Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[shmogie]

Oh, just like creation....

Correct !

 

[shmogie]

One wonders if you can show how "GodDidIt"?

Don't need to.

 

[Aupmanyav]

RNA isn't life. RNA artificially produced, produced by intelligent design, a creator isn't a result of any natural process. No where in nature has this been observed. The alleged chemical makeup of the primordial soup cannot be known, nor the environmental conditions. Actually, a primitive cell that can replicate has been created, after 10 years work of approx. 50 scientists in extremely controlled conditions,with tons of equpment and many labs, so what, it ain't natural. Wikepedia, hum, a wonderful science source.

Anything that replicates by itself is life, or the beginning of life. You did not read my post clearly nor pursued the links. Replicating RNA molecules can be/have been produced in laboratories using physical conditions that exist (even now)/existed in the environment. We know about the primordial soup that existed in Andromeda galaxy, what to talk about conditions on Earth. I do not think there is anything wrong with Wikipedia, it is perhaps the best source of initial information in Internet.

Hah, and your intelligent design is natural? Don't make me ROFL.

 

[McBell]

Don't need to.

Double standards then...

 

[Sapiens]

I see, my swarthy friend, You admit you didn't understand the concept of a double doctorate, nor the fundamentals of space time dilation, good for you. However, another problem has arisen. Now , it seems, you don't understand what quotation marks are used for, nor the concept of reading a thread. Please, for your own credibility, jump on the internet and clarify these things in your mind. As to my other "lies". Frankly, I don't know what you are referring to. A lie, at least at law, is having the knowledge and acceptance of the TRUTH, but yet saying something contrary to the TRUTH. You see ? probably not, I'll have to explain. If I believed Schroeder was at MIT for 7 years, I can't tell a lie if he was there for 5. I had a reasonable basis for believing he was there for 7. Should I have checked further ? Perhaps.

The facts remain. Schroeder says, on his website 5 years, he got one sheepskin, not two , he was never part of the faculty at MIT. OK, perhaps you are not a liar, perhaps you are just willfully delusional.

 

[shmogie]

The facts remain. Schroeder says, on his website 5 years, he got one sheepskin, not two , he was never part of the faculty at MIT. OK, perhaps you are not a liar, perhaps you are just willfully delusional.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. A DOUBLE doctorate, is a double doctorate. Tell you what say anything, everything, so you can get the last word in, as your deflated ego demands. You are getting tiresome, and I am very embarrassed for you. Say what makes you fell like a man, then let it go.

 

[shmogie]

Anything that replicates by itself is life, or the beginning of life. You did not read my post clearly nor pursued the links. Replicating RNA molecules can be/have been produced in laboratories using physical conditions that exist (even now)/existed in the environment. We know about the primordial soup that existed in Andromeda galaxy, what to talk about conditions on Earth. I do not think there is anything wrong with Wikipedia, it is perhaps the best source of initial information in Internet.

Hah, and your intelligent design is natural? Don't make me ROFL.

I assume then, you believe that programs who replicate themselves are alive ? How about tool and die machines that can make many just like themselves, are they alive ? No LIFE, and the alleged beginning of life are not the same. Go to wikepedia, determine what are the basic characteristics of life,there is a list, a list you should have been exposed to in sixth grade science, then get back to me You know about the primordial soup that existed in the Andromeda galaxy, really ? are you sure ? I think this is slipping away from you. I am making no claims re intelligent design. What I am doing is making the claim that there is no evidence to support abiogenesis, and that believers in it must rest their belief in it solely as a result of faith, just like creationists do. The scientific hucksterism that dupes people into thinking it has been "scientifically proven" is garbage. Atheists believe it because they choose to and have faith in the concept, there is no evidence of it, just speculation. It has to be one or the other, or did you have a third way in mind ?

 

[Sapiens]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. A DOUBLE doctorate, is a double doctorate. Tell you what say anything, everything, so you can get the last word in, as your deflated ego demands. You are getting tiresome, and I am very embarrassed for you. Say what makes you fell like a man, then let it go.

Does that mean that I have a Quadruple doctorate? Wow, three extra degrees for free! That's not how it works, but clearly you have little or no experience with post graduate education.

 

[shmogie]

Does that mean that I have a Quadruple doctorate? Wow, three extra degrees for free! That's not how it works, but clearly you have little or no experience with post graduate education.

Feel better now ? You have made an effort to prove you are a man. Let it go

 

[Sapiens]

Feel better now ? You have made an effort to prove you are a man. Let it go

You'd like to have me stop pointing out your faceplant, eh?

OK ... admit it fully, apologize, and lie no more. Then it will stop because there will be no reason to continue.

 

[shmogie]

You'd like to have me stop pointing out your faceplant, eh?

OK ... admit it fully, apologize, and lie no more. Then it will stop because there will be no reason to continue.

zzzzzzzzzzzz hup, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ecchZZZZZZZZ, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz a tribute to your mastery of the English language, your clear and cogent grasp of relativity, your overwhelming academic achievements, your triple masters degree in punctuation, your astounding reading comprehension................................fart

 

[Sapiens]

There seems to be no way to deal with your juvenile abuse than to stand you in the corner, welcome to the ignore list, what we all should have done back at your first post.

 

[shmogie]

There seems to be no way to deal with your juvenile abuse than to stand you in the corner, welcome to the ignore list, what we all should have done back at your first post.

Oh thank goodness, finally. Perhaps matters at hand can now be discussed reasonably

 

[shmogie]

Double standards then...

No. Faith in a concept, is faith in a concept. Some must learn that what they believe in is based on faith, not fact

 

[Aupmanyav]

How about tool and die machines that can make many just like themselves, are they alive ? No LIFE, and the alleged beginning of life are not the same. You know about the primordial soup that existed in the Andromeda galaxy, really? are you sure?

Are there tools and dies which can replicate themselves? Tell me of one or two. There is a border-line which is not clearly defined ("The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids or potential artificial life as living." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life).

"Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows: 1. Early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere. 2. This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers"). 3. These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.). 4. By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup

"It was from density fluctuations (or anisotropic irregularities) in this primordial matter that larger structures began to appear. As a result, masses of baryonic matter started to condense within cold dark matter halos. These primordial structures would eventually become the galaxies we see today.

Theories can be divided into two categories: top-down and bottom-up. In top-down theories (such as the Eggen–Lynden-Bell–Sandage [ELS] model), protogalaxies form in a large-scale simultaneous collapse lasting about one hundred million years. In bottom-up theories (such as the Searle-Zinn [SZ] model), small structures such as globular clusters form first, and then a number of such bodies accrete to form a larger galaxy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Formation

 

[shmogie]

OK. First please clarify, what is "potential artificial life " ? Viruses and viroids fall on one side or the other depending upon the criteria, but it's for sure they weren't the first life forms, because as far as I know, they need a complete cell host to reproduce themselves. Professor Shapiro's musings are nice, but how does he know any of the things he proposes are true ? Since the 1950's there have been attempts to replicate the scenario you describe in a lab, different chemicals, different environments, different energies, and all that has resulted is a few amino acids, which aren't living organisms. Shapiro's wishes, and hopes, and I think so's could go onto a chart, and look so impressive, but it would mean nothing. Science demands that a process be observed ( this hasn't), be reproduced (this hasn't) or at least be explained with something more than, may's, coulds, perhapses, and maybe's, this hasn't. I heard it explained like this once, the earth of molten rock cooled. Rain fell on the rock for billions of years, we are the result of water runoff from rock. Do you buy that ? There are more detailed things that I could go into, like how just about any primordial soup is hostile to to DNA strand attachment, when it is tweaked to allow better attachment, the DNA segments are destroyed before the even have time to attach. There is a whole lot more, but I think the point is made, it is all guess work and speculation, and if you believe it, you believe it because of faith, not fact. I haven't spent that much time on galaxy formation, other than how it relates to the big band, artifact background radiation, and ripples in that radiation. So, I will defer to you re what you posted

 

[McBell]

Oh thank goodness, finally. Perhaps matters at hand can now be discussed reasonably

Except you are the one being unreasonable.....
Even in your sad attempt at insult.

 

[McBell]

No. Faith in a concept, is faith in a concept. Some must learn that what they believe in is based on faith, not fact

so you are fine with using a completely different set of standards when proving god?
How can you be taken seriously outside the choir?

 

[shmogie]

so you are fine with using a completely different set of standards when proving god?
How can you be taken seriously outside the choir?

Exact same standards. It is either one or the other, and neither is imperically provable. So, how can you be taken seriously outside your choir ?

Except you are the one being unreasonable.....
Even in your sad attempt at insult.

lol yeah, right. I beg to differ, he was the one being unreasonable, even his sad attempts at insult.

 

[james bond]

No. The evolution of organisms that reproduce very quickly such as bacteria is already verifiable evidence that validates the theory of evolution. Creationists will often say that this only states that evolution happens on a small level. Well, that pretty much invalidates creationism. Evolution is a concept present on anything with genetic material. It's caused by natural selection. Any species that is mortal and can reproduce (every species) evolves. Organisms change over time. Creationists believe that we were all placed here and haven't changed since our alleged creation. Well, over such a long period of time since the Earth was formed, large scale evolution had to happen.

Do I think humans will further evolve? No. We will actually go backwards. Our technology has prevented natural selection from affecting us very much.

Not really. Bacteria is actually very complex. Evolution cannot create one bacteria as they "claim." Claims are not facts. However, bacteria certainly creates other forms of bacteria. That is natural selection and it is part of creation science even though many are brainwashed into thinking it is evolution. Religious scientist Alfred Russel Wallace presented it, too. Just look at the evidence in this thread that states natural selection proves evolution. Even Darwin admitted he could not create life, so thought he was wrong about evolution. Actually, he was right. Maybe that and natural selection are the only things he got right. Plenty of evidence to show that atheist Darwin was usually wrong. Back to the bacteria reproducing very quickly. Rapid change is part of creation science. It does not take millions or billions of years.

Where do you get the notion that creationists think we have not changed since creation. We have changed for the worse and then better and then worse. First was Adam's sin which plagued us all. We went from perfection to imperfection over time. We still admire perfection in nature and human race as evidence of longing for the past. The next major event was Jesus' death which gave us a chance to be saved from the downward spiral. It became worse since Noah's flood, but we still can live a relatively long time and get the most out of our lives while we are here. Moses came later to give us the standards.

It's an interesting theory of yours about humans. Care to expand your thinking? My thinking is some will progress to healthier and longer lives and maximize their longevity, but we will not be as healthy as our original ancestors or live as long.