For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[shmogie]

Well, a good start would be to use your quantifiers (i.e, all) unambiguously.

The first life came about in water. The amino acids were a product of the gases, not of the minerals. Some minerals were relevant as catalysts. Most of the reactions happened in a reducing environment with a lot of UV radiation coming in. Some were more common around deep sea vents.


But no, we do not know all of the specifics. but we *do* know that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. We *do* know that none of the atoms in any living thing are themselves alive. So we *do* know that life arises out of non-living matter.

Can you at least admit these basic facts?




But we *do* have evidence concerning the chemical nature of life. We *do* have evidence that such complex chemistry can build up over time. We *do* have evidence that chemicals that are common in the universe can give rise to chemicals that are crucial for life. We *do* have evidence of self-organization in such chemicals and catalysis of reactions relevant for life.

On the other end of things, we are *learning* exactly how much complexity is required for life. We are *learning* what sorts of limits life has.

You can ignore the facts all you want, but they are NOT the pile of untestable speculation you want people to accept about supernatural entities and deities.

Your points are not really relevant, are they ? You know of comparable ingredients, you know of chemical reactions, you know that chemicals in the universe are part of the life process, you know some chemical combinations have the ability for limited self organization. All well and good, I know those things to, but not in the detail you do.

So, you have laid a very basic foundation of your case. All that is missing is the detailed information and evidence of how this foundation, step by step, became a living organism.

Allow me to give you an analogy from my field. A murder was committed, we know where and how. We have a psychological profile of the killer, we have a partial description, we know he was a white male, roughly six feet tall. We can';t then make the jump of absolute pure faith that since Billy Barty is a white male somewhat matching the psychological profile but is only four feet tall, and was known to be within 250 yards of the area within a few hour timeline of the murder must have occurred, he did it. Bringing this kind of case would result in riots and termination Yet abiogenesis is a leap of infinitely more distance than this.

Now, I might say that I think Billy did it, then work very hard to fill in all the blanks, the why's and wherefores, then present the case with evidence of how it all happened.

It is stupid to say Billy did it, here is the foundation, believe it now and we will provide the evidence later. Especially when the evidence can never be found.

----IF---- there is absolutely no evidence for Gods creation of man, yet WE have faith in it, and there is no evidence for abiogenesis, but YOU have faith in it, why do you believe YOUR faith is somehow superior to OURS ?

 

[Polymath257]

Your points are not really relevant, are they ? You know of comparable ingredients, you know of chemical reactions, you know that chemicals in the universe are part of the life process, you know some chemical combinations have the ability for limited self organization. All well and good, I know those things to, but not in the detail you do.

So, you have laid a very basic foundation of your case. All that is missing is the detailed information and evidence of how this foundation, step by step, became a living organism.

Yes.

Allow me to give you an analogy from my field. A murder was committed, we know where and how. We have a psychological profile of the killer, we have a partial description, we know he was a white male, roughly six feet tall. We can';t then make the jump of absolute pure faith that since Billy Barty is a white male somewhat matching the psychological profile but is only four feet tall, and was known to be within 250 yards of the area within a few hour timeline of the murder must have occurred, he did it. Bringing this kind of case would result in riots and termination Yet abiogenesis is a leap of infinitely more distance than this.

Now, I might say that I think Billy did it, then work very hard to fill in all the blanks, the why's and wherefores, then present the case with evidence of how it all happened.

It is stupid to say Billy did it, here is the foundation, believe it now and we will provide the evidence later. Especially when the evidence can never be found.

----IF---- there is absolutely no evidence for Gods creation of man, yet WE have faith in it, and there is no evidence for abiogenesis, but YOU have faith in it, why do you believe YOUR faith is somehow superior to OURS ?

And yet, if someone claimed God committed the murder, you would probably reject that because of the lack of evidence.

Also, questions we had about abiogenesis 20 years ago have been solved. Progress *is* being made.

Do we have details? No. But we know a murder was committed. And it wasn't by God.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I will withhold the evidence, say it is all by faith. I will discuss evidence when convincing evidence is provided of abiogenesis.

I presented evidence for the origin of humans in the following thread:

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

You now have no excuse for withholding the evidence you claim to have.

 

[Audie]

Hmmmmm, It is a myth only in the way I present it. Ok, so you reject that all the materials I listed, in any combination, in any environment didn't produce a living organism ? I don;'t understand your position. This is what has been preached for 60 years, at least. How else should I present it ?
Should I just skip these fundamental basics and just assume that a perfect environment existed, with no possibility of hostility to the presupposed perfect components that are assumed to have existed, that are assumed to have combined into the assumed perfect combination, and voila' ! the assumed precursor first living organism exists ! It's alive, alive !

I can see how you, a proponent of this never observed, unknown, presumed, assumed, hoped for myth would prefer that the basic reality just be skipped so the Disneyland of abiogenesis could be entered.

You guy's whoop and jump and scream no evidence for God, no proof of God ahhhhhh people who believe in him are idiots etc.

Abiogenesis is your dirty little secret, your belief in a bogus myth.

Now others, especially your sidekick, will huff and puff and say there is "evidence", and promptly try and educate me on all this "evidence".

They will post about contrived and controlled experiments, and an infinitesimally tiny sliver of a result from one, or the other, and crow about how, as your buddy says , there are a few problems left.

This is a huge pile of steaming codswollop, a palliative to the gullible and faithful, shiny objects rolled across the ground to dazzle and distract from the absolute basics of the proposition, that you reject.

It's all good for me. I know what most of the shiny objects are and their failings to in relation to the basic proposition.

So you guy's just go ahead, have your rally, prop and jack one another up, get that mob mentality going, jump up on those pedestals and make every effort to figurative lynch me with the rope of your "superior" knowledge. It's all good.

I know, and you know that I and millions of others know, it's an illusion, a chimera.

So, I will keep my faith, and you are welcome to yours.

If your "faith" is so great and your case so strong, why do you need
such hyperbolic language, and why have you offered nothing but that?

 

[Audie]

You have once again confirmed our suspicion that creationists lack any evidence for their claims.

One way to find out is not to respond to any post that is not on topic.

 

[Audie]

I presented evidence for the origin of humans in the following thread:

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

You now have no excuse for withholding the evidence you claim to have.

A terrific piece of evidence would be data showing there are no humans older than 6000 yrs old, or whatever is the date du jour for any particular creationist.

 

[ecco]

May be this!

May be what? Do you really think I'm going to take the time to watch a you tube video that you recommend? Is the producer of the video a holy roller Muslim or is (s)he a learned student of the Koran or a scientist? If you are too lazy, or ignorant, to give any background information and a synopsis of the content, then I'm sure not going to waste my time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I presented evidence for the origin of humans in the following thread:

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

You now have no excuse for withholding the evidence you claim to have.

Wrong, there is a very good excuse for withholding the evidence that he claims to have. It probably does not exist. If someone making that sort of claim revealed that he had no evidence that person would probably be too afraid to claim that he had evidence again.

 

[Audie]

Wrong, there is a very good excuse for withholding the evidence that he claims to have. It probably does not exist. If someone making that sort of claim revealed that he had no evidence that person would probably be too afraid to claim that he had evidence again.

You may remember a lady whose name started with a D, who said she
had all this disproof of ToE but would not share it because it was like
pearls before swine.

 

[Audie]

May be what? Do you really think I'm going to take the time to watch a you tube video that you recommend? Is the producer of the video a holy roller Muslim or is (s)he a learned student of the Koran or a scientist? If you are too lazy, or ignorant, to give any background information and a synopsis of the content, then I'm sure not going to waste my time.

Posting a video as argument is essentially the same as a Godwin.

An auto-disqualify. And for so many reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may remember a lady whose name started with a D, who said she
had all this disproof of ToE but would not share it because it was like
pearls before swine.

All too well.

 

[ecco]

So, the common precedent of atheists hijacking religious discussions with their sneering comments about the thread, or just jumping to your universal obsession " prove there is a God " is not applicable here.

Can you actually show a quote from an atheist challenging you to "prove there is a God"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you actually show a quote from an atheist challenging you to "prove there is a God"?

He may be conflating the concepts of evidence and proof. I find it rather strange that a person supposedly in law enforcement does not understand the difference between the two.

 

[ecco]

for-creationists-show-evidences-for-creation-of-man

GOD created humans.
...

I will withhold the evidence, say it is all by faith.
...

I have stated it.

Well, there ya go!

I guess that settles that. The shmogie has spoken.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your points are not really relevant, are they ? You know of comparable ingredients, you know of chemical reactions, you know that chemicals in the universe are part of the life process, you know some chemical combinations have the ability for limited self organization. All well and good, I know those things to, but not in the detail you do.

So, you have laid a very basic foundation of your case. All that is missing is the detailed information and evidence of how this foundation, step by step, became a living organism.

Allow me to give you an analogy from my field. A murder was committed, we know where and how. We have a psychological profile of the killer, we have a partial description, we know he was a white male, roughly six feet tall. We can';t then make the jump of absolute pure faith that since Billy Barty is a white male somewhat matching the psychological profile but is only four feet tall, and was known to be within 250 yards of the area within a few hour timeline of the murder must have occurred, he did it. Bringing this kind of case would result in riots and termination Yet abiogenesis is a leap of infinitely more distance than this.

Now, I might say that I think Billy did it, then work very hard to fill in all the blanks, the why's and wherefores, then present the case with evidence of how it all happened.

It is stupid to say Billy did it, here is the foundation, believe it now and we will provide the evidence later. Especially when the evidence can never be found.

----IF---- there is absolutely no evidence for Gods creation of man, yet WE have faith in it, and there is no evidence for abiogenesis, but YOU have faith in it, why do you believe YOUR faith is somehow superior to OURS ?

Actually this is a rather poor analogy. As we learn more and more about abiogensis it appears that there are multiple pathways to life arising naturally.

To put it in a Law Enforcement analogy. We have suspects Abigail, Abraham, and Absalom. we can show evidence that all of them may have been the one that committed a crime, but not sufficient evidence to convict any of them. They were all at the scene but no one observed them doing the crime, but the crime fits the modus operendi of all of them. Meanwhile there is George. No one saw George at the scene of the crime. No one has evidence that George did it. And the crime does not match George's modus operendi.

What sounds more reasonable: To say it was probably either Abigail, Abraham, or Absalom, the individuals that we know were there and could have done it, or to claim it was George that did it simply based upon faith?

 

[Audie]

for-creationists-show-evidences-for-creation-of-man




Well, there ya go!

I guess that settles that. The shmogie has spoken.

Good. It was getting more and more tiresome and ridiculous anyway.

 

[exchemist]

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.

I think this is a fake quotation. At any rate I cannot find any source for it. If you cannot provide a source I think we should discount it.

You are mistaken too about the existence of something called "atheist science". There is just science, which employs methodological naturalism* as part of the scientific method.

There is no "creation science", though there is a pseudoscience that calls itself "creation science". This is not science for a number of reasons but two prominent ones are:
(i) that supernatural (miraculous) interventions in nature are considered as hypotheses, and
(ii) it makes no predictions testable by observation.

* There is an article on this on Wiki which may be worth reading if you are not already familiar with it. It is a section of a longer article titled Naturalism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think this is a fake quotation. At any rate I cannot find any source for it. If you cannot provide a source I think we should discount it.

You are mistaken too about the existence of something called "atheist science". There is just science, which employs methodological naturalism* as part of the scientific method.

There is no "creation science", though there is a pseudoscience that calls itself "creation science". This is not science for a number of reasons but two prominent ones are:
(i) that supernatural (miraculous) interventions in nature are considered as hypotheses, and
(ii) it makes no predictions testable by observation.

* There is an article on this on Wiki which may be worth reading if you are not already familiar with it. It is a section of a longer article titled Naturalism.

Not only is it probably a fake quotation, I did do a Google search of the quote and came up almost empty. It appears to be a rewording of what George Wald said. I found a typical creationist quote mine in this article:

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1022

In it he is quoted as saying:

"To make an organism demands the right substances in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not think that anything more is needed—but that is problem enough. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede thatthe spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are…. "

Their bolding. Please note he said "spontaneous generation" is impossible, and that is correct. Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation.

 

[dfnj]

Can you tell when you are making things up?

Irrelevant. Choosing to have faith is not based on reason.

God is omnipotent and without boundaries by definition. Therefore, God can create man in any amount of time.

 

[dfnj]

I always am amazed when the Omphalos argument is brought into play. Shall we proceed to Last Thursdayism?

Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia

This has nothing to do with fancy Greek words. An omnipotent God does not have the delusional limitations you are placing on Him.