For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[shmogie]

Shmogie, this is what I mean by negativity.

Does god tell you to speak this way?

Did you talk like this when you were an atheist or did it grow on you? Environment?

You have no idea of ny history with this. He speaks nonsense to ẗeach"others, and is alway wrong. Don worry about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have no idea of ny history with this. He speaks nonsense to ẗeach"others, and is alway wrong. Don worry about it.

Yet you have not been able to show one bit of "nonsense". In fact when it comes to details you have a tendency to never support your claims. I provided a video made by physicists that explained how your claim of the universe being in a point was wrong. Instead you tried to use pretend to have superior knowledge by quoting phrases that you got from a source that you do not appear to agree with in the first place.

All it takes is an ability to admit your errors when they are made clear. Why are you so loathe to do that?

 

[shmogie]

Why do you look at evolution in a negative light?

Is it because of your former worldview as an atheist and it puy a bad taste in your mouth about creation?



I dont know if your tone is like this in person. He ultimatim has no affect and it makes your points very negative whether you see it or not. Ignorance (not knowing) of your tone doesnt excuse negativity in it.



You cant explain it. How do you believe something you do not even understand enough to really know if you believe it?

Do you just take gods word for it?

If so, how can you converse and varify gods existence or even talk about god when you dont know anything other than the relationship you have with him?

How do you discuss and testify to a god you dont know enough to express to anyone other than believers, youself, and god?



Thats good. Its not really showing in your posts with others. With me, youre doing fine. I like well thought out conversation.

But one that sticks to the topic. If you cant describe evidence of god, why should we believe what you say given we dont know if what you say is real enough for you to have the ability to discribe it.



Is this evidence for god?

I know we all have testimonies of miraculous things happen. I dont see one event different than another. I think thats apart of life to experience odd ball stuff. But attributing it to god or so have you baffles me.

I dont see the connection between your testimony and god. Is there something specific you experience that I know its from god without you directly telling me?

First, as I recall, the OP had nothing to with evidences for God. I have no obligation to discuss that topic unless I choose to, and undertake to engage in that discussion. My contribution to this thread was based solely on the issue of people from dirt, period. I have no control over atheists dogging me for evidences for God. I don´t enter into those discussions. I can take responsibility to the badgering atheists being frustrated. If you are frustrated, I am sorry.

My manner with people on the internet is simple. Civil, till my correspondent is uncivil, then I have no obligation, on the internet, to be a doormat, I return kind for kind. Take take the guy who proposes to teach everybody in this thread. He couldn´t wait to jump in to correct my ¨errors¨, and he is uncategorically dead wrong in his ´correction¨. He never admits error, just spews more in a childish manner. I try and avoid him, he keeps digging to engage me, I owe him nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, as I recall, the OP had nothing to with evidences for God. I have no obligation to discuss that topic unless I choose to, and undertake to engage in that discussion. My contribution to this thread was based solely on the issue of people from dirt, period. I have no control over atheists dogging me for evidences for God. I don´t enter into those discussions. I can take responsibility to the badgering atheists being frustrated. If you are frustrated, I am sorry.

My manner with people on the internet is simple. Civil, till my correspondent is uncivil, then I have no obligation, on the internet, to be a doormat, I return kind for kind. Take take the guy who proposes to teach everybody in this thread. He couldn´t wait to jump in to correct my ¨errors¨, and he is uncategorically dead wrong in his ´correction¨. He never admits error, just spews more in a childish manner. I try and avoid him, he keeps digging to engage me, I owe him nothing.

Please, I was more than civil with you. You simply can't admit it when you are shown to be wrong. You have yet to show me to be wrong, much less "dead wrong". You seem to take a correction as a personal attack and as an excuse to attack others.

It is rather amazing that you seem to think that acknowledging an error of yours is "being treated as a doormat". By stubbornly refusing to learn one could argue that you are treating yourself in such a manner.

But you are right. The thread had to deal with creationists evidence for the creation of man. Do you have any?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You have no idea of ny history with this. He speaks nonsense to ẗeach"others, and is alway wrong. Don worry about it.

Actually, bored me at work, I read yall convo in full. In this thread and others, it seems you dont like being questioned about your faith as though whatever topic about it, isnt worth explained by anyone who asks you to clarify your position of your statements. I see comments but without support.

Did you provide evidence for the creation of man thats not based on evolution etc?

Can you support the evidence by examples to varify the logic (not validity) of your answers?

Do you believe in creationalism?

 

[gnostic]

Your understanding of the BB is flawed. There was no universe before the BB, the BB created the universe. Singularity is essentially a cosmological term for "we don';t know what it is". The theory is that it was a point of infinite density, tiny, perhaps as small as a molecule.

And that’s where you are wrong.

The Big Bang theory is only explaining the events of the cosmological evolution of our observable universe, which is AFTER the “Big Bang”, that is the expansion of the singularity which started with Planck Epoch.

The Big Bang theory uses Einstein’s General Relativity, to explain the events, backward, right up to the initial expansion at the Planck Epoch. But before the expansion, General Relativity break down with the singularity, and the universe cannot be described what happened before the Big Bang.

The theory doesn’t explain what happened BEFORE the “Big Bang”, except that the temperature is even denser and hotter than the Planck Epoch. The singularity is when the universe when temperature and density are infinite.

And due to extreme hotness and density of the singularity, normal matters and subatomic particles can’t form, and the 4 fundamental forces or interactions (eg gravitation, electromagnetic, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force) cannot be separated, hence one “united force”.

When the Planck Epoch began, the start of expansion caused the singularity to cool enough to separate gravitational force from from the other 3 still bonded forces. Further expansion, resulting the universe cooling down further, which separate another force, then another.

These series of separation of fundamental forces are known as “symmetry breaking”.

You are right that they don’t know what the singularity is, but the singularity is still a stage of the universe before the beginning of inflation or expansion.

The singularity isn’t “nothing”.

The singularity is the “universe”, but the universe that we don’t know the physical composition.

One of the purposes of formulating String Theory (ST) and Superstring Theory (SST), was to bind Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity into a single theory. But the other purpose is to use them to describe what occurred before the Big Bang.

But the problems with both ST & STT, instead of simplifying the two fundamental physics into one, it caused over-complicated, and thereby making ST & STT untestable.

In one variation of String Theory, the subset known as M-theory, is that it postulate that thereare 11 dimensions instead of the normal 4 dimensions. The extra dimensions allowed for alternate reality or that there are many universes, hence the Multiverse model.

How would you test the existence of multiple universes?

Both ST & SST lead to more questions than answers.

 

[gnostic]

No, the OP was not about evolution, and only about creation in that the question was asked how people could have been made from dirt. I simply said that God could create people from dirt, just as the atheist models say they were ultimately created from rocks.

Actually no, life didn’t come from rocks.

The earliest rocks that formed the Earth’s crust at the beginning were all igneous rocks, made from cooling of magma.

Sedimentary rocks didn’t exist when the first rocks formed.

Sedimentary rockscan only exist, caused by “weathering” of the igneous rocks, caused by water currents, rain, winds or glaciers, breaking minerals from igneous rocks and depositing in sediments, and over time these layer of sediments would harden due to pressures.

These minerals, like quartz, feldspars and micas, are the most common rock minerals, and all silicate-based minerals, SiO.

There are no carbon in these minerals.

Living and organic matters (proteins, DNA) required carbon and nitrogen in the molecules or compounds, not silicate-based molecules.

And silt and clay soils are mostly based on weathering of these silicate minerals.

We do have silicon in our body, but not the silicate molecules.

Proteins are one of most essential biological matters (the other two being Carbohydrates and DNA or RNA), and proteins are made out of amino acids.

The molecules of amino acids are bonding of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen atoms. No silicon.

There are also no silicon or silicate in carbohydrates or in DNA or RNA.

It is really funny how creationists have the tendencies to ignore silicate molecules in clay or silt soils or that proteins are not made of clay or silt minerals.

One of the reasons why abiogenesis scientists are focusing on amino acids, because it is the building block of all living matters.

 

[gnostic]

First, as I recall, the OP had nothing to with evidences for God.

Actually, creation of man, based on Genesis or on the Qur’ān, have everything to do with God, be he called Yahweh, Elohim or Allah.

He supposedly created man from the water and earth (dust, clay or silt soils) of the Garden of Eden, molding human in shape before breathing life into the body.

So yes, it has everything to do with God.

But I want evidences that man were created from soil. You haven’t presented any.

Saying god can do anything and everything, including turning soil into human being, is not evidence, but your faith in the belief in Adam’s story.

 

[shmogie]

Actually, bored me at work, I read yall convo in full. In this thread and others, it seems you dont like being questioned about your faith as though whatever topic about it, isnt worth explained by anyone who asks you to clarify your position of your statements. I see comments but without support.

Did you provide evidence for the creation of man thats not based on evolution etc?

Can you support the evidence by examples to varify the logic (not validity) of your answers?

Do you believe in creationalism?

Yes, I am a creationist, yes, using the discipline of logic creationism is logical,. logic is many times established by logical syllogisms. God is omnipotent, the universe was created, therefore God created the universe. All system go from organization to disorganization over time, evolution is a system, therefore, if it were true, it would be regressing, not progressing. Living matter cannot create itself from non living matter, living matter exists, therefore God created life., etc,. etc, ertc.

I will answer virtually any question about my faith. I do not seek or pursue conversations about evidence of the existence of God for the stated reasons. In this thread I did not address the existence of God, other than to point out that from either perspective, humans came from dirt.

Atheist/evolutionists, in the past, when asked for evidence that there is no God, sputter and say things like¨ I can´t prove a negative¨ or ¨the burden of proof is on you ¨. They declare that faith has no value. When pointed out that the evidence for abiogenesis is all but non existent, they revert to faith, i.e. ït had to have happened" or ¨science will eventually prove it¨ or, my favorite, from my poitny headed atheist friend ¨ it is almost a theory, but there are still a FEW problems¨ gads !

These conversations are non productive and of little value

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, I am a creationist, yes, using the discipline of logic creationism is logical,. logic is many times established by logical syllogisms. God is omnipotent, the universe was created, therefore God created the universe. All system go from organization to disorganization over time, evolution is a system, therefore, if it were true, it would be regressing, not progressing. Living matter cannot create itself from non living matter, living matter exists, therefore God created life., etc,. etc, ertc.

I will answer virtually any question about my faith. I do not seek or pursue conversations about evidence of the existence of God for the stated reasons. In this thread I did not address the existence of God, other than to point out that from either perspective, humans came from dirt.

Atheist/evolutionists, in the past, when asked for evidence that there is no God, sputter and say things like¨ I can´t prove a negative¨ or ¨the burden of proof is on you ¨. They declare that faith has no value. When pointed out that the evidence for abiogenesis is all but non existent, they revert to faith, i.e. ït had to have happened" or ¨science will eventually prove it¨ or, my favorite, from my poitny headed atheist friend ¨ it is almost a theory, but there are still a FEW problems¨ gads !

These conversations are non productive and of little value

I'll come back. The reason they are unproductive is when we get to the core of the convo, believers back out. Not all atheist are like that. Go deeper, and you may find an "atheist" or a person, better word, who dont mind talking about god. You just got to be willing to have interest in what they say too and itll get somewhere

It takes two, a lot of patience, less assumptions, and going deeper.

...to be continued

 

[shmogie]

Actually no, life didn’t come from rocks.

The earliest rocks that formed the Earth’s crust at the beginning were all igneous rocks, made from cooling of magma.

Sedimentary rocks didn’t exist when the first rocks formed.

Sedimentary rockscan only exist, caused by “weathering” of the igneous rocks, caused by water currents, rain, winds or glaciers, breaking minerals from igneous rocks and depositing in sediments, and over time these layer of sediments would harden due to pressures.

These minerals, like quartz, feldspars and micas, are the most common rock minerals, and all silicate-based minerals, SiO.

There are no carbon in these minerals.

Living and organic matters (proteins, DNA) required carbon and nitrogen in the molecules or compounds, not silicate-based molecules.

And silt and clay soils are mostly based on weathering of these silicate minerals.

We do have silicon in our body, but not the silicate molecules.

Proteins are one of most essential biological matters (the other two being Carbohydrates and DNA or RNA), and proteins are made out of amino acids.

The molecules of amino acids are bonding of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen atoms. No silicon.

There are also no silicon or silicate in carbohydrates or in DNA or RNA.

It is really funny how creationists have the tendencies to ignore silicate molecules in clay or silt soils or that proteins are not made of clay or silt minerals.

One of the reasons why abiogenesis scientists are focusing on amino acids, because it is the building block of all living matters.

Rain and volcanic rock, tell me what else was there for life to come from ?

Simple amino acids were created in the miller-urey experiments over 50 years ago very few have been created since. Do you know how many different types there are and how many are required by any living organism ?

Tell me, does anyone, anywhere, have any idea of the path from amino acids to a living organism ? The question is rhetorical, the answer is absolutely not.

 

[shmogie]

Actually, creation of man, based on Genesis or on the Qur’ān, have everything to do with God, be he called Yahweh, Elohim or Allah.

He supposedly created man from the water and earth (dust, clay or silt soils) of the Garden of Eden, molding human in shape before breathing life into the body.

So yes, it has everything to do with God.

But I want evidences that man were created from soil. You haven’t presented any.

Saying god can do anything and everything, including turning soil into human being, is not evidence, but your faith in the belief in Adam’s story.

Right, your point is what ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I am a creationist, yes, using the discipline of logic creationism is logical,. logic is many times established by logical syllogisms. God is omnipotent, the universe was created, therefore God created the universe.

It is very difficult to claim you are being logical when you start by begging the question.

All system go from organization to disorganization over time, evolution is a system, therefore, if it were true, it would be regressing, not progressing. Living matter cannot create itself from non living matter, living matter exists, therefore God created life., etc,. etc, ertc.

This fails because you misunderstand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It does not state this and by your "logic" you yourself are not possible since you started as a single cell and became more 'organized' as you grew.

I will answer virtually any question about my faith. I do not seek or pursue conversations about evidence of the existence of God for the stated reasons. In this thread I did not address the existence of God, other than to point out that from either perspective, humans came from dirt.

Atheist/evolutionists, in the past, when asked for evidence that there is no God, sputter and say things like¨ I can´t prove a negative¨ or ¨the burden of proof is on you ¨. They declare that faith has no value. When pointed out that the evidence for abiogenesis is all but non existent, they revert to faith, i.e. ït had to have happened" or ¨science will eventually prove it¨ or, my favorite, from my poitny headed atheist friend ¨ it is almost a theory, but there are still a FEW problems¨ gads !

No one has sputtered. And your inability to understand an idea does not refute it. This is merely an argument from personal incredulity at best. So that is at least three logical fails on your part so far.

These conversations are non productive and of little value

That is only because you refuse to learn from your errors.

ETA: And the evidence for abiogenesis is far from nonexistent. I simply refuse to discuss it with a person that has demonstrated that he can't even deal with evolution. You need to learn how to walk before you can fly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rain and volcanic rock, tell me what else was there for life to come from ?

Simple amino acids were created in the miller-urey experiments over 50 years ago very few have been created since. Do you know how many different types there are and how many are required by any living organism ?

Tell me, does anyone, anywhere, have any idea of the path from amino acids to a living organism ? The question is rhetorical, the answer is absolutely not.

The Miller -Urey experiment has been repeated many times. It works in different early Earth atmospheres. Amino acids could also have come directly from space. They can be found in carbonaceous chondrites. And that is only the beginning. But thanks for confirming that your knowledge is sixty years behind the times.

 

[Polymath257]

Rain and volcanic rock, tell me what else was there for life to come from ?

Simple amino acids were created in the miller-urey experiments over 50 years ago very few have been created since. Do you know how many different types there are and how many are required by any living organism ?

About 20 types of amino acids appear in living things.

Tell me, does anyone, anywhere, have any idea of the path from amino acids to a living organism ? The question is rhetorical, the answer is absolutely not.

Yes, we have some good ideas about such. Look at the experiments of Sidney Fox concerning protenoid microspheres. Look at the experiments of autoacatalysis of RNA.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you already have a preassumption of who everyone is here based in what you experienced with other atheists. Conversations arent productive when you (and others) walk in already expecting the other party to act and say what they already assumed they would. Creates bias and no one listens to each other. Hence why conversations go no where.

Also, skimming is fine, but if you want a full convo, invest time in reading and reply to points in other posts. Hopefully, the other party does the same. No one is playing the victim.

I will answer virtually any question about my faith.

I do not seek or pursue conversations about evidence of the existence of God for the stated reasons.

In this thread I did not address the existence of God, other than to point out that from either perspective, humans came from dirt.

Evidence or supporting the validity of your statements is crucial to a good and productive conversation. You dont need to list evidence but it would help both of you if you support your points to varify what you say is not just empty statements but worth something to talk about.

This goes for both sides.

No believer likes to talk about gods existence. Specific topics need a common foundation first. Not this thread, but in general. If evidence for god helps the convo so both will be on the same foot, to have a worth while convo, you at least have to show why we should take your word for it. Conversations go nowhere when you dont back up your statments.

Atheist/evolutionists, in the past, when asked for evidence that there is no God, sputter and say things like¨ I can´t prove a negative¨ or ¨the burden of proof is on you ¨. They declare that faith has no value. When pointed out that the evidence for abiogenesis is all but non existent, they revert to faith, i.e. ït had to have happened" or ¨science will eventually prove it¨ or, my favorite, from my poitny headed atheist friend ¨ it is almost a theory, but t

Not all atheist believe in evolution.

Abeigenesis as already mentioned have nothing to do with the OP. I dont know why you brought it up.

Since you are a creationalist, can you support your views of why you believe what you do?

Did you take the bible's (right?) word for it?

Did you come to it by logic; if so, how?

Go deeper and support your points.

 

[shmogie]

And that’s where you are wrong.

The Big Bang theory is only explaining the events of the cosmological evolution of our observable universe, which is AFTER the “Big Bang”, that is the expansion of the singularity which started with Planck Epoch.

The Big Bang theory uses Einstein’s General Relativity, to explain the events, backward, right up to the initial expansion at the Planck Epoch. But before the expansion, General Relativity break down with the singularity, and the universe cannot be described what happened before the Big Bang.

The theory doesn’t explain what happened BEFORE the “Big Bang”, except that the temperature is even denser and hotter than the Planck Epoch. The singularity is when the universe when temperature and density are infinite.

And due to extreme hotness and density of the singularity, normal matters and subatomic particles can’t form, and the 4 fundamental forces or interactions (eg gravitation, electromagnetic, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force) cannot be separated, hence one “united force”.

When the Planck Epoch began, the start of expansion caused the singularity to cool enough to separate gravitational force from from the other 3 still bonded forces. Further expansion, resulting the universe cooling down further, which separate another force, then another.

These series of separation of fundamental forces are known as “symmetry breaking”.

You are right that they don’t know what the singularity is, but the singularity is still a stage of the universe before the beginning of inflation or expansion.

The singularity isn’t “nothing”.

The singularity is the “universe”, but the universe that we don’t know the physical composition.

One of the purposes of formulating String Theory (ST) and Superstring Theory (SST), was to bind Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity into a single theory. But the other purpose is to use them to describe what occurred before the Big Bang.

But the problems with both ST & STT, instead of simplifying the two fundamental physics into one, it caused over-complicated, and thereby making ST & STT untestable.

In one variation of String Theory, the subset known as M-theory, is that it postulate that thereare 11 dimensions instead of the normal 4 dimensions. The extra dimensions allowed for alternate reality or that there are many universes, hence the Multiverse model.

How would you test the existence of multiple universes?

Both ST & SST lead to more questions than answers.

Sorry, but no, I am not wrong. The alleged singularity existed BEFORE expansion began, it did not exist at expansion, in essence, at that point ¨ it blew up ¨. The Planck epoch began then. Once again, in retrograde all physical laws and mathematical equations break down before the singularity is reached. The planck epoch and the singularity are not the same.

I haven a clue how to test for multiple universes, since it is impossible for anything to leave this universe. The universe is is expanding at an ever faster rate. At the speed of light, which is impossible to achieve, nothing could reach the edge of the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

About 20 types of amino acids appear in living things.



Yes, we have some good ideas about such. Look at the experiments of Sidney Fox concerning protenoid microspheres. Look at the experiments of autoacatalysis of RNA.

And there is of course far more than that. How primitive cell walls self assemble has been know for quite some time. And they are very close to RNA that self replicates, not just self forms. The next major step is still understanding the origin of metabolism. It is a complex problem and most of the knowledge on how a cell works is less than fifty years old. One cannot understand how life formed until life itself is understood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but no, I am not wrong. The alleged singularity existed BEFORE expansion began, it did not exist at expansion, in essence, at that point ¨ it blew up ¨. The Planck epoch began then. Once again, in retrograde all physical laws and mathematical equations break down before the singularity is reached. The planck epoch and the singularity are not the same.

I haven a clue how to test for multiple universes, since it is impossible for anything to leave this universe. The universe is is expanding at an ever faster rate. At the speed of light, which is impossible to achieve, nothing could reach the edge of the universe.

It is misleading to say physical laws break down. What breaks down are man made models of the universe. They are incomplete and do not work under certain conditions. That does not mean that the underlying laws of the universe changed. It only means that our models cannot be applied in those conditions.

 

[gnostic]

Rain and volcanic rock, tell me what else was there for life to come from ?

Simple amino acids were created in the miller-urey experiments over 50 years ago very few have been created since. Do you know how many different types there are and how many are required by any living organism ?

Tell me, does anyone, anywhere, have any idea of the path from amino acids to a living organism ? The question is rhetorical, the answer is absolutely not.

I am well aware that there are many types of amino acids, joined by chain of other molecules, but the most basic component of amino acid are still carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, and no silicon or the silicate molecules, which are essential molecules in rock minerals.

You need to understand not just elements, but molecules and compounds, because all matters can be broken down to molecules, and molecules into atoms, whether it be organic or inorganic matters, living or dead matters. Of course, you can break even atoms into protons and neutrons or even smaller into quarks, but that’s not at all useful in biology.

What you don’t seem to understand that clay and silt are mostly made of those minerals - silicates, so there are abundance of silicon presence in both clay and silt soil.

There is only trace amount of silicon in a human body, smaller than 0.01%, so it isn’t enough to make even one silicate mineral.

Without the presence of silicate mineral in the human body, then there are no evidences that human body was made from Any forms of earthly soil, be they silt or clay.

So can you real verifiable evidences that god create Adam from soil?

My point is that the Earth’s earliest formation, there were only the Earth’s core and mantle, with a different atmosphere than it is today, with no Earth crust and no water, there are no life while the Earth is in this condition. And with no crust, gravity was also very different.

It is only when part of the Earth’s mantle began cooling, that the crust formed, and eventually the earth being able to hold water, and water vapour are produced as magma cooled to produce and introduce new gases into the atmosphere, which caused condensation and then precipitation, hence rain.

And as I said before, there were only igneous rocks at the beginning of crust formation. Sedimentary rocks can only occur after weathering of the earliest (igneous) rocks, and sedimentary process can only occur on the Earth’s surface.

In Genesis’ first 2 verses, god created Earth, and there were nothing but water described as “the deep” or the “abyss”. But according to Earth scientists, there were no water yet, at the beginning.

The Earth’s surface at the beginning wasn’t ocean of water, but ocean of magma. And when magma turned into rocks, hence the Earth’s crust, lands actually existed before water. So day 3 in Genesis is wrong.

Genesis on day 2 is also wrong, where it described separation of the water above from the water below, describing our sky and atmosphere. But in Earth science, the atmosphere actually existed in the very beginning, existing even before the Earth’s crust and water. It was just different, more hydrogen and carbon than oxygen.

By the time, there were ocean of water and life existing in the forms of photosynthesis microbes (Cyanobacteria), these began converting carbon into oxygen, that the atmosphere changed so much, that there were more oxygen than other gases. This became known as period of the Great Oxygenation Event (GOE).

GOE caused the earliest Ice Ages (or Glaciation) as well mass extinction event.

I am getting carrying away and getting sidetracked.

My points are, the Genesis description don’t match with science of the Earth, nor with the science of biology and biochemistry. And my main point is that you cannot turn silicate-based minerals into living matters (eg proteins, carbohydrates and nucleic acids (eg DNA & RNA)).