Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Ouroboros]

I haven't got to the DNA or how the limits are set up. Still trying to sort out creation biology or baraminology.

Good luck.

To the contrary, Duane Gish supported creation biology through DNA. The evos thought protoplasm was the foundation of life as it was plentiful and that theory was proved to be pseudoscience. Gish stated that if, "organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced."

And? They found more amino-acids in space than the 20 we have on Earth. They're produced naturally, so because they can be produced naturally and they're so plentiful, they must be limited in how they can produce species? Doesn't follow. Sorry.

Protein is very difficult to form from basic particles. Naturally, it probably Is impossible? Today, I recognize new proteins were created, but they were designed weren't they?

Proteins are created in your cells, constantly, right now, through a biochemical process, so the obvious fact here is that nature is able to do it. Now, if you want to argue that God must've created the first protein building enzymes, that's another question, we're not talking about that. We're talking about what limits the mutations from producing life forms. The fixed limits that you talked about sounds awfully close to Essentialism. Isn't that what you're after? So what does the abiogenesis have to do with limitations on speciation?

Gish continues, "In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution."

So neanderthal can't evolved into homo sapiens because they sugars are right-handed? Still doesn't follow. Cars can only be black because the steering wheel is on the left side?

Gish also said self-replicating DNA molecules were pie in the sky. He stated, "Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules. It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids."

Still have nothing to do with fixed limits. I'm not sure if you're fishing for something to hopefully explain it, or if you're trying to redirect the issue to something else, but these things won't create any fixed limitations to speciation.

I thought you would say the egg came first, but then what creature laid the egg ? The common ancestor theory needs work. Or even a blade of grass. The evos have not created grass nor algae.

Chicken came from birds.
Birds came from dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs laid eggs. Actually, the predecessors to the dinosaurs laid eggs.

So the egg laying evolved first by billions of years.

 

[McBell]

Ding, ding, ding. Do we have a winner?

Nope.
No winner there.
At least not for those who prefer reality and truth over wishful thinking.

 

[james bond]

Here's my first take on baraminology. Unfortunately, the website for Creation Biology is comprised of papers submitted by its members (I think) and goes into much detail without context. So from what I could find from other websites, baraminology is " a method of taxonomy based on Biblical ideas." As stated before, baramin is a word coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh for the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). It reclassifies the world into baramins -- originally created kinds. Baraminology, as a model of origins, complements the Linnaen taxonomic system which is also based on the Biblical view of origins. It is an alternative to the evolutionary system of cladistics.

Baraminological Terms

• Holobaramin: A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all members of our species (Homo sapiens) are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. Culturally, many racial ideas and myths still stubbornly linger on, but recent research regarding genetic diversity in humans, has convinced a great majority of scientists that "race" is no longer a useful concept in understanding our species) An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.

• Monobaramin: A monobaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry are monobarmins. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

• Apobaramin: An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Caucasians and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.

• Polybaramin: A polybaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

Three additional terms introduced by Wise:

• Archaebaramin: An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.

• Neobaramin & Paleobaramin: A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years[4] and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity).

Baraminic Demarcation
In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, baraminic demarcation must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts:

• Biological Character Space (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.

• Potentiality Region: A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.

• Continuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.

• Discontinuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.

Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered).

What I could find for one of the trees is

I'm assuming the original created kind was named 'Cat' by Adam. That would be nice .

More later as I can put together.

 

[jeager106]

Well,let's complicate life.
Why not enjoy life while we have it.]
I grew up in the country hunting and fishing and just enjoying life,
often in a row boat on a small river nearby.
I long for those days so far away.

 

[james bond]

Good luck.


And? They found more amino-acids in space than the 20 we have on Earth. They're produced naturally, so because they can be produced naturally and they're so plentiful, they must be limited in how they can produce species? Doesn't follow. Sorry.


Proteins are created in your cells, constantly, right now, through a biochemical process, so the obvious fact here is that nature is able to do it. Now, if you want to argue that God must've created the first protein building enzymes, that's another question, we're not talking about that. We're talking about what limits the mutations from producing life forms. The fixed limits that you talked about sounds awfully close to Essentialism. Isn't that what you're after? So what does the abiogenesis have to do with limitations on speciation?


So neanderthal can't evolved into homo sapiens because they sugars are right-handed? Still doesn't follow. Cars can only be black because the steering wheel is on the left side?


Still have nothing to do with fixed limits. I'm not sure if you're fishing for something to hopefully explain it, or if you're trying to redirect the issue to something else, but these things won't create any fixed limitations to speciation.


Chicken came from birds.
Birds came from dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs laid eggs. Actually, the predecessors to the dinosaurs laid eggs.

So the egg laying evolved first by billions of years.

You have to be patient about getting into "what limits the mutations from producing life forms." And I'm going by what Gish said. He did not mention Essentialism. What is Essentialism to you and how does it relate to Gish?

Proteins are created in our cells, but the protein itself cannot be created outside our cells by nature. Let's not be disingenuous. If you had a case, then you would make it. I'll assume it's near impossible. This follows what Gish was inferring.

As for your egg theory, where is the evidence? I gave you mine for the chicken, and it showed that science backs up the Bible.

Nope.
No winner there.
At least not for those who prefer reality and truth over wishful thinking.

Where is your evidence? You can't just state opinion and expect to win.

 

[Ouroboros]

You have to be patient about getting into "what limits the mutations from producing life forms." And I'm going by what Gish said. He did not mention Essentialism. What is Essentialism to you and how does it relate to Gish?

I've read about the concept of essentialism, and it refers to the idea that each species have some kind of built-in essence of what they're supposed to be. For instance a tiger has a "tigerism" in their nature that forces the DNA to never mutate beyond the "tiger" format. It's like Aristotle's forms. That there's some kind of metaphysical attribute or property that keeps the species within "fixed limits" and can never mutate beyond that.

So far, no evidence of this "essentialism" has been found in the DNA or any evidence that there is such a supernatural force holding back the mutations.

Proteins are created in our cells, but the protein itself cannot be created outside our cells by nature. Let's not be disingenuous. If you had a case, then you would make it. I'll assume it's near impossible. This follows what Gish was inferring.

Has nothing to do with essentialism or "fixed limits".

Besides, you do know that the precursors for proteins have been found in space. Not proteins per se (i.e. peptides), but the amino-acids (organic compounds) are present in space.

As for your egg theory, where is the evidence? I gave you mine for the chicken, and it showed that science backs up the Bible.

The first dino egg fossil was found in 1923. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_egg

Where is your evidence? You can't just state opinion and expect to win.

Hang on. You made the claim of "fixed limits". Now you're turning the tables and ask me to prove you wrong by somehow provide evidence that there are no limits? Why did you make the claim first? This whole discussion is about your statement of "fixed limits". Now, you back that claim up. It's not my job.

Now, perhaps you didn't intent the "fixed limits" to refer to speciation at all, but then perhaps you can explain in depth what you meant with "fixed limits" regarding evolution. It seems like what I'm asking for is something you can't give me, and maybe it's simply because I misunderstood you regarding what you mean. So again, please explain what you mean with "fixed limits".

 

[james bond]

I've read about the concept of essentialism, and it refers to the idea that each species have some kind of built-in essence of what they're supposed to be. For instance a tiger has a "tigerism" in their nature that forces the DNA to never mutate beyond the "tiger" format. It's like Aristotle's forms. That there's some kind of metaphysical attribute or property that keeps the species within "fixed limits" and can never mutate beyond that.

So far, no evidence of this "essentialism" has been found in the DNA or any evidence that there is such a supernatural force holding back the mutations.


Has nothing to do with essentialism or "fixed limits".

Besides, you do know that the precursors for proteins have been found in space. Not proteins per se (i.e. peptides), but the amino-acids (organic compounds) are present in space.


The first dino egg fossil was found in 1923. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_egg


Hang on. You made the claim of "fixed limits". Now you're turning the tables and ask me to prove you wrong by somehow provide evidence that there are no limits? Why did you make the claim first? This whole discussion is about your statement of "fixed limits". Now, you back that claim up. It's not my job.

Now, perhaps you didn't intent the "fixed limits" to refer to speciation at all, but then perhaps you can explain in depth what you meant with "fixed limits" regarding evolution. It seems like what I'm asking for is something you can't give me, and maybe it's simply because I misunderstood you regarding what you mean. So again, please explain what you mean with "fixed limits".

Lot of things are found in space, but it's not evidence that one single protein was formed. Are you saying that is a hypothesis?

And the first dino egg fossil isn't evidence of it it evolving into chickens. Where is the evidence of Ovocleidin-17?

Here's mine. http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2004/07/19/jbc.M406033200.full.pdf

I do not see essentialism with Duane Gish. What he talked about during McLean vs Arkansas trial were limits that apelike creatures do not evolve toward humans or fish evolving into amphibians. So the limits with baraminology is as we discussed before and that is within the class. I'll continue my investigation into baraminology and see if there is more.

"But doesn’t introducing evidence that supports creation require a Creator and is thus religious in nature? Aren’t scientific theories restricted to the use of natural laws and natural processes? It is true that in our efforts to observe, to understand, and to explain the operation of the universe and the operation of living organisms we do and must employ only natural laws and processes. The evolutionist, however, goes beyond this, stepping outside of empirical science when he insists that we must use these very same natural laws and processes to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of living organisms. Thus the evolutionist is substituting metaphysics in the place of true science, the search for truth. No theory about origins, creation, or evolution, fulfills the criteria of a scientific theory. A scientific theory must be based on repeatable observations, be subject to scientific test, and be potentially falsifiable. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, life, or a single living kind. These events took place in the unobservable past and are not capable of observation today. All changes that occur among living things are merely fluctuations within limits. No one observes apelike creatures evolving toward humans or fish evolving into amphibians. Creation and evolution are theories about history, and such theories are not scientific theories. They do have scientific characteristics, they can be discussed in scientific terms, and there is a mass of circumstantial evidence that can be evaluated. Evolution is no more scientific than creation and it is just as religious. What is more religious, a Creator, or no Creator?"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Lot of things are found in space, but it's not evidence that one single protein was formed. Are you saying that is a hypothesis?

And the first dino egg fossil isn't evidence of it it evolving into chickens. Where is the evidence of Ovocleidin-17?

Here's mine. http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2004/07/19/jbc.M406033200.full.pdf

I do not see essentialism with Duane Gish. What he talked about during McLean vs Arkansas trial were limits that apelike creatures do not evolve toward humans or fish evolving into amphibians. So the limits with baraminology is as we discussed before and that is within the class. I'll continue my investigation into baraminology and see if there is more.

"But doesn’t introducing evidence that supports creation require a Creator and is thus religious in nature? Aren’t scientific theories restricted to the use of natural laws and natural processes? It is true that in our efforts to observe, to understand, and to explain the operation of the universe and the operation of living organisms we do and must employ only natural laws and processes. The evolutionist, however, goes beyond this, stepping outside of empirical science when he insists that we must use these very same natural laws and processes to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of living organisms. Thus the evolutionist is substituting metaphysics in the place of true science, the search for truth. No theory about origins, creation, or evolution, fulfills the criteria of a scientific theory. A scientific theory must be based on repeatable observations, be subject to scientific test, and be potentially falsifiable. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, life, or a single living kind. These events took place in the unobservable past and are not capable of observation today. All changes that occur among living things are merely fluctuations within limits. No one observes apelike creatures evolving toward humans or fish evolving into amphibians. Creation and evolution are theories about history, and such theories are not scientific theories. They do have scientific characteristics, they can be discussed in scientific terms, and there is a mass of circumstantial evidence that can be evaluated. Evolution is no more scientific than creation and it is just as religious. What is more religious, a Creator, or no Creator?"

Yes, atheism posits that the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by.. those very same laws.

This is a paradox inherent in and unique to atheist beliefs. Yet as all atheist beliefs it is accepted unquestioningly as a 'default assumption'

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

i.e. I would disagree that evolution or atheism qualify as religions, they would have to at least acknowledge their own faith to rise to that.

 

[johnhanks]

You'll have to explain the evolution part. I'm still trying to explain baraminology.

Good luck. When you've finished explaining that, How to Weave Moonbeams will be next in line awaiting your attention.

The question is which came first the chicken or the egg?

Are you just yanking our chains here, or do you really believe you've asked a serious question? Sexual reproduction by way of gamete production was built into the life cycle long before the emergence of chickens, or the first birds, or the first vertebrates; right back, in fact, to the earliest multicellular eukaryotes. From then on, adult-and-gametes evolved as a package.

... creation scientists ... say that the oak tree came first before the acorn.

The evolution of fruit-and-seed production in flowering plants is complex: you need to go into the whole business of alternation of haploid and diploid generations in their non-flowering precursors, with the added complications of heterosposry and endospory. It's a fascinating field, and well summarised here if you want the detail. (No, I mustn't be disingenuous: I'm fairly sure the detail is the last thing you want; or any facts at all, for that matter.)

 

[McBell]

Yes, atheism posits that the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by.. those very same laws.

Says who?
You?
And you are?

This is a paradox inherent in and unique to atheist beliefs.

Until you can substantiate the bold empty claim that you have to have in order to make this bold empty claim...
Are you up for the task?

Yet as all atheist beliefs it is accepted unquestioningly as a 'default assumption'

Not this atheist.
Do you care to try again or are you content with merely making empty choir claims?

I would disagree that evolution or atheism qualify as religions, they would have to at least acknowledge their own faith to rise to that.

Sad that you honestly believe this tripe.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lot of things are found in space, but it's not evidence that one single protein was formed. Are you saying that is a hypothesis?

I said amino acids. The building blocks of proteins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
And how: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
(Oops. Copy paste wrong. I'll fix it when I get to work)

fixed link: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html
"Creating some of life's building blocks in space may be a bit like making a sandwich – you can make them cold or hot, according to new NASA research. This evidence that there is more than one way to make crucial components of life increases the likelihood that life emerged elsewhere in the Universe, according to the research team, and gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by impacts from meteorites and comets assisted the origin of life. "

And the first dino egg fossil isn't evidence of it it evolving into chickens. Where is the evidence of Ovocleidin-17?

Here's mine. http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2004/07/19/jbc.M406033200.full.pdf

There's a lot of evidence supporting that birds came from dinosaurs. The two most interesting ones are archaeopteryx and the gene for teeth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?...ng-dinosaur-traits-living-chickens-180957271/

All that aside, I still want to know how fixed limits work. Where is it? Stored in the DNA? Where in the DNA? And how?

On a side note, our chicken was domesticated from another bird about 2,000 years ago. A wild jungle fowl from Southeast Asia. So if you want to be funny, you can say "what came first? the chicken or the egg? ... The wild jungle fowl did."

I do not see essentialism with Duane Gish. What he talked about during McLean vs Arkansas trial were limits that apelike creatures do not evolve toward humans or fish evolving into amphibians. So the limits with baraminology is as we discussed before and that is within the class. I'll continue my investigation into baraminology and see if there is more.

And no one has seen these limitations in the DNA.

The DNA code the body and everything in the physical being from inception, through gestation, and further growth after. Some environmental influences exist as well, but the only thing that codify the fundamental morphological properties are in the DNA.

So a tiger is a tiger because of the code in the DNA. Do you agree?

There is no limitation to which gene goes where or what changes can be made to a gene? Do you agree?

So if you theoretically took a tiger DNA and moved all the codons around and modified them into looking exactly like some individual horse, would you get a horse or a tiger?

"But doesn’t introducing evidence that supports creation require a Creator and is thus religious in nature? Aren’t scientific theories restricted to the use of natural laws and natural processes? It is true that in our efforts to observe, to understand, and to explain the operation of the universe and the operation of living organisms we do and must employ only natural laws and processes. The evolutionist, however, goes beyond this, stepping outside of empirical science when he insists that we must use these very same natural laws and processes to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of living organisms. Thus the evolutionist is substituting metaphysics in the place of true science, the search for truth. No theory about origins, creation, or evolution, fulfills the criteria of a scientific theory. A scientific theory must be based on repeatable observations, be subject to scientific test, and be potentially falsifiable. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, life, or a single living kind. These events took place in the unobservable past and are not capable of observation today. All changes that occur among living things are merely fluctuations within limits. No one observes apelike creatures evolving toward humans or fish evolving into amphibians. Creation and evolution are theories about history, and such theories are not scientific theories. They do have scientific characteristics, they can be discussed in scientific terms, and there is a mass of circumstantial evidence that can be evaluated. Evolution is no more scientific than creation and it is just as religious. What is more religious, a Creator, or no Creator?"

You're repeating opinions and claims, not facts. I'm still waiting for a scientific research paper showing that a DNA can't be changed from A to B because of some other factor.

You're a computer guy, if I understand it right. Now, are there limitations in a simple, regular, CMOS RAM to allowing you to put 0x4A or 0x5F or 0x07 in any single address? No. There isn't. You can put any number in any cell. The DNA is like that. Theoretically, there's no fixed limitations to how the DNA could potentially change, so a fish can evolve into a land crawler. But of course it doesn't happen in one step. Only a few bits can change at a time, so a change like that happens over many generations.

Talking about land crawling fish:

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, atheism posits that the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by.. those very same laws.

This is a paradox inherent in and unique to atheist beliefs. Yet as all atheist beliefs it is accepted unquestioningly as a 'default assumption'

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

i.e. I would disagree that evolution or atheism qualify as religions, they would have to at least acknowledge their own faith to rise to that.

Atheism posits no such thing.

There is no set of "atheist beliefs." There is only one non-belief.

 

[viole]

Yes, atheism posits that the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by.. those very same laws.

Whch requires far less imagination than making up a God who first kills virtually everybody, and afterwards, decides that it is maybe better to spawn Himself in the form of a homo sapiens on a pseudo suicidal mission intended to cure from a disease acquiired during a meeting with a talking serpent.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheism posits no such thing.

There is no set of "atheist beliefs." There is only one non-belief.

There is no set of 'a-naturalist beliefs' either. As an a-naturalist I only have one non-belief; regarding everything coming from some mythical invisible natural cause

We can both label our beliefs as disbeliefs of the alternative- but this does nothing to change our own beliefs does it? it only attempts to avoid acknowledging them- which I have no need to do.

Atheists believe many things, but a core belief is that the universe can ultimately be explained by natural causes- without the need for intelligent agency.

 

[jeager106]

Believing that life exploded from basic elements is like believing the Encyclopedia
came from an explosion in a printing shop!
NOW CHEW ON THAT FOR A WHILE!
(disclaimer. not taking a stand either way but the above is interesting)

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no set of 'a-naturalist beliefs' either. As an a-naturalist I only have one non-belief; regarding everything coming from some mythical invisible natural cause

We can both label our beliefs as disbeliefs of the alternative- but this does nothing to change our own beliefs does it? it only attempts to avoid acknowledging them- which I have no need to do.

Atheists believe many things, but a core belief is that the universe can ultimately be explained by natural causes- without the need for intelligent agency.

We're not talking about naturalism, we're talking about atheism.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). It doesn't make sense to say there is some set of "atheist beliefs" because atheists can (and do) believe in just about anything other than the existence of a god. An atheist could believe that aliens populated life on earth if he wanted to.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Believing that life exploded from basic elements is like believing the Encyclopedia
came from an explosion in a printing shop!
NOW CHEW ON THAT FOR A WHILE!
(disclaimer. not taking a stand either way but the above is interesting)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

 

[McBell]

Atheists believe many things, but a core belief is that the universe can ultimately be explained by natural causes- without the need for intelligent agency.

Again, you are flat out wrong.

Atheists believe a god is not required to explain....

 

[McBell]

Believing that life exploded from basic elements is like believing the Encyclopedia
came from an explosion in a printing shop!
NOW CHEW ON THAT FOR A WHILE!
(disclaimer. not taking a stand either way but the above is interesting)

Not the least bit interested in chewing on your strawman.
Find an analogy that works and maybe we can talk cud.

 

[jeager106]

Again, you are flat out wrong.

Atheists believe a god is not required to explain....

Well, we all know GOD DID IT!
If God didn't do "it" then the Devil did!
Ha, take that!

(Advocatus Diaboli)