For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[exchemist]

The Watchtower society doesn't speak for all who support intelligent design. As far as I know, they have few scientists as members of the JW organization.

Too true, Squire!

 

[shmogie]

Let me try one more time. There is no reason to think that the laws of the universe changed. That is a misunderstanding on your part. The current laws we have are incomplete. That does not mean that they do not work in every possible environment. They are an approximation of the universe. They are not 100% reality. Just as Newton's Law of Gravity is not complete. It does not apply to high gravity areas or when extreme precision is needed. That does not mean that we could not use it to go to the Moon and back after Einstein came up with a more accurate theory. Newton is still good enough for almost all applications. Just as General Relativity applies to almost all of spacetime. That does not mean the underlying laws of the universe did not exist. We merely do not fully understand those laws yet.

I will make it as simple as I can for you. The BB created EVERYTHING relating to the universe. There were no universal laws of the universe before the universe was created. As far as the universe is concerned, there was nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

At the point of rapid expansion ( the big bang) there were no universal physical laws, they did not exist till at least one unit of Planck time had expired, a very tiny amount of time from our perspective. In using established physical laws as a basis for mathematical exploration of the BB, they can only be effective while those laws existed after rapid expansion. Once the point where they did not exist, in retrograde, is reached ( approx. 1 Planck unit), there is no way to apply them any longer, they break down as a measuring and exploratory tool, they don't exist and don't apply any further, in retrograde, to the BB or what allegedly existed before it.

The physical laws of the universe only apply to the universe, they were created by the same event that created the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will make it as simple as I can for you. The BB created EVERYTHING relating to the universe. There were no universal laws of the universe before the universe was created. As far as the universe is concerned, there was nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

At the point of rapid expansion ( the big bang) there were no universal physical laws, they did not exist till at least one unit of Planck time had expired, a very tiny amount of time from our perspective. In using established physical laws as a basis for mathematical exploration of the BB, they can only be effective while those laws existed after rapid expansion. Once the point where they did not exist, in retrograde, is reached ( approx. 1 Planck unit), there is no way to apply them any longer, they break down as a measuring and exploratory tool, they don't exist and don't apply any further, in retrograde, to the BB or what allegedly existed before it.

The physical laws of the universe only apply to the universe, they were created by the same event that created the universe.

Really? Find a physicist that says that. I am betting that is only your misinterpretation of what you have read.

I already provided one video by physicists that demonstrated an earlier claim of yours was wrong. That is far more than you have done.

 

[shmogie]

Correction, you have no clue what the primordial atmosphere was made of. We know what materials made the Earth. It is possible to deduce what the early atmosphere was made of. And the "stuff of life" would be amino acids. There were at least two possible sources. Once again the Miller Urey experiment showed that they form naturally. And it has been done with several different atmospheres. Amino acids still form. Carbonaceous chondrite meteorites have amino acids in them. That means that the rocks themselves may have held the seeds of life. There are probably other sources as well.

No, Miller Urey showed by using equipment and carefully controlling conditions, and trying over and over again, they can eventually be made. That isn't creation from random combinations of chemicals in an environment that is clearly known

Miller Urey and all subsequent experiments of its kind are examples of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not random natural forces.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Rats! I guess I over thought I'd get a scientific-answer without biblical connections.

Who wrote the description?

The links are in the other post below. There's a lot of info about it; but, either they're not from accredited sources or they are simplistic. Also, a lot of the info has some god-spin to it. Christians!

The Genesis account says that the first sentient creatures were in the oceans. Science can confirm that. But the one thing it can't confirm is that aquatic creatures exited the water to live on land...that is an assumption based on what they believe happened all those millions of years ago because evolution says it must have happened.

Where? I never read that in genesis????

That, and you're asking for who quoted my statement then say the bible supports what I've already said?

The life in water is not human life. It's bacteria and things of that nature. Scientists are still trying to connect the gaps between the "past" and present. Biblical accounts don't fit the bill of filling in the gaps. It's been studied (and possesses the internet as well) for ages of trying to find that biblical connection to science. It's honestly quite silly; but, then science is trying not to be influenced by supernatural laws given our country (US) is stumped in making and trying to prove Christianity is true and fact. I don't know if they understand the nature of an analogy. Christianity isn't the only religion that doesn't express things by stories and allegories. It's all throughout religious history.

Roman Catholics have tried to prove the connection for years! Orthodox (as far I know) and Jews don't even try to explain it. Forgone conclusion, if that's the right word.

There are no eye witness accounts for any of it apart from the Creator's...and so many people don't believe him.

That's why I can't just take your word for it. Interesting discussion, and you got to connect the bible with some factual concrete support. From God-just doesn't cut it in this particular conversation/thread.

If you don't believe that God inspired the Bible, then how did Moses know the order of creation?

How could Job possibly know that the earth "hangs on nothing"? (Job 26:7)

Think about these questions, for a minute.

I don't believe that god inspired the bible. (I do not believe god is a person that can dictate, write, inspire, give, and become angry; to me, that's silly).

If I did, Moses would have known because god inspired him too....

The second one, do you believe Jonah was trapped in the belly of a whale?
Think that's who, right?

What's the purpose of these questions?

Why is it odd? Why would we assume that the Creator left us here with no instructions or explanations? The Bible tells the complete story....where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going.....what can science really tell us as opposed to making wild guesses?

I have no clue, honestly. I don't know what a god is to say either way; you have to define what a god is.

Back on topic, though. The videos I have below talks of evolution, the first, and the origin of life (bacteria, RNA, etc) coming from the water. Where is the bible specific to life to where we can understand through the bible only how creation develop and the first humans came to be? (This has to be unique than any other creation story)

Precipitation is a marvelous process. Water is constantly recycled. All of the water on earth is retained in this perpetual cycle. The saltiness of the ocean keeps it and its inhabitants clean, and the clouds take condensed water vapor up into the atmosphere where it falls as rain on land and enters rivers that flow back into the oceans again. Ecclesiastes (written by Solomon) mentions these natural cycles. (Ecclesiastes 1:4-6)

This is observed by many many cultures. It is very general that I can even tell you that even before I read the bible. Pagan cultures (some) describe it as earth, wind, fire, and water. The connection between the four and how its divinely part of the earth.

I take God's word for it because I have experienced God's hand in my life and I have no doubts about his existence. Evolution, based on assumption and unprovable suggestions to me is a pathetic excuse for science. It is as much a belief system as what we have.

That's why it's hard to talk about anything outside the bible with you (anyone indoctrinated in their religious experiences).

For example, I believe the earth was not created. It formed from pre-existing "things" and shaped with we call earth. Earth is not special at all. I've always knew life came from water; we are mostly made up of water. Everything is centered around water since there was only water that covered this planet at one time or another.

Both the bible and evolution are unproven. Evolution has a headstart, not because it defines creation-it doesn't explain the why and "spiritual" significance of it, but it explains the relationship and already present continuation of who we are today. The Bible, as with all sacred scriptures of the world, have their own stories and theories of creation. I don't know if Muslims think this way, but Christians are the only ones I know that try to find facts in what's supposed to be stories and lessons to strengthen your faith not knowledge in christ.

Trying to argue that the bible fills in the gaps, is like my trying to tell you the existence of spirits found out the causes of gravity. Some things just got to give.

All I see is a desperate attempt to get rid of God...no matter how silly it sounds. I guess they figure that they are too smart for him now.

Haha. This is the point. You (guys) aren't the victim. How does one get "rid of' god???? Literally not spiritually.

Say, (coming from my point of view), I opened your hands and put an invisible pencil in it.

I told you the pencil is there because there are testimonies that explain it, proof of those testimonies, and people who've "written" from that pencil, it writes in red, and it holds well with a rubber grip and 2grade at that.

Using the pencil analogy only, if I said "people are trying to get rid of the pencil,"

What exactly would your reaction and comment be?

Not talking about god, just the pencil.

Can you answer how can you get rid of someone who is, by nature, a spirit and creator and love?

If science explained everything why would that be a threat to your belief and experiences? Will they just go away?

Amoebas to dinosaurs......by accident???? I'd call that far fetched.

Coming from chimpanzee sounds far fetched to me. That doesn't mean it's false, just means it's "out there." I'm not a scientist, and I assume you aren't, so we can go by our beliefs or opinions but definitely not absolute knowledge. Saying "god" doesn't cut it.

But then, science never claimed it a fact, just theories. A lot of them.

They can be related to apes if they want to be....in some cases I think that's an insult to apes though.

Em. In the measum they said they had a hard time pin pointing how this:
and

and

http://humanorigins.si.edu/exhibit/exploring-human-origins-what-does-it-mean-be-human

Do you believe that it could be accidental that all the non-biological (that is non-evolving) factors related to our planet could all be just a series of fortunate flukes?

I see them as theories, nothing to get hang up over. I wonder why you guys think it's "getting rid of god" though. I never understand that. Maybe conflicting with your beliefs but not being a victim of other people's theories. One belief is another person's theory, I guess.

If our earth was closer to the sun, we'd cook and further away we'd freeze. If we had too much oxygen in the air, every spark would cause an explosion. If all the earth's beauty, color and sounds were there but we had no sight or hearing....what would be the point? What if all food tasted the same?

Or we only ate grass? How many children would be born into this world if procreation was life threatening and tortuously painful? Do we really appreciate how many wonderful gifts go with all the life that inhabits this planet? Is it just co-incidence that it looks and functions like it was designed?

It's good to appreciate the complexity of things. Everyone has their own view of the origins and sense of the earth. I'm grateful and find awe in and of itself. It expresses itself in my art and creative expression. Why do I need to attribute the awe of food and position of the earth to anything else. To me, that's an insult.

With God, there are no gaps in the first place.....the gaps are all in evolution.

The missing links are all still missing.

How so?

There's nothing wrong with gaps. Everything has gaps. If not, why are archaeologists and histories still trying to piece together the bible facts when everything is supposedly already given to us to fill in the gaps?

Are you saying you know everything about god because you experienced him???

Oh but it will. The Bible explains why we get viruses in the first place....and it also tells us how God will eradicate disease and disability forever. This is a promise that only the Creator of life can make. Incidentally, what caused AIDS and how was it spread?

Haha. Where???? The Bible isn't a science book. It's more historical than science; way far from science. Is that a bad thing?

I take God as someone who actually knows what he's talking about. He created all life and furnished a book telling us in brief terms how he did it. He gave us intellect and ability to build and retain knowledge so he allowed us to find out for ourselves how it all works. Trouble is, humans got so clever in their own minds that they figure that they don't need him anymore.

I know this is off topic, but how do you know that?

Quoting the bible is anther way of saying "take my word for it."

Can you pin point the beautiful of the earth position from the sun with a creator based on facts? Experiences are cool; beliefs radical, but

Bring on the data?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, Miller Urey showed by using equipment and carefully controlling conditions, and trying over and over again, they can eventually be made. That isn't creation from random combinations of chemicals in an environment that is clearly known

Miller Urey and all subsequent experiments of its kind are examples of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not random natural forces.

So you don't understand how scientific experiments are done.

The purpose of the equipment was to reproduce aspects of the Early Earth. Their experiment demonstrated that under the conditions of an Early Earth with that particular atmosphere that amino acids would form. So no, they are not examples of intelligent design. Also the experiment has been repeated with different atmospheres and those too made amino acids.

By the way, natural forces are not random. Perhaps that is your problem.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Watchtower society doesn't speak for all who support intelligent design. As far as I know, they have few scientists as members of the JW organization.

Who knows. I try not to have negative biases over a religion. What I quoted is what they believe. My beliefs are besides the point of the quote and life from water.

There is much material on the issue on the internet from creationist biologists, chemists, astronomers physicians etc. I would suggest that if you want to post material representing creationist scientific views, these sources would give you a much more authoritative and comprehensive view of creation science. This, of co

Yes. I saw the theories in person, though. A lot of online stuff as a christian slant. Try putting in orgins of life in google and not get the bible or god somewhere up there. Put science origins of life, and you get arguments against evolution and bias interpretations based on ones on scripture. Science doesnt work that way. At. All.

 

[shmogie]

Really? Find a physicist that says that. I am betting that is only your misinterpretation of what you have read.

I already provided one video by physicists that demonstrated an earlier claim of yours was wrong. That is far more than you have done.

Here is a cosmologist that agrees with me. He is obscure to you, I know, you probably have never heard of him. His name is Stephen Hawking.

"Any determinative laws that govern the universe will break down in the big bang " Professor Stephen Hawking PhD., "The beginning of time", lecture, Cambridge University.

How many more quotations from prominent cosmologists and physicists do you need before you will admit you are dead wrong ? Probably a thousand wouldn't be sufficient.

I have demonstrated on numerous occasions that you that live in an alternate reality of your own when it comes to understanding many scientific concepts. Perhaps that is your problem. If instead of watching cartoon science video's on youtube that give you words to throw around and a little surface knowledge, so you think you are an authority, you could actually STUDY a subject and LEARN something.

That's my advice, you won't take it, and will continue to be embarrassed by being wrong, like here, once again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a cosmologist that agrees with

ETA: me. He is obscure to you, I know, you probably have never heard of him. His name is Stephen Hawking.

"Any determinative laws that govern the universe will break down in the big bang " Professor Stephen Hawking PhD., "The beginning of time", lecture, Cambridge University.

How many more quotations from prominent cosmologists and physicists do you need before you will admit you are dead wrong ? Probably a thousand wouldn't be sufficient.

I have demonstrated on numerous occasions that you that live in an alternate reality of your own when it comes to understanding many scientific concepts. Perhaps that is your problem. If instead of watching cartoon science video's on youtube that give you words to throw around and a little surface knowledge, so you think you are an authority, you could actually STUDY a subject and LEARN something.

That's my advice, you won't take it, and will continue to be embarrassed by being wrong, like here, once again.

Unattributed quotes are worthless. You need a link to the source. To me he looks like he is discussing man made "laws" not actual laws of nature.

A source is needed because a quote out of context is worthless. The Bible says "There is no God" at least twelve times. Without seeing that quote in context one will get the wrong idea.

ETA: From my understanding the "laws of nature" that are broken in the singularity are merely man made laws and not the underlying laws of nature. You seem to have a difficult time understanding this concept. That is what I understand physicists to mean when they state that. That is why they continue to look for a unified model that does not break down. Let me tag @Polymath257 for a ruling on this.

 

[Polymath257]

No, Miller Urey showed by using equipment and carefully controlling conditions, and trying over and over again, they can eventually be made. That isn't creation from random combinations of chemicals in an environment that is clearly known

Miller Urey and all subsequent experiments of its kind are examples of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not random natural forces.

The UM experiment set up the conditions and let nature take over. if they had repeatedly adjusted the apparatus at each stage of the game (as opposed to sampling it to see what it did), then you *might* have a claim to design.

But that isn't how they did it.

 

[Polymath257]

I will make it as simple as I can for you. The BB created EVERYTHING relating to the universe. There were no universal laws of the universe before the universe was created. As far as the universe is concerned, there was nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

At the point of rapid expansion ( the big bang) there were no universal physical laws, they did not exist till at least one unit of Planck time had expired, a very tiny amount of time from our perspective. In using established physical laws as a basis for mathematical exploration of the BB, they can only be effective while those laws existed after rapid expansion. Once the point where they did not exist, in retrograde, is reached ( approx. 1 Planck unit), there is no way to apply them any longer, they break down as a measuring and exploratory tool, they don't exist and don't apply any further, in retrograde, to the BB or what allegedly existed before it.

The physical laws of the universe only apply to the universe, they were created by the same event that created the universe.

Sorry, but this is only one of many different possibilities. It isn't even the most prevalent one among cosmologists.

For one, it is quite uncertain whether there was a 'before the Big Bang', but if there was, then there were physical laws.

The mere claim of Planck time already betrays the existence of natural laws: the Planck time is only meaningful in the context of quantum gravity.

When you mention 'rapid expansion', you are more likely referring to the inflationary epoch, which is many Planck times after the beginning.

Now, in most versions of quantum gravity, there *is* time before the Big Bang and there *are* physical laws that apply *through* the beginning of the expansion of our universe.

Now, *deteministic* laws did not exist then, but the probabilistic, quantum laws did.

 

[shmogie]

Who knows. I try not to have negative biases over a religion. What I quoted is what they believe. My beliefs are besides the point of the quote and life from water.



Yes. I saw the theories in person, though. A lot of online stuff as a christian slant. Try putting in orgins of life in google and not get the bible or god somewhere up there. Put science origins of life, and you get arguments against evolution and bias interpretations based on ones on scripture. Science doesnt work that way. At. All.

You are correct. Science doesn't work that way. Atheist science de facto says that any explanation for anything can only be formulated by purely natural processes. No other possibility can be entertained. You, yourself adhere to this law.

So what if creation scientists "have a Christian slant" ? Atheist scientists have an "atheist slant". What you are saying is that one set of biases are "Gospel" (no pun intended) and another set are categorically unacceptable.

It's the science that counts, not perceived biases isn't it ?

Forgive me for bringing up abiogenesis, but that and cosmology are where I do most of my science reading.

A very prominent atheist biochemist, I forget his name now, but I remember his words verbatim he said this " I know abiogenesis is impossible, but I believe it because to consider the alternative is horrible to contemplate"

He is loyal to the atheist law of science. Believe the impossible, rather than consider something else.

 

[shmogie]

The UM experiment set up the conditions and let nature take over. if they had repeatedly adjusted the apparatus at each stage of the game (as opposed to sampling it to see what it did), then you *might* have a claim to design.

But that isn't how they did it.

BUt adjusting and changing till they got the results is EXACTLY what they did.

Today we are told their idea of the primordial atmosphere that they used was totally wrong.

Letting nature take over means knowing what environmental conditions existed and what chemicals were present in what amounts. Without that knowledge, it is intelligent design at work.

A few years ago a synthetic cell was created, and was touted as a great step forward in understanding the beginnings of life.

It took teams of specialist scientists, with all the best equipment available, 10 years to reach their goal.

This proved nothing other than that even humans with huge amounts of knowledge and apparatus and time, using transplanted DNA could create a cell.

A fine example of rudimentary intelligent design at work, nothing more

 

[shmogie]

Unattributed quotes are worthless. You need a link to the source. To me he looks like he is discussing man made "laws" not actual laws of nature.

A source is needed because a quote out of context is worthless. The Bible says "There is no God" at least twelve times. Without seeing that quote in context one will get the wrong idea.

ETA: From my understanding the "laws of nature" that are broken in the singularity are merely man made laws and not the underlying laws of nature. You seem to have a difficult time understanding this concept. That is what I understand physicists to mean when they state that. That is why they continue to look for a unified model that does not break down. Let me tag @Polymath257 for a ruling on this.

Your understanding is wrong., You mean Hawking was talking about the Illinois penal code in a lecture on cosmology ? Get real. I gave you a citation, there is no rule that says I have to give more than that. Before my retirement, when I gave university lectures in my field, ( not scientific) I gave source citations, as did other lecturers and writers. You have become an internet parasite.

What if the quote came from a book of collected lectures ? You do know what books are, don't you. ?

You have a citation, take it or leave it. Stop weaseling, you were wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

BUt adjusting and changing till they got the results is EXACTLY what they did.

Today we are told their idea of the primordial atmosphere that they used was totally wrong.

Letting nature take over means knowing what environmental conditions existed and what chemicals were present in what amounts. Without that knowledge, it is intelligent design at work.

No. We can try a variety and see what conditions are more likely and which are less likely to give the products relevant for life. That isn't design. it's exploration.

A few years ago a synthetic cell was created, and was touted as a great step forward in understanding the beginnings of life.

It took teams of specialist scientists, with all the best equipment available, 10 years to reach their goal.

This proved nothing other than that even humans with huge amounts of knowledge and apparatus and time, using transplanted DNA could create a cell.

A fine example of rudimentary intelligent design at work, nothing more

Well, I agree that this was design based on previous work.

What it does show is that there is nothing 'special' about life: that it is a complex collection of chemical reactions with no 'life force' required. It also shows a specific case where we know the conditions for a particular example of life.

 

[Polymath257]

Your understanding is wrong., You mean Hawking was talking about the Illinois penal code in a lecture on cosmology ? Get real. I gave you a citation, there is no rule that says I have to give more than that. Before my retirement, when I gave university lectures in my field, ( not scientific) I gave source citations, as did other lecturers and writers. You have become an internet parasite.

What if the quote came from a book of collected lectures ? You do know what books are, don't you. ?

You have a citation, take it or leave it. Stop weaseling, you were wrong.

No. Hawking was talking about the laws as we currently understand them. They are only applicable to a certain point (which is actually well after the Planck time). before that we have speculation, but nothing certain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BUt adjusting and changing till they got the results is EXACTLY what they did.

Today we are told their idea of the primordial atmosphere that they used was totally wrong.

Letting nature take over means knowing what environmental conditions existed and what chemicals were present in what amounts. Without that knowledge, it is intelligent design at work.

A few years ago a synthetic cell was created, and was touted as a great step forward in understanding the beginnings of life.

It took teams of specialist scientists, with all the best equipment available, 10 years to reach their goal.

This proved nothing other than that even humans with huge amounts of knowledge and apparatus and time, using transplanted DNA could create a cell.

A fine example of rudimentary intelligent design at work, nothing more

No, they set up the experiment to mimic aspects of nature and then let it run and analyzed the results. They were pretty sure what the results would be but that does not mean that they cheated in any way.

Scientists try to mimic nature in their experiments, that is why they do them in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your understanding is wrong., You mean Hawking was talking about the Illinois penal code in a lecture on cosmology ? Get real. I gave you a citation, there is no rule that says I have to give more than that. Before my retirement, when I gave university lectures in my field, ( not scientific) I gave source citations, as did other lecturers and writers. You have become an internet parasite.

What if the quote came from a book of collected lectures ? You do know what books are, don't you. ?

You have a citation, take it or leave it. Stop weaseling, you were wrong.

No, you only supplied a quote out of context and my interpretation has been confirmed by someone that understands physics better than either of us. Demanding a proper sources is not weaseling.

Instead of attacking others you should be asking questions when you don't understand.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Lets go right back to the beginning.

Why? We are talking about the creation of man, not the creation of the universe. If we asked how lightning was created would you start talking about the Big Bang? If we were asking about the cause of infectious diseases would you start talking about abiogenesis and the origin of the universe?

We don't have to know ultimate origins in order to understand proximal causes, so why avoid the question in the opening post? We are asking where humans came from, not where the universe came from.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are correct. Science doesn't work that way. Atheist science de facto says that any explanation for anything can only be formulated by purely natural processes. No other possibility can be entertained. You, yourself adhere to this law.

So what if creation scientists "have a Christian slant" ? Atheist scientists have an "atheist slant". What you are saying is that one set of biases are "Gospel" (no pun intended) and another set are categorically unacceptable.

It's the science that counts, not perceived biases isn't it ?

Forgive me for bringing up abiogenesis, but that and cosmology are where I do most of my science reading.

A very prominent atheist biochemist, I forget his name now, but I remember his words verbatim he said this " I know abiogenesis is impossible, but I believe it because to consider the alternative is horrible to contemplate"

He is loyal to the atheist law of science. Believe the impossible, rather than consider something else.

Ima come back to comment.

What is atheist science? I never heard of such a thing in books nor spoke in person with anyone using that phrase.