The Ultimate Challenge To Creationists

[shawn001]

Just for the information

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained


Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

 

[Bunyip]

Sorry, but that's simply not true.

Behold, I've brought you a man...I mean dinosaur!

What do I win? ;p

LOL. You win a golden bunyip satuette that dispenses condoms.

Indeed you are correct, the last clade of the dinosaurs survives to this day. I live on an orchard and we have a few emus running about. When you see their footsteps in the mud, they sure look like dino prints.

 

[Skwim]

Is there any evolutionist in the world who can explain how life came from NON-LIFE under normal, natural, UN-controlled circumstances? I put those "conditions" because those were the conditions under which evolutionists believe that non-life turned into LIFE.

Right out of the gate you fall on your face: unable to abide my simple request:

"Make your case for creationism WITHOUT alluding to evolution or its principles.
​

Moreover, your question shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of evolution---probably a result of creationist brainwashing. In any case, here's an FYI you should tuck under your keyboard and pull out whenever you decide to discuss evolution: Evolution does not, and never has, addressed a first cause. I'll even repeat this for you

​

 

[Sapiens]

Just for the information

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained


Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Thanks, science marches on. It is so nice to have yet another claim that can be dismissed. No need to say, "we don't know ... yet, but it wasn't magic" again ... at least for this one.

 

[Ouroboros]

By that I mean this: for the BB to happen there had to be space in which to happen,

A scientist explained it to me once. Space expanded. That's why the universe inflated to 70% of its current size within a fraction of a second.

 

[Bunyip]

Thanks, science marches on. It is so nice to have yet another claim that can be dismissed. No need to say, "we don't know ... yet, but it wasn't magic" again ... at least for this one.

Funnily enough the original research by Mary Sweitzer (I think) was all about possible fragments of unfossilised collagen in a 65 million year old fossil. She never claimed to have found unfossilised tissue. All of that was a creationist invention.

 

[Sapiens]

Funnily enough the original research by Mary Sweitzer (I think) was all about possible fragments of unfossilised collagen in a 65 million year old fossil. She never claimed to have found unfossilised tissue. All of that was a creationist invention.

Right you are, chalk up another massive failure to the YECs and IDers.

 

[shawn001]

Just FYI, before they figured it out, under a microscope.

 

[leibowde84]

Dear Skwim, It all depends on YOUR definition of evolution. Is it changes within Their or His kinds, which is what scientists call changes in the allele frequency genetically in a population over time?

OR, is it Magical Evolution which changes Apes into Humans? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman
​

LOL. Who claimed that evolution "changes apes into humans?" Are you just being silly. Evolution merely claims that we have a common ancestor with apes. You sound like those ridiculous know-nothing-know-it-alls that asks, "if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" Study evolution, because you obviously have not even tried to do so.

 

[Skwim]

LOL. Who claimed that evolution "changes apes into humans?" Are you just being silly. Evolution merely claims that we have a common ancestor with apes. You sound like those ridiculous know-nothing-know-it-alls that asks, "if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" Study evolution, because you obviously have not even tried to do so.

Who you talkin' to? It's annoying when a poster doesn't identify their target post. If nothing else please use the quote function. Thanks.

 

[leibowde84]

Who you talkin' to? It's annoying when a poster doesn't identify their target post. If nothing else please use the quote function. Thanks.

I did use the quote function. It clearly says that I quoted Aman's comment. Does that not show up on your computer?

 

[Skwim]

I did use the quote function. It clearly says that I quoted Aman's comment. Does that not show up on your computer?

No it doesn't, which is strange because the quote feature shows up on everyone else's posts, and your quote of my post here also shows up. Go figure.

 

[Ouroboros]

Who you talkin' to? It's annoying when a poster doesn't identify their target post. If nothing else please use the quote function. Thanks.

FYI, if someone quotes a person you have on ignore, you won't see the quote at all. It took me by surprise to discover that myself. Click on "show ignored content" at the bottom of the page to see who they responded to. He quoted Aman777 by the way. He's on my ignore as well.

 

[Skwim]

FYI, if someone quotes a person you have on ignore, you won't see the quote at all. It took me by surprise to discover that myself. Click on "show ignored content" at the bottom of the page to see who they responded to. He quoted Aman777 by the way. He's on my ignore as well.

Hey, thanks.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Make your case for creationism WITHOUT alluding to evolution or its principles.


​

​

To do creation science you just have to describe how things are chosen in the universe.

0. the logic of how choosing works
1. the start of the universe, and the first decisions
2. decisons in the inanimate world, galaxies etc. if any
3. decisions in the DNA world
4. decisions of organisms
5. decisions of human beings

3 decisions in the the DNA world.

The DNA/RNA system is a world in it's own right, basicly similar to how a 3D computer game is a world in it's own right. Things in the physical universe can be copied to a representation in the DNA world. So the DNA world of an organism may have representations of things in the universe, like the sun and the moon, and other organisms. Some of the environmental representations are used in the life of the organism, other environmental representations guide the choosing of a new representation of an adult organism. The DNA world may also contain a represenation of the organism of the opposite sex etc. but ofcourse most significantly it contains a more detailed representation of the adult organism, which is used for guiding the development of the physical organism to adulthood.

Because of the small size of the DNA world it is easier for things in it to be chosen. The other objects in the DNA world constrain the possible organisms which can be chosen. Also as choosing is to make a future the present, where there is no future, no organism can be chosen. Or so to say, an representation which cannot develop into adulthood, cannot be chosen, because there is no future of it. But this would require some decisionmaking with sophistication.

This theory has scientific merit in many ways. It is basically the only credible theory how an organism can develop into adulthood. It seems inconceivable that an organism can develop into adulthood, without a direct representation of the finished product. And such a representation of the finished product would strongly indicate the existence of a complete world of representations. If one organism can be represented, then it is more parsimonious to say that other things can be represented as well, instead of saying that representations are constricted to only the organism that will develop.

Also this theory explains the enormous percentage of non-coding DNA. It is environmental information, and design guiding information, etc.

As well does this theory explain the appearance of organisms as a coherent integrated whole. It is because they are chosen as a whole in the DNA world.

So you see, creationist theory makes a lot of sense. We should not be surprised, it is only obvious that freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

 

[Sapiens]

To do creation science is impossible since there is not such thing.

 

[mainliner]

Make your case for creationism WITHOUT alluding to evolution or its principles.


​

​

how did an apple seed evolve ????







Ps.... My dad thinks we evolved from a piece of dust .lol........ He gets mad and raises his voice when i mention the " what came first, chick or egg" question haha .

i haven't thrown the " what came first , apple, tree or seed" question..lol


no offence evolutionist......but its your love which evolves






another Ps ..... Not sure if iv gone with the op rules ...... Im alittle ilitarate .... Forgive me

 

[Skwim]

how did an apple seed evolve ????

Yeah, to those unacquainted with evolution a lot of stuff can look suspicious, but once a person understand just how it works questions like these never come up again.

 

[JamesYaqub]

Make your case for creationism WITHOUT alluding to evolution or its principles.


​

​

I agree with this statement. For once I'd like to hear creationists base their beliefs, not on the demerits of evolution, but on the merits of creation. They seem to be saying that creation should be considered a viable concept because there are weak areas in the theory of evolution. The only support they offer for creation is contained in statements of faulty logic that support the Bible. I'm really quite tired of that non-thinking.

If creation is a solid, scientifically based discipline then I want to see departments of creation at major, secular, universities with chairs and the other trappings of legitimacy. I want to see creation in non-religious settings. Until the advocates of creation can do this it's all just religious opinion.

Those who have read my posts may find it strange that I take this stand. I do, after all, believe in creation. But my beliefs are not the same as those held by Biblical creationists. The model that I subscribe to is much different.

I believe that the big bang was the moment of creation and that at that moment evolution began. First creation then evolution. Everything we see now is downstream from that beginning. If the big bang is truth there had to be a cause that was non-material, existing in some realm that was free of any progression of time. I do not say that I believe in God but I certainly do believe that some great purposeful intelligence has to be out there somewhere.

It's not always wise to make statements in absolute terms but I feel safe in saying that nothing can happen without a cause. I extend this by saying that the cause of the moment creation can not have been anything material. This is the basis of my belief in a spiritual universe.

 

[shawn001]

how did an apple seed evolve ????







Ps.... My dad thinks we evolved from a piece of dust .lol........ He gets mad and raises his voice when i mention the " what came first, chick or egg" question haha .

i haven't thrown the " what came first , apple, tree or seed" question..lol


no offence evolutionist......but its your love which evolves






another Ps ..... Not sure if iv gone with the op rules ...... Im alittle ilitarate .... Forgive me

FYI


What came first, the chicken or the egg? The definitive answer

What came first, the chicken or the egg? The definitive answer | Science | The Guardian