For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[shmogie]

Instead of digressing with a ridiculous straw man argument, why not simply refrain from posting if you're incapable of answering the question posed by the OP? It would be appreciated if you didn't cover the cheeseboard in pigeon poop.

But you seem to love to eat from that cheeseboard. I have seen you spread a lot of poop yourself.

 

[shmogie]

When attacked self reference is often necessary. I am starting a new thread that will hopefully draw off this detour.

EDIT: Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

Where is it ?

 

[shmogie]

The departing point in our biological evolution was the cell. The cell evolved from the union of molecules, i.e. from dead matter. Molecules in turn evolved from the union of atoms. Atoms are the smallest form of dust. Dust invisible to the human eye. In fact, Astrophysicists call the atoms they find in Galaxies (between stars) Atomic Dust.

The problem is not the statement that God made man from dust, the problem is the religious text that gives the impression that such process was "sudden" (one step from dust to man) as if God is a supernatural "Magician" suddenly turning dust into man. This kind of statement makes incredible the religious text proposing them, highlighting a problem with the historic conservation and transmission of such text. And, unfortunately, it is exactly in such respect that some (not all) religions manifest layers of historical corruption in transmission.

Such corruption does not, however, negate the existence of God as the Divine Source (the Absolute Origin and System) underlying all our cosmic and biological evolution. Yet, this is a different topic.

All you have to do is prove your contentions, that';s all. Don't try, you will be wasting your time, it can;'t be done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is it ?

Wow! The link is even in your quote of my post.

Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you have to do is prove your contentions, that';s all. Don't try, you will be wasting your time, it can;'t be done.

Too bad that your knowledge of abiogenesis is about 50 years out of date. Why do you think that it cannot be done?

At any rate the discussion was evolution. Moving the goalposts to abiogenesis is a tacit admission that the theory of evolution is correct. I am sure that you do not want to do that.

 

[shmogie]

In this thread, I am not interested in abiogenesis, nor in evolution. I am just interested in what evidences you would have for creation.

Even if abiogenesis get debunked, it doesn’t mean the biblical creation is “true” by default. It just mean abiogenesis is “wrong”, but doesn’t make creation of Adam “right”.

The only way you can demonstrate Adam’s creation, is to show evidences. All you have done is declared your personal belief that god is all-powerful. That’s not evidences, just your faith and your piety.

Saying God can do anything he wishes, is not really much of answer, nor is that evidence to what you may believe.

It sounds more like wishful thinking.

It would be like believing that genie can do anything with 3 wishes?

Again, I would ask again, is it possible to turn soil into flesh and bones?

Other than the bible (or the Qur’ān), are there any evidence of that happening?

Or is Adam‘s creation simply a story, like the gods turning Pygmalion’s life-like marble statue into a living woman, Galatea.

Lets go right back to the beginning. Is it possible for nothing to create something ? Yet something, everything, exists and was created. So you must accept either everything came from nothing, or God created everything. From mans perspective, seemingly absurd with adherents to both absurdities. If one believes God can create whatever he chooses from whatever he chooses, the answer to your question is glaringly obvious. If, on the other hand you accept the other absurdity, that everything created itself from nothing, then by the standard model we are descended from rocks, a cooled volcanic planet inundated with rain, caused our ancestors to shed microscopic and larger portions of themselves into a sea where etc., etc., etc.

In essence you want to poke fun at the Biblical account, so couch it in a pseudo serious question to do so.

Either you accept one absurdity or the other, or neither, and say " I don't know !" If you don't don't, then I am sure you laugh at both possibilities, and decry the creation of people from rocks as much as you do their creation from soil.

If you accept one of the two possibilities, and find the other stupid, ignorant, and fantasy, I heartily assure you that those on the other side, just as intelligent as you, find your position to be exactly the same.

Much effort is made to laugh at Biblical creation, but the other possibility is just as laughable. Just as incomprehensible, just as full of magic and hocus pocus, just as utterly absurd.

So, you are descended from rock or soil, there is no escaping that, and you really have no reason to laugh and poke fun, glass houses and all that.

Pick an absurdity, any absurdity ( out of two, not 52) and I bet I can guess the one you picked.

 

[shmogie]

Too bad that your knowledge of abiogenesis is about 50 years out of date. Why do you think that it cannot be done?

At any rate the discussion was evolution. Moving the goalposts to abiogenesis is a tacit admission that the theory of evolution is correct. I am sure that you do not want to do that.

blah, blah, blah., You have no idea of the extent of my knowledge of abiogenesis. Just more accusatory hot air.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All 11 are necessary for life.

Composition of the human body - Wikipedia
Composition of the human body - Wikipedia"

Its not the literal dust or soil.....but the elements of the earth itself.

Good there is one full intelligent and answer. True, all those make up the human body and life. My question would be, since there is no childbirth involved, in what way did the combination of these things created an embryo and sperm into a full adult without physical care and nuishment for survival?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Lets go right back to the beginning. Is it possible for nothing to create something ? Yet something, everything, exists and was created. So you must accept either everything came from nothing, or God created everything. From mans perspective, seemingly absurd with adherents to both absurdities. If one believes God can create whatever he chooses from whatever he chooses, the answer to your question is glaringly obvious. If, on the other hand you accept the other absurdity, that everything created itself from nothing, then by the standard model we are descended from rocks, a cooled volcanic planet inundated with rain, caused our ancestors to shed microscopic and larger portions of themselves into a sea where etc., etc., etc.

In essence you want to poke fun at the Biblical account, so couch it in a pseudo serious question to do so.

Either you accept one absurdity or the other, or neither, and say " I don't know !" If you don't don't, then I am sure you laugh at both possibilities, and decry the creation of people from rocks as much as you do their creation from soil.

If you accept one of the two possibilities, and find the other stupid, ignorant, and fantasy, I heartily assure you that those on the other side, just as intelligent as you, find your position to be exactly the same.

Much effort is made to laugh at Biblical creation, but the other possibility is just as laughable. Just as incomprehensible, just as full of magic and hocus pocus, just as utterly absurd.

So, you are descended from rock or soil, there is no escaping that, and you really have no reason to laugh and poke fun, glass houses and all that.

Pick an absurdity, any absurdity ( out of two, not 52) and I bet I can guess the one you picked.

Let me ask directly.

Creation from god does not depend on our belief no matter how much you think its absurd. We should be able to find a connection and some evidence that leads to god without needing to follow any spiritual faith to do so; facts are independent of religious belief.

Setting aside who is right and who is ignorant, can you explain how life of a human being came from nothing or dirt?

All life came from the water not land. If creation from god is a fact, you should be able to explain the logistics of it. You should be able to translate the bible insofar to support facts not your individual faith.

Facts are independent of ones knowledge and belief.

Can you explain the fact god created humans?

If not, why would you be less ignorant than the rest of us when we both cant answer the question you believe?....

Whats the logic of believing in something you cant explain nor varify as fact?​

 

[Subduction Zone]

blah, blah, blah., You have no idea of the extent of my knowledge of abiogenesis. Just more accusatory hot air.

Wrong again. You have demonstrated your ignorance several times. As usual you appear to be projecting your flaws upon others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets go right back to the beginning. Is it possible for nothing to create something ? Yet something, everything, exists and was created. So you must accept either everything came from nothing, or God created everything. From mans perspective, seemingly absurd with adherents to both absurdities. If one believes God can create whatever he chooses from whatever he chooses, the answer to your question is glaringly obvious. If, on the other hand you accept the other absurdity, that everything created itself from nothing, then by the standard model we are descended from rocks, a cooled volcanic planet inundated with rain, caused our ancestors to shed microscopic and larger portions of themselves into a sea where etc., etc., etc.

In essence you want to poke fun at the Biblical account, so couch it in a pseudo serious question to do so.

Either you accept one absurdity or the other, or neither, and say " I don't know !" If you don't don't, then I am sure you laugh at both possibilities, and decry the creation of people from rocks as much as you do their creation from soil.

If you accept one of the two possibilities, and find the other stupid, ignorant, and fantasy, I heartily assure you that those on the other side, just as intelligent as you, find your position to be exactly the same.

Much effort is made to laugh at Biblical creation, but the other possibility is just as laughable. Just as incomprehensible, just as full of magic and hocus pocus, just as utterly absurd.

So, you are descended from rock or soil, there is no escaping that, and you really have no reason to laugh and poke fun, glass houses and all that.

Pick an absurdity, any absurdity ( out of two, not 52) and I bet I can guess the one you picked.

Talk to a physicist. This is their area of expertise and it seems that nothing can produce something. Don't as me how, I can give you some simpler examples. Of course you won't even properly define "nothing". But thanks for moving the goalposts again. Now you have essentially admitted not only evolution, but abiogensis, stellar formation the nuclear hypothesis, the list goes on adn on.

And by avoiding the subject of this thread you admit there is no evidence for your beliefs either. You are your own worst enemy in this debate.

 

[shmogie]

Talk to a physicist. This is their area of expertise and it seems that nothing can produce something. Don't as me how, I can give you some simpler examples. Of course you won't even properly define "nothing". But thanks for moving the goalposts again. Now you have essentially admitted not only evolution, but abiogensis, stellar formation the nuclear hypothesis, the list goes on adn on.

And by avoiding the subject of this thread you admit there is no evidence for your beliefs either. You are your own worst enemy in this debate.

Correct, there is no evidence that is sufficient to convince anyone that God exists, and created all there is, if they choose to evaluate the evidence differently than I do. Ditto for atheist evidence for creation, convincing me. the best models, the BB and or string theory, are based on faith, nothing more. The current second best model, which can be integrated in some peoples eyes with string theory is the idea of multiple dimensions. This fits well with the Biblical idea of a whole plethora of beings that exist, unseen or perceived by humans, but again, theory, nothing more.

To make it clear, I have stated numerous times, that there is no proof of God or his creating the universe. just as there is proof for any of the popular ideas of secular creation, it ain't there. What's wrong with you, can't you read ? You and others believe in abiogenisis, evolution, something created from nothing ( yes I can define physical nothing, more of your mindless blathering s, OF COURSE you must always denigrate, because of your self doubt and insecurity) These are theories I categorically reject, FAIRY TALES. Clear enough for even you I think. Maybe.

I never mentioned abiogenesis or evolution in my last post, I just said etc., etc. YOU brought them up. Don't. Stay with the OP !

 

[Father Heathen]

But you seem to love to eat from that cheeseboard. I have seen you spread a lot of poop yourself.

So you're saying that I would make a good pastor? Any positions available at your church?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct, there is no evidence that is sufficient to convince anyone that God exists, and created all there is, if they choose to evaluate the evidence differently than I do. Ditto for atheist evidence for creation, convincing me. the best models, the BB and or string theory, are based on faith, nothing more. The current second best model, which can be integrated in some peoples eyes with string theory is the idea of multiple dimensions. This fits well with the Biblical idea of a whole plethora of beings that exist, unseen or perceived by humans, but again, theory, nothing more.

To make it clear, I have stated numerous times, that there is no proof of God or his creating the universe. just as there is proof for any of the popular ideas of secular creation, it ain't there. What's wrong with you, can't you read ? You and others believe in abiogenisis, evolution, something created from nothing ( yes I can define physical nothing, more of your mindless blathering s, OF COURSE you must always denigrate, because of your self doubt and insecurity) These are theories I categorically reject, FAIRY TALES. Clear enough for even you I think. Maybe.

I never mentioned abiogenesis or evolution in my last post, I just said etc., etc. YOU brought them up. Don't. Stay with the OP !

You keep getting angry when I point out your ignorance but you once again made errors that can only be attributed to either ignorance or dishonesty in this post of yours. Science is based upon evidence. The request of the thread is for evidence, not "proof".

There is no evidence for creation. Or to put it more correctly, no creationist has come up with any evidence for their version of the origin of man in this thread. But your shortcomings are not the shortcoming of scientists. Their beliefs are evidence based. Their theories are testable. Which is why almost anyone will explain string theory is not a proper scientific theory yet. It has not been tested. The Big Bang theory has been tested. It is falsifiable. There is evidence for the theory of evolution, mountains of scientific evidence. Creationists are afraid to put their beliefs into a testable form since they keep being shown to be wrong when they do that. There is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. Not enough to lift it to the level of a theory yet because there are still some unanswered problems.

Instead of looking for "proof" it is better to be looking for evidence.

And I am sure that you mentioned abiogenesis before I did. I will take a look back and see who brought it up first. It does not matter what you said in your previous post, if you did not correct a past error that claim of yours still hangs over your head.

ETA: Earlier you made this claim:

"Lets go right back to the beginning. Is it possible for nothing to create something ?"

You went on to try to imply that was not possible. You did move the goalposts again, you moved them even past abiogenesis as I pointed out. When you move the goalposts you in effect concede the previous debate. Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. The origin of the first cell makes no difference to the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis does not rely on the Big Bang Theory. The origin of life does not depend upon a particular model of the start of our universe. I was not the one that went outside of the bounds of the OP. You did and I responded to you.

 

[shmogie]

Wrong again. You have demonstrated your ignorance several times. As usual you appear to be projecting your flaws upon others.

You are a real piece of work. Where is your thread on abiogenisis BTW ? Do you never get control of your craving need to denigrate others, to build yourself up ? Like a naughty little boy you whine away. Your insults mean as much to me as the number of mosquito mating's in Louisiana in 1962. I consider the source, the source is sadly pathetic, it babbles ideas and words that can say, but can';t understand. Sad, because it obviously have a hole right through it's perception of it's self worth. So, continue along with denigrating to make yourself look better, in your own eyes.

I had to cut you off once before for this, though you kept begging me to re engage you. Keep it up, and once more I will have to wash my hands of you. Even I, with long patience, can only suffer boorishness and foolishness for so long.

 

[shmogie]

So you're saying that I would make a good pastor? Any positions available at your church?

NO, we only ordain women who think they are male homosexuals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are a real piece of work. Where is your thread on abiogenisis BTW ? Do you never get control of your craving need to denigrate others, to build yourself up ? Like a naughty little boy you whine away. Your insults mean as much to me as the number of mosquito mating's in Louisiana in 1962. I consider the source, the source is sadly pathetic, it babbles ideas and words that can say, but can';t understand. Sad, because it obviously have a hole right through it's perception of it's self worth. So, continue along with denigrating to make yourself look better, in your own eyes.

I had to cut you off once before for this, though you kept begging me to re engage you. Keep it up, and once more I will have to wash my hands of you. Even I, with long patience, can only suffer boorishness and foolishness for so long.

I never said that I would start a thread on abiogenesis. I said that I would discuss that after we were done with evolution. I did say that I would start a thread on evidence. That was the one that I promised to start. You complained about the lack of that thread and did so by quoting the post with the link in it to that thread. And I am not denigrating you, I am merely pointing out your errors and trying to help you to learn. You are the one that gets overly sensitive when ignorant claims are made apparent. I have never insulted you, unless you are insulted by reality itself.

And I am not the boorish and foolish one here. You once again appear to be projecting our faults upon others. You have been rude and wrong, a very bad combination.

 

[shmogie]

You keep getting angry when I point out your ignorance but you once again made errors that can only be attributed to either ignorance or dishonesty in this post of yours. Science is based upon evidence. The request of the thread is for evidence, not "proof".

There is no evidence for creation. Or to put it more correctly, no creationist has come up with any evidence for their version of the origin of man in this thread. But your shortcomings are not the shortcoming of scientists. Their beliefs are evidence based. Their theories are testable. Which is why almost anyone will explain string theory is not a proper scientific theory yet. It has not been tested. The Big Bang theory has been tested. It is falsifiable. There is evidence for the theory of evolution, mountains of scientific evidence. Creationists are afraid to put their beliefs into a testable form since they keep being shown to be wrong when they do that. There is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. Not enough to lift it to the level of a theory yet because there are still some unanswered problems.

Instead of looking for "proof" it is better to be looking for evidence.

And I am sure that you mentioned abiogenesis before I did. I will take a look back and see who brought it up first. It does not matter what you said in your previous post, if you did not correct a past error that claim of yours still hangs over your head.

Oh I brought it up first, but was told it was off topic. You even chimed in in support of this. Didn';t you get your own memo ? Uh, parts of the big bang theory have been tested, parts can't be tested, and parts, the primary part, the alleged singularity, can never be tested. Don;'t try and razzle dazzle with with your scan;'t surface knowledge. Unanswered problems ? ! Gads ! Get back to the thread !! No more responses from me, to you, unless you stay ON THE THREAD !

 

[Subduction Zone]

shmogie, if I thought that you were an idiot I would simply ignore you. I do not think that of you. I do think that you are terribly wrong and biased against and probably afraid of the sciences. That can be cured through education. There is no need to fear the fact that the diversity of life occurred through the process of evolution, or that life began through abiogenesis, or that the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang. That does not mean that you need to quit believing in God. There are countless Christians that do believe in God and accept those concepts. In fact the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic (a Jesuit if I recall correctly) priest. A pope even supposedly offered to make it dogma and he turned him down saying the sciences have no need of orders to make them correct.

Trying to take the Bible literally can only lead to either terrible denial of reality or in some cases atheism when a person wakes up. I assume that you do not want to be an atheist. My path to that did not come from a sudden realization that Genesis was wrong. But I also assume that you do not want to be terribly wrong.

 

[shmogie]

I never said that I would start a thread on abiogenesis. I said that I would discuss that after we were done with evolution. I did say that I would start a thread on evidence. That was the one that I promised to start. You complained about the lack of that thread and did so by quoting the post with the link in it to that thread. And I am not denigrating you, I am merely pointing out your errors and trying to help you to learn. You are the one that gets overly sensitive when ignorant claims are made apparent. I have never insulted you, unless you are insulted by reality itself.

And I am not the boorish and foolish one here. You once again appear to be projecting our faults upon others. You have been rude and wrong, a very bad combination.

Here we go, again. You told someone in another post you were planning to start a thread on abiogenisis. Cut the nonsense, you won't discuss it, because of your awareness of your true lack of knowledge. You are afraid you will make a total screwup like you did with micro/macro evolution. You didn't even now which was which and used a long abandoned definition from the 1920's. I have NO MORE TIME FOR YOU. GIVE IT UP.