes from physics, not evlotionary biology. You seem to disagree with that also.
Ciao
- viole
Well, then I address your unquoted claim that dead matter has no energy.
Do you think that things like plutonium are alive matter?
Ciao
- viole
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
I've got a few questions for you, too.
1. What witnesses were there when the first life form somehow "happened"?
2. What witnesses were there to see all of the life forms slowly change into totally other life forms?
You answer mine and then I'll answer yours.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Exactly. When something comes up that damages the theory of evolution it just simply gets removed from the theory. How convenient!
Do you know what the scientific odds are against abiogenesis happening on this planet?
Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288, or 1 chance in
1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!
Of course, if we had calculated using more realistic figures, the odds would be much, much lower.
http://www.benotconformed.org/odds-of-abiogenesis.htm
Skwim
Veteran Member
It's amusing how the some of the faithful can't help but delve into issues regarding evolution (or what they think are relevant issues regarding evolution) when specifically asked not to in order to.
MAKE A CONVINCING CASE FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION.
Not that this comes as any surprise, it's the reason I made the request: to see how long it would take them to go off track, and how far they would take it.
.
.
Last edited:
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Well, that's because you know the best evidence against evolution without a Creator is the impossibility of abiogenesis. Good try, dude.
You are missing the point. Of course I have bones because my parents had the gene for bones. Now evolution says the first life form was a single cell. Therefore it had no bone, no need for bones and no gene for bones. How did it ever produce a kid with bones?
No you don't see, You just said something silly hoping you are right---YOU AIN'T
I use real science's standard, not the fairy tale ones invented by evolutionists., and you have no evidence a fruit fly was ever anything other than a fruit fly and will NEVER produce anything other than a fruit fly---Now prove me wrong.
Things science has proved are proved because they cannot be falsified. "after their kind" is proven 1000's of times every day, and you can't falsify it. You don't have the ability to say my education is lacking. It is your inability to refute what I says and provide the evidence for what you say, that is ALWAYS the default position of evolutionists. When you evos can't make your point you always turn to insults. It reminds me of the playground in the 3rd grade.
After their kind , which has been scientifically proven, refutes any theology that says an A can evolve into a B.
The only claim I am making is that after their kind is not a theory. It happens ever day 1000's of times.
You don't even understand that after their kind IS NOT SAMPLING. It is 100% observable.
I worked in statistical sampling for over 30 years. I understand it, you don't, or you would not make such an ignorant statement.
It is amazing and amusing that those who think hey are so intelligent, can't understand a simple fact. The false prophets of Darwin, have given them the kool-ade of evolution and they drank it and ask for more, but the next glass will not taste as good as the first one.
You may be right but your problem is how did these stars originate to produce the oxygen. Since oxygen is in our atmosphere, when God created the heavens, oxygen came into being. If stars produce oxygen, that is God's way to keep the air we breath at the correct level. Do you think stars could do that on their own? It seems like we need an Intelligent Designer to get it right every day.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Kelly is taking too long and I'm interested in seeing your responses - so here you go.
Your next question is either going to be "Then how do you know..." or you'll call into the question the ability of a person to verify anything that they did not directly observe. The problem, though, is that any claim that you make about History will fall into the same trap that you're attempting to catch someone else in. And given that your entire faith system is based on non-verified historical scenarios, that poses an equal problem for your position and for your claims.
How do you know that you weren't born yesterday, fully matured with thoughts and memories already implanted in you by a "creator" mad-scientist. If you're fully honest with yourself, you don't know that this is not your reality. (It's called Last Thursdayism.) Good luck refuting it.
But to answer the question, no one.
You're coming at this one form the same angle as the one before, are you not? If you want to pretend that something which can't be directly observed cannot be proven to have happened, then all murderers who are currently in prison based on nothing but things like physical evidence need to be set free. Isn't that fair, using your logic here? I mean, sure there's evidence which got them convicted, but no one was there to actually observe the killing. So how do we really KNOW that anyone is guilty of anything done in secret?
No one.
Your next question is either going to be "Then how do you know..." or you'll call into the question the ability of a person to verify anything that they did not directly observe. The problem, though, is that any claim that you make about History will fall into the same trap that you're attempting to catch someone else in. And given that your entire faith system is based on non-verified historical scenarios, that poses an equal problem for your position and for your claims.
How do you know that you weren't born yesterday, fully matured with thoughts and memories already implanted in you by a "creator" mad-scientist. If you're fully honest with yourself, you don't know that this is not your reality. (It's called Last Thursdayism.) Good luck refuting it.
I'll let it slide that you've, once again, misrepresented evolutionary claims and shown ignorance or the evolutionary process.
But to answer the question, no one.
You're coming at this one form the same angle as the one before, are you not? If you want to pretend that something which can't be directly observed cannot be proven to have happened, then all murderers who are currently in prison based on nothing but things like physical evidence need to be set free. Isn't that fair, using your logic here? I mean, sure there's evidence which got them convicted, but no one was there to actually observe the killing. So how do we really KNOW that anyone is guilty of anything done in secret?
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Oh my god, please keep going down this avenue of conversation!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis
How many years have you spent debunking Cosmological literature?
Well, there is no evidence of that. Heavier elements like oxygen did not exist until the bigger stars synthesized it in their cores and released it when they exploded. And that happened much later after the Universe (or the heavens) were in place. Physics says that only hydrogen, helium and a bit of other light elements existed before the first stars formed. No oxygen, no gold, no iron, no carbon, no water, no planets etc.
And that (star formation, oxygen synthesys, explosion of the star) must have necessarily happened before that oxygen made it to our athmosphere, via plants or whatever else. And before the first drop of water could exist. And before the first rock could exist.
That is the case for all heavier elements we, and the planet, are made of. Carbon, iron, silicon, you name it.
So, this is what physics tells us. Do you see any possible reconciliation with the accounts on the Bible, assuming you take literally what it is written in it?
If not, then biology and evolution should be the last of your concerns.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
See, you can't even explain your inability to MAKE A CONVINCING CASE FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION without concocting irrelevancies to dump on. You have my condolences.
.
.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Please show your math.
Including an explanation as to why you chose the numbers you chose.
Or, since I am fairly certain you have not done any of the math yourself, please link to where you got your numbers.
Really -- and you consider this wisdom?
What do you suppose the "scientific odds that you would exist on this planet" in precisely the way you do at this moment? Hugely less than the odds you give for abiogenesis.
And yet, surprise, surprise -- here you are!
The laughable attempts made to try to justify stuff you simply are incapable of grasping just floors me --- but I suppose it's easier than actually learning anything.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Same old same old.
Claim CB010:
The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. (See also Primitive cells arising by chance.)
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.
Response:
- The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
- The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
- The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
- The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
References:
- Spotts, Peter N. 2001. Raw materials for life may predate Earth's formation. The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 30, 2001. http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/01/30/fp2s2-csm.shtml
Animore
Active Member
Exactly. You are not reading it. You give no care to learn more about the points I am presenting. And you complain about the theories that I subscribe to being unscientific.
It doesn't matter. No element without the basic elements, plural, of life can produce life. I am going to guess that plutonium is a lifeless element.
You finally got something right---your points are unscientific so why should I want to learn more about your opinions? Present a point with some evidence, and I will reconsider.
You have not provided any evidence to support what you say. That makes then unscientific. FYI, rejecting what you say is not complaining. I will only complain if I have to accept one of your opinions I don't like, and that I don't have to do.
I will take your word for that, but it is irrelevant until you know the origin of oxygen and it is not from starts. God created the heavens before He created the stars. Our heavens contain oxygen. Oxygen cannot create itself. The oxygen created by stars, keeps the oxygen we need to maintain our life. Ain't God a wonderful Intelligent Designer to know how to do that. Do you really think our level of oxygen is an accident?