Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Sapiens]

Darwin wasn't that great a scholar, nor was he that great. He was a salesman, probably was racist and maybe a plagiarist. ...

None of the evidence available supports any of your allegations, quite the opposite in fact, with the exception of racism as judged by today's standards. Do keep two things in mind:

1. Evolution overturned the widely held belief in the divine superiority of the "white race".
2. So-called "scientific racism" emerged around the same time that Darwin published his theory of evolution, but from a completely different group of people and for completely different reasons.

 

[gnostic]

Generally, I use facts, reasoning and historical truth. In this thread, it's creation science or science.

There is no such thing as creation science, and using the two words together, you would create a misnomer, or like viole have already stated, an oxymoron.

Science use evidences, not faith, which would -

either (A) to REFUTE a statement (eg hypothesis or theory) as FALSE
or (B) VERIFY the statement to be TRUE.​

Science required to find answer through observation; "observation" meaning being able to test the theory or verify the theory through empirical evidences. Do you understand this, bond?

Science required that any statement to be falsifiable, which is another word for "testable" and "refutable". If you can't test a statement, then it is not scientific.

Science use Scientific Method (SM) and Peer Review as objective mean of testing any statement, but the objective of SM is not so much as proving or verifying to be TRUE, as to show that the statement to be FALSE (refuting the statement).

In science, a statement is never true, until it has been RIGOROUSLY and REPEATEDLY tested, or you (and other scientists) verify the statement being true with evidences.

Creationism, on the other hand, just rely on FAITH alone. If Creationism had a single shred of evidence, then it wouldn't be FAITH or religion anymore.

FAITH is based on a person's conviction, like trust in belief, such as believing a miracle that defy reality or the law of nature. For it to be science, you would have to be able to test the miracle to being true, or find evidences for miracle.

Creation, miracles, demons, angels, gods, are all untestable or what scientist call "unfalsifiable". To me, I would call gods, angels, demons, heaven and hell, creation, resurrection, reincarnation, miracles, etc, as nothing more than superstitious belief and heavy-dosed of wishful thinking.

Belief is subjective, and it is essentially an opinion of one who believe it to be true. That's why it is called FAITH. And scriptures of any sort, is totally unreliable measure of something being true.

Belief in anything in the bible, not only don't have evidences or not being able to test it, but it never explain anything. All you have to do is JUST BELIEVE.

And God-did-it, is not a real answer or explanation. God-did-it is nothing more than useless childish statement of one's personal opinion.

Do you seriously believe in demon possession, and that Jesus could exorcise demons from anyone?

1. In science, you would have to be verified that demons do exist.
   
2. Science would have to be able that demons can possess people.
   
3. And lastly, science should be able to explain how Jesus cured the possessed.

None of the above is possible. To me, all the miracles that Jesus SUPPOSEDLY performed, is just exactly that - a PERFORMANCE, like that of magician, using illusion and misdirection to con people believing it to be real. That's how I see these miracles and creation story.

The real worth of bible is knowing the message is real, not creation or flood, the episode of tower of Babel, parting the Red Sea, or any other stories as being scientific or historical. They are simply allegory or myth, with meanings that teach people about morals and ethics.

The moral message in the Eden episode, is not to disobey god and accepting responsible for one's own action. This Eden episode didn't historically happen. There are few other meanings to the Eden story. People back then don't understand anything about science, so they create superstition, like these stories about the 6-day creation and story of Adam and Eve, to describe what they believe about about the existence of the Sun, moon, life like humans, animals, plants, and lastly it describe why people die.

But these are all descriptions of things that they don't really understand about nature; Genesis 1 to 11, don't explain anything. Genesis creation only describe this or that, but never any explanation. And like I said before, God-did-it, is not an answer; God-did-it is just lazy cop-out.

Science explain how nature or man-made stuffs (man-made, like designing and building computers or other electronic devices, buildings and bridges, cars, aeroplanes and ships). Science can explain how the human body work, what causes illnesses or diseases, and the possibilities of curing these ailments, not by magic or miracles, but with medicine or surgery. Of course, it doesn't always work, but science is on-going process, and go through trial-and-error.

Science don't use prayers or wait for miracles to happen.

Your bible and your SO-CALLED Creation Science explain nothing, test nothing and have no evidences to support their biased belief.

This Creation Science is nothing more than a sham, because it has nothing to do with science. It is just creationists trying to validate their personal belief or superstition, by mixing religion and science together, and often botching it and making complete fools of themselves.

 

[james bond]

My Muslim friend tells me that science backs the Quran, too.

And what do you mean with science backing the Bible? I do not a see a word about common descent and evolution in the Bible. I do not see anything about Neadenthalers, homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc. in the Bible, either. And I do not see any science backing a global flood 4,000 years ago (obviously). And I do not see any science backing up the idea that humans come from dust in their current form and shape (double obviously), Just to name a few.

Ciao

- viole

Knock yourself out.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html

1. Common descent is an evo theory, but Mitochondrial Eve is science.

2. "The Bible does not use the term “caveman” or “Neanderthals,” and according to the Bible there is no such thing as “prehistoric” man. The term “prehistoric” means “belonging to the era before recorded history.” It presupposes that the biblical account is merely a fabrication, because the book of Genesis records events which precede the creation of man (namely, the first five days of creation—man was created on the sixth day). The Bible is clear that Adam and Eve were perfect humans from the time of their creation and did not evolve from lower life forms.

With that said, the Bible does describe a period of traumatic upheaval upon the earth—the flood (Genesis 6-9), during which time civilization was utterly destroyed except for eight people. Humanity was forced to start over. It is in this historical context that some scholars believe men lived in caves and made use of stone tools. These men were not primitive; they were simply destitute. And they certainly were not half ape. The fossil evidence is quite clear: cavemen were human—men who lived in caves.

3. You probably do not see the evidence of a global flood because evolution has screwed it up with their layers and chronology story.

"There are some fossilized ape remains which Darwinian paleo-anthropologists interpret as being some sort of transition between ape and men. Most people seem to think of these interpretations when they imagine cavemen. They picture furry half-men, half-ape creatures crouched in a cave next to a fire, drawing on the walls with their newly developed stone tools. This is a common misconception. And as far as Darwinian paleo-anthropology goes, we should keep in mind that these interpretations reflect a peculiar worldview and are not the result of the evidence. In fact, not only is there major opposition to these interpretations within the academic community, the Darwinists themselves do not entirely agree with each other on the details.

Unfortunately, the popular mainstream view promotes this idea that man and ape both evolved from the same ancestor, but this is certainly not the only plausible interpretation of the available evidence. In fact, the evidence in favor of this particular interpretation is lacking.

When God created Adam and Eve, they were fully developed human beings, capable of communication, society, and development (Genesis 2:19-25; 3:1-20; 4:1-12). It is almost entertaining to consider the lengths evolutionary scientists go to prove the existence of prehistoric cavemen. They find a misshapen tooth in a cave and from that create a misshapen human being who lived in a cave, hunched over like an ape. There is no way that science can prove the existence of cavemen by a fossil. Evolutionary scientists simply have a theory, and then they force the evidence to fit the theory. Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created and were fully-formed, intelligent, and upright."

 

[james bond]

Creation science is an oxymoron.

Ciao

- viole

You misspelled Evolution.

 

[james bond]

**climbs up onto pontoon boat**

I'll stay with the motorboat. You can have the PB.

 

[james bond]

But ... some phylogenies emerge that successfully integrate the different strands of evidence. Sure a phylogeny based solely on osteology (and that was where most of the issues lay) is open to interpretation and arguments like whether the basio-cranial circulation patterns are more conservative than dentition introduced a level of subjectivity that has now been removed through the synthesis of multiple evidentiary approaches. There is no evidence for multiple trees. That was the OP: "Is there any verifiable evidence for creationism?" You (and your eight fellow travelers) have failed to elucidate a single piece of evidence that rises above the stereotypical creationist argument from ignorance.

It's argument from God's authority not ignorance. That's your bailiwick. We keep coming back to Baraminology which science won't accept. Evolution scientists (ES) are now moving to a bush or thicket of life from tree of life. How much time will it take for them to realize it's an orchard of life?

If creation scientists (CS) use ignorance, then why do evolution scientists keep usurping our theories and terms such as catastrophism, God of the Gaps, Tower of Babel, Genesis (aka Big Bang Theory) and so on. Your steady state theory has been rendered pseudoscience.

I haven't even gotten to the logical and historical evidence and we've just been discussing science.

 

[McBell]

I'll stay with the motorboat. You can have the PB.

I understand.
The thing is, I am not the one doing all the back paddling...

 

[McBell]

It's argument from God's authority not ignorance.

adding another fallacy does not help your position...

We keep coming back to Baraminology which science won't accept.

Because it is not science.

Evolution scientists (ES) are now moving to a bush or thicket of life from tree of life. How much time will it take for them to realize it's an orchard of life?

Since there is no science supporting the "orchard of life" I an going to have to say not until there is real legitimate science that supports it.

If creation scientists (CS) use ignorance, then why do evolution scientists keep usurping our theories and terms such as catastrophism, God of the Gaps, Tower of Babel, Genesis (aka Big Bang Theory) and so on. Your steady state theory has been rendered pseudoscience.

bold empty claims only work with the choir.
In case you haven't noticed, you do not have many choir members in this thread.

I haven't even gotten to the logical and historical evidence and we've just been discussing science.

I would love to see you start discussing science.
I won't be holding my breath though.

 

[Blastcat]

And the definition is a bit misleading. In contrasting creationism with evolution, a process that is almost always restricted to addressing the variety of life, it suggest that the creationism v. evolution issue also involves the origin of the universe.

One of the problems with the word evolution is that it can be applied to anything that changes and NOT just biology. Some people will conflate meanings ... But when it comes to the ToE, we mean to say changes in BIOLOGY not anything else.

 

[Blastcat]

Replying to Thief.. post number 4468596

You wrote a lovely poem, but if you offer it as some kind of evidence for creationism, you are truly misguided. It's a nice poem.
But it's just full of factual errors and argument from ignorance.

Saying that you have an argument from ignorance isn't calling you ignorant, but that you are making a specific kind of logical leap that isn't justified. We don't GET to our conclusion by appealing to what we don't know. So, in your poem, you ask questions.. to which, I suppose, you might imagine that if we can't answer PROVES that your conclusion is correct, but that doesn't work.

Our ignorance does NOT prove creationism is true. The only thing that you can prove from our ignorance is the FACT that we don't know. It proves nothing else. So you can't GET to creationism being true from what we can't answer about... accidents or anything else. IF we don't know something, it doesn't mean that what you want to demonstrate has been SHOWN to be true. You still have to everything yet to demonstrate.

Demonstrate that CREATIONISM is true, not that evolution is false. Because EVEN IF evolution was completely false, it would STILL NOT prove creationism.

But let me address your very nice poem:

look in the mirror and call yourself an accident....
does that seem correct?

It depends on what you call an "accident". I don't think my parents actually intended for ME PERSONALLY to exist, but just a baby. I was the product of an accidental event. I know, because my two parents told me so. They didn't INTEND to have a baby, they just "got one of those", accidentally. Then, they learned to like me. Ta dah! I'm both an "accident" AND a "miracle".. however you want to define those terms.

I don't have any evidence for the supernatural causation of ME.

all that complexity coming together over centuries.....in spite of the improbability....
and there you are...looking at some accident?

Over only centuries? My gene pool is about 4.5 billion years old as far as I know.
But when you say that it's improbable, on what do you establish your probability? ...

and then look about you...
billions of copies, each one unique

Like the snowflakes, and the leaves on trees. Billions of copies, each one unique. That's how nature works.

each one forming a unique spirit

If you mean that everything has a spirit, that would be animism.

and the results end up in a box, in the ground

I use flower pots.. the "ground" is what the flowers use to live. Yeah, that's pretty much what we observe in nature. There's that "life cycle" going on.

Eternal darkness is physically real.

Not too sure how you can know anything is "eternal", but darkness sure is real.

choose

For sure, we should choose reality.
No question there.

 

[Blastcat]

Knock yourself out.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html

1. Common descent is an evo theory, but Mitochondrial Eve is science.

Do you imagine the "Mitrochondrial Eve" to be the ONLY living female of her time, or do you believe that the "Eve" of the Bible were numerous?

http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm

2. "The Bible does not use the term “caveman” or “Neanderthals,” and according to the Bible there is no such thing as “prehistoric” man.

And why is it that we should CARE about a particular holy book's opinion as to scientific concerns? Religion isn't science.

The term “prehistoric” means “belonging to the era before recorded history.” It presupposes that the biblical account is merely a fabrication, because the book of Genesis records events which precede the creation of man (namely, the first five days of creation—man was created on the sixth day). The Bible is clear that Adam and Eve were perfect humans from the time of their creation and did not evolve from lower life forms.

The Bible is also clearly wrong.

With that said, the Bible does describe a period of traumatic upheaval upon the earth—the flood (Genesis 6-9), during which time civilization was utterly destroyed except for eight people.

The description is taken to be mythical.

Humanity was forced to start over. It is in this historical context that some scholars believe men lived in caves and made use of stone tools. These men were not primitive; they were simply destitute. And they certainly were not half ape. The fossil evidence is quite clear: cavemen were human—men who lived in caves.

Unfortunately, scientists don't say that.

3. You probably do not see the evidence of a global flood because evolution has screwed it up with their layers and chronology story.

Your theory of evolution seems to be that it's a global conspiracy or a fantastic amounts of errors. Maybe it's true that biologists and paleontologists and archeologists and geologists are liars and/or idiots.

The honest and/or smart people must go for OTHER fields of science. Is that it?

"There are some fossilized ape remains which Darwinian paleo-anthropologists interpret as being some sort of transition between ape and men. Most people seem to think of these interpretations when they imagine cavemen....Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created and were fully-formed, intelligent, and upright."

For those who want to see the creationist website this was taken verbatim from I suggest taking a look at :

http://www.gotquestions.org/cavemen.html

It explains a creationist point of view, which is religious. That's certainly where you got your info that you posted to us so far. I would like to see what you think about a scientific point of view, though, since ToE IS scientific, and NOT religious.

 

[Skwim]

One of the problems with the word evolution is that it can be applied to anything that changes and NOT just biology. Some people will conflate meanings ... But when it comes to the ToE, we mean to say changes in BIOLOGY not anything else.

That would be nice if it was true, but far too many times creationists go off track and bring in the creation of Earth or the universe. Here's one example from Clarifying Christianity.

We compare the theory of evolution with the Bible’s creation account in easy-to-understand terms, using evidence from the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, and astronomy.
source
​

As we both know, evolutionists don't care one wit about astronomy. Then there's this misleading silliness from All About Creation

In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing.
source


.
​

 

[Blastcat]

That would be nice it was true, but far too many times creationists go off track and bring in the creation of Earth or the universe. Here's one example from Clarifying Christianity.

We compare the theory of evolution with the Bible’s creation account in easy-to-understand terms, using evidence from the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, and astronomy.
source
​

As we both know, evolutionists don't care one wit about astronomy. Then there's this misleading silliness from All About Creation

In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing.
source
​

Well, from my experience, creationists are all over the map. What they usually lack is a good idea about what the ToE is supposed to be. I usually have to contend with very strange ideas about what it MEANS. They usually just get it wrong. They get the science wrong. And they aren't too good at the PHILOSOPHY of science, either. They don't usually understand how the scientific method works. NOR do they truly seem to think about the GLOBAL conspiracy that they are invoking.

Generally, they just don't think well at all about their beliefs. Apologetists make sure of that.

​

 

[Sapiens]

It's argument from God's authority not ignorance. That's your bailiwick. We keep coming back to Baraminology which science won't accept. Evolution scientists (ES) are now moving to a bush or thicket of life from tree of life. How much time will it take for them to realize it's an orchard of life?

If creation scientists (CS) use ignorance, then why do evolution scientists keep usurping our theories and terms such as catastrophism, God of the Gaps, Tower of Babel, Genesis (aka Big Bang Theory) and so on. Your steady state theory has been rendered pseudoscience.

I haven't even gotten to the logical and historical evidence and we've just been discussing science.

Imaginary invisible friends have no authority.

Baraminology has no rational basis.

The bush model is far from new, and does not originate with creationists.

Your orchard model is falsified by genetics-based cladistics.

Creation science is an oxymoron and has no recognized theories.

 

[Shad]

Knock yourself out.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html

1. Common descent is an evo theory, but Mitochondrial Eve is science.

Which is only the most successful not the the only female. You didn't look at what the term means and how it is viewed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/staff/mark-stoneking/publications.html

2. "The Bible does not use the term “caveman” or “Neanderthals,” and according to the Bible there is no such thing as “prehistoric” man. The term “prehistoric” means “belonging to the era before recorded history.” It presupposes that the biblical account is merely a fabrication, because the book of Genesis records events which precede the creation of man (namely, the first five days of creation—man was created on the sixth day). The Bible is clear that Adam and Eve were perfect humans from the time of their creation and did not evolve from lower life forms.

Which contradicts what has been established by a number of fields. It does not presuppose anything as its model and evidence supporting have shown it to be a fable

With that said, the Bible does describe a period of traumatic upheaval upon the earth—the flood (Genesis 6-9), during which time civilization was utterly destroyed except for eight people. Humanity was forced to start over. It is in this historical context that some scholars believe men lived in caves and made use of stone tools. These men were not primitive; they were simply destitute. And they certainly were not half ape. The fossil evidence is quite clear: cavemen were human—men who lived in caves.

A flood which never happened. At no point did civilization everywhere collapse.

3. You probably do not see the evidence of a global flood because evolution has screwed it up with their layers and chronology story.

No geology shows evidence against the claim.

"There are some fossilized ape remains which Darwinian paleo-anthropologists interpret as being some sort of transition between ape and men. Most people seem to think of these interpretations when they imagine cavemen. They picture furry half-men, half-ape creatures crouched in a cave next to a fire, drawing on the walls with their newly developed stone tools. This is a common misconception. And as far as Darwinian paleo-anthropology goes, we should keep in mind that these interpretations reflect a peculiar worldview and are not the result of the evidence. In fact, not only is there major opposition to these interpretations within the academic community, the Darwinists themselves do not entirely agree with each other on the details.

Yes the imagery is wrong. However if you look at at research the conclusion is based on evidence.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/uspace/id/682
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(03)00507-4

Unfortunately, the popular mainstream view promotes this idea that man and ape both evolved from the same ancestor, but this is certainly not the only plausible interpretation of the available evidence. In fact, the evidence in favor of this particular interpretation is lacking.

Empty statement based on misinformation.

When God created Adam and Eve, they were fully developed human beings, capable of communication, society, and development (Genesis 2:19-25; 3:1-20; 4:1-12). It is almost entertaining to consider the lengths evolutionary scientists go to prove the existence of prehistoric cavemen. They find a misshapen tooth in a cave and from that create a misshapen human being who lived in a cave, hunched over like an ape. There is no way that science can prove the existence of cavemen by a fossil. Evolutionary scientists simply have a theory, and then they force the evidence to fit the theory. Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created and were fully-formed, intelligent, and upright."

Irrelevant as your view still lacks evidence outside the text.

 

[viole]

Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created and were fully-formed, intelligent, and upright."

And with a silent gene that would allow them to grow a tail, for some reason.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dust1n]

It's argument from God's authority not ignorance. That's your bailiwick. We keep coming back to Baraminology which science won't accept.

Scientists usually don't accept claims for which the data doesn't back it up.

"Creationist literature claims that sufficient gaps in morphological continuity exist to classify dinosaurs into several distinct baramins (‘created kinds’). Here, I apply the baraminological method called taxon correlation to test for morphological continuity within and between dinosaurian taxa. The results show enough morphological continuity within Dinosauria to consider most dinosaurs genetically related, even by this creationist standard. A continuous morphological spectrum unites the basal members of Saurischia, Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha, Ornithischia, Thyreophora, Marginocephalia, and Ornithopoda with Nodosauridae and Pachycephalosauria and with the basal ornithodirans Silesaurus and Marasuchus. Morphological gaps in the known fossil record separate only seven groups from the rest of Dinosauria. Those groups are Therizinosauroidea + Oviraptorosauria + Paraves, Tazoudasaurus + Eusauropoda, Ankylosauridae, Stegosauria, Neoceratopsia, basal Hadrosauriformes and Hadrosauridae. Each of these seven groups exhibits within-group morphological continuity, indicating common descent for all the group’s members, even according to this creationist standard."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x/full

"It is important to demonstrate evolutionary principles in such a way that they cannot be countered by creation science. One such way is to use creation science itself to demonstrate evolutionary principles. Some creation scientists use classic multidimensional scaling (CMDS) to quantify and visualize morphological gaps or continuity between taxa, accepting gaps as evidence of independent creation and accepting continuity as evidence of genetic relatedness. Here, I apply CMDS to a phylogenetic analysis of coelurosaurian dinosaurs and show that it reveals morphological continuity between Archaeopteryx, other early birds, and a wide range of nonavian coelurosaurs. Creation scientists who use CMDS must therefore accept that these animals are genetically related. Other uses of CMDS for evolutionary biologists include the identification of taxa with much missing evolutionary history and the tracing of the progressive filling of morphological gaps in the fossil record through successive years of discovery."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02039.x/full

 

[leibowde84]

It's argument from God's authority not ignorance. That's your bailiwick. We keep coming back to Baraminology which science won't accept. Evolution scientists (ES) are now moving to a bush or thicket of life from tree of life. How much time will it take for them to realize it's an orchard of life?

If creation scientists (CS) use ignorance, then why do evolution scientists keep usurping our theories and terms such as catastrophism, God of the Gaps, Tower of Babel, Genesis (aka Big Bang Theory) and so on. Your steady state theory has been rendered pseudoscience.

I haven't even gotten to the logical and historical evidence and we've just been discussing science.

If you are attempting to use current lack of scientific understanding to support your claim, you are arguing from ignorance (logical fallacy).

 

[Thief]

Replying to Thief.. post number 4468596

You wrote a lovely poem, but if you offer it as some kind of evidence for creationism, you are truly misguided. It's a nice poem.
But it's just full of factual errors and argument from ignorance.

Saying that you have an argument from ignorance isn't calling you ignorant, but that you are making a specific kind of logical leap that isn't justified. We don't GET to our conclusion by appealing to what we don't know. So, in your poem, you ask questions.. to which, I suppose, you might imagine that if we can't answer PROVES that your conclusion is correct, but that doesn't work.

Our ignorance does NOT prove creationism is true. The only thing that you can prove from our ignorance is the FACT that we don't know. It proves nothing else. So you can't GET to creationism being true from what we can't answer about... accidents or anything else. IF we don't know something, it doesn't mean that what you want to demonstrate has been SHOWN to be true. You still have to everything yet to demonstrate.

Demonstrate that CREATIONISM is true, not that evolution is false. Because EVEN IF evolution was completely false, it would STILL NOT prove creationism.

But let me address your very nice poem:



It depends on what you call an "accident". I don't think my parents actually intended for ME PERSONALLY to exist, but just a baby. I was the product of an accidental event. I know, because my two parents told me so. They didn't INTEND to have a baby, they just "got one of those", accidentally. Then, they learned to like me. Ta dah! I'm both an "accident" AND a "miracle".. however you want to define those terms.

I don't have any evidence for the supernatural causation of ME.



Over only centuries? My gene pool is about 4.5 billion years old as far as I know.
But when you say that it's improbable, on what do you establish your probability? ...



Like the snowflakes, and the leaves on trees. Billions of copies, each one unique. That's how nature works.



If you mean that everything has a spirit, that would be animism.



I use flower pots.. the "ground" is what the flowers use to live. Yeah, that's pretty much what we observe in nature. There's that "life cycle" going on.



Not too sure how you can know anything is "eternal", but darkness sure is real.



For sure, we should choose reality.
No question there.

your line by line didn't remove anything.

 

[Sapiens]

your line by line didn't remove anything.

It is impossible to remove something from an empty container.