Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[SavedByTheLord]

Do silly and terribly ignorant questions about God refute God? Then why do you ask silly and ignorant questions about science as if you are proving something?

I need to remind you that by your own standards your God does not exist.

God created all things. So your analogy is false, again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find that interesting, i.e., that there is no evidence OR actual description of the first living creature.

Why do you think that would be needed? But there are very general descriptions of the first critter (officially approved word for organisms) from what we have learned from studies into abiogenesis so far.

For example the first life would have been single celled. It would have been extremely simple, possibly solely self replicating RNA in an environment that is amnio acid rich. It would almost certainly have had a natural cell wall made from lipids. Lipids are natural chemicals, think soap bubbles, that have always existed. They form simple vesicles (bubbles if you like) on their own.

Now the question is would a person count self replicating RNA as life? It is bit iffy. Then one would have to look at further changes after that. And I am pretty much lost then. I have heard of "systems chemistry" which is observed complex chemistry that can occur under specific circumstances, such as in a proto-cell. But I no far too little of that to write on it here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God created all things. So your analogy is false, again.

That is just a claim. A worthless one without any solid evidence. I would be just as "correct" If I said that Quob created all things, though I could probably find more evidence for Quob than you can find for God.

 

[F1fan]

What .. the error of believing in the Creator and Maintainer of the universe?
That is NO error!

Are you now Hindu? They have seperate gods for various functions.

 

[F1fan]

God created all things. So your analogy is false, again.

Right, and you still haven't explained to us why your God made cancer that kills children as a well as adults. Do you have an answer that shows God is loving and just?

 

[F1fan]

not everyone

Not everyone .... what? If you can't expalin your thought then perhaps you are wrong.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..All of which would be scientific evidence for natural abiogenesis. There is no evidence for supernatural abiogenesis..

What evidence would you expect to see?

A poor argument, indeed.
We are referring to something that might have happened billions of years ago,
and you think that "evidence" is the key?
Oh boy!

 

[muhammad_isa]

Right, and you still haven't explained to us why your God made cancer that kills children as a well as adults. Do you have an answer that shows God is loving and just?

I do .. but it is not worth me repeating it again..

A general answer must suffice .. WE ALL have to DIE.
We are mortal, and the collective sins of mankind affect us all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence would you expect to see?

A poor argument, indeed.
We are referring to something that might have happened billions of years ago,
and you think that "evidence" is the key?
Oh boy!

This is a very very weak argument. It is almost the same as admitting that the supernatural is make believe. There are people that claim it is real. There are people that claim to have experienced it. Real things tend to leave evidence. It is up to believers to find evidence for their beliefs and present them. I would not be so foolish as to ask a creationist to find evidence for evolution. Why would you expect those not to believe in the supernatural to find evidence for it.

In other words, the burden of proof for the supernatural lies upon those that believe in it. Now those that oppose it can, hopefully, expose flaws in reasoning. Creationists cannot do that, but let's face facts. That is because creationists are wrong. The only way that one can be today is to abandon rational thought. That is why they can never form good arguments for their beliefs.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Creationists cannot do that, but let's face facts. That is because creationists are wrong..

I hate these terms "Creationist" and "Evolutionist".
People tend to argue in a meaningless way, each having their own definitions of the words.

I believe in the Creator and Maintainer of the Universe..
Does that make me a "Creationist"?

..The only way that one can be today is to abandon rational thought..

I find that statement rather arrogant .. but each to their own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hate these terms "Creationist" and "Evolutionist".
People tend to argue in a meaningless way, each having their own definitions of the words.

I believe in the Creator and Maintainer of the Universe..
Does that make me a "Creationist"?

Okay, I use the original definition of the term. Do you deny the fact of evolution? Then yes, you are a creationist. Do you believe that life is the product of evolution, you know the concept of a common ancestor for all life? If that is the case you are not a creationist.

I find that statement rather arrogant .. but each to their own.

It is not arrogant. It is demonstrably the case. I can show you debate after debate where the creationist simply cannot reason rationally or honestly. Can you show me one where a creationist is well informed and honest? That would be newsworthy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Okay, I use the original definition of the term. Do you deny the fact of evolution? Then yes, you are a creationist..

Too simplistic .. I've already said..
"Evolution" is a sprawling theory, with its core being recognised as fact.

I do NOT deny the core .. I am familiar with elementary biology.

Do you believe that life is the product of evolution, you know the concept of a common ancestor for all life?

That is a bit more difficult to answer .. I don't KNOW if we evolved from a "common ancestor".
Furthermore, it makes no difference to me, because I do not take the relevant Scripture literally.
i.e. Adam "poofed" into being

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too simplistic .. I've already said..
"Evolution" is a sprawling theory, with its core being recognised as fact.

I do NOT deny the core .. I am familiar with elementary biology.


That is a bit more difficult to answer .. I don't KNOW if we evolved from a "common ancestor".
Furthermore, it makes no difference to me, because I do not take the relevant Scripture literally.
i.e. Adam "poofed" into being

Then I would say that you are not a creationist. You might want to believe that there may be bases to the various branches that somehow arose separately. In other words plants, bacteria, and animals. But why you would have that belief would be hard to understand.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

best to drop it before it warps your mind completely.

The creationists minds have ossified. The more they drink from that cup, the more it deforms thought. The Old Earth Creationsts aren't redeemable, but not as anti-intellectual as the OEC.

That there is life now is not evidence of there being a first living creature.

I'd say that combined with the evidence that there was once no life on earth or in the universe, it's a pretty sound argument unless one wants to quibble over when prebiotic forms deserve to be called life - sort of a sorites argument analogous to there being no first humans.

I find that interesting, i.e., that there is no evidence OR actual description of the first living creature.

But you're wrong. We have evidence that there was first life (once there was no life and now life exists) and we know a fair amount about what it must have been like. It was unicellular, marine, encased in lipids, contained nucleic acids and proteins, supported metabolism, and it was capable of reproducing.

there's no proof of any first living creation

We don't call them creations absent a conscious creator. They're living organisms, not creations.

What evidence would you expect to see?

For supernatural abiogenesis? Something that couldn't be explained naturalistically.

I believe in the Creator and Maintainer of the Universe..
Does that make me a "Creationist"?

Yes, if you believe that entity was conscious and intelligently designed the universe or the life and mind in it, then you are a creationist.

BS - bull s...
MS - more of the same
Phd - piled higher and deeper

Sour grapes? Did you get your associates degree? If not, how about a high school diploma or equivalent (GED)?

I proved that it could not have happenEd anywhere in the universe for all time.

No, you didn't. You proved that you are creationism apologist with specious arguments. All current scientific theories are correct in the main beyond reasonable doubt. None will be overturned even as they are tweaked a bit from time to time to accommodate new evidence. The Big Bang is correct. The universe is 13.7 billion years old and the theory of evolution is correct. The Bible is wrong.

Your pagan forbears were always wrong anyway.

Just about everything in Genesis is wrong. There were no six days of creation and no day of rest. There was no creation of the kinds or of Adam and Eve. And there was no global flood or Tower of Babel.

God created all things.

Maybe the deist god did before he left the building in the manner science has elucidated, but not the god of Abraham. See above.

Where did the laws of nature come from? Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter? Where did all energy come from? Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles? Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?

All particles and forces came from the initial expansion of the universe and subsequent symmetry breaking, that is, they came from nature itself.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, if you believe that entity was conscious and intelligently designed the universe or the life and mind in it, then you are a creationist..

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views, which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.
Creationism - Wikipedia

I come in to the latter category. I am not a literalist, as in Adam was literally made out of dust etc.

..and you cannot prove that the universe was not created .. rather than appeared by chance.
In fact .. it is much more probable .. intelligence has a source, in my experience.
..and does NOT evolve from "no thing" .. just as AI is programmed by intelligent beings.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I come in to the latter category. I am not a literalist, as in Adam was literally made out of dust etc.

OK. That's a creationist.

Do you find the term offensive? You shouldn't. It describes Abrahamic metaphysics. Even deists are creationists if they think a god created our universe.

you cannot prove that the universe was not created

Nor need I.

In fact .. it is much more probable .. intelligence has a source

Agreed, but not an intelligent source. The source of intelligence appears to be brains generated naturalistically according to the laws of nature.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Agreed, but not an intelligent source. The source of intelligence appears to be brains generated naturalistically according to the laws of nature.

That is meaningless .. "generated naturalistically" ..

Furthermore, brains are just pieces of meat .. they do not represent a person.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is meaningless .. "generated naturalistically"

It means the opposite of generated supernaturalistically. Would a thesaurus be of benefit to you?

Furthermore, brains are just pieces of meat .. they do not represent a person.

What does this have to do with this discussion? I thought you were discussing the origin of intelligence. Are you now asking what represents a person? If so, would you clarify what you mean? Sometimes it's a name, sometimes a face, sometimes a voice, sometimes a fingerprint, sometimes a DNA sequence. Sometimes it's an elected representative.

The universe appears godless. We don't need gods to account for anything in it yet and likely never will. Perhaps that is a disappointment to you. It shouldn't be. You can go on believing otherwise anyway. You don't need to be right.

That's the beauty and danger of faith. You can believe whatever you like. You don't need evidence, and you don't need to be right as long as those beliefs don't inform bad choices. Believing in gods is harmless unless it impedes intellectual and moral development or causes you to spend a significant amount of time or money on religion. Believing in angels is harmless unless you believe one will watch over you while drunk driving. Otherwise, if that's what centers you, go for it.

The Dharmics and pagans don't seem to have problems coming from their god beliefs, but not so much the Abrahamics, whose beliefs seem to do themselves and others significant harm in too many cases. Look at the damage Christianity is inflicting on America now with its various bigotries and superstitions creeping into government.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It means

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?
How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?
Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?
In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?
If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?
What was the energy source for these reactions?

 

[Monty]

God created all things. So your analogy is false, again.

Your hypothesis, however, doesn't change the unequivocal fact that the universe is billions of years old. Which is why we can see over two hundred billion galaxies, given that the speed of light is about 300,00 km/sec. Recent estimates are that there are more than two trillion galaxies.