Evolution vs. Creation

[FREE SERVANT]

The structure of nature does not work the way Darwin thought. A systematic study of systems in nature will give us the facts of how they are patterned and systematically arranged to cycle and reproduce following given pathways that are not linear as Darwin was misunderstanding and ignorant about.

[The Dude]

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>Not trying to do anything but speak the truth. Science should always reveal truth.

Then you WILL find truth unfortunate.

God didn't do it the way you think it did.

Or it's a liar.

There are no other options.

[KittenKoder]

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>Not trying to do anything but speak the truth. Science should always reveal truth.

No, science is a tool for figuring out how reality works. You would know that if you were educated, or paid any attention to what the more intelligent and learned people have said on here.

[KittenKoder]

FREE SERVANT wrote:

The structure of nature does not work the way Darwin thought. A systematic study of systems in nature will give us the facts of how they are patterned and systematically arranged to cycle and reproduce following given pathways that are not linear as Darwin was misunderstanding and ignorant about.

Thank you for providing evidence that you know nothing about evolution, nothing at all.

[The Dude]

FREE SERVANT wrote:

The structure of nature does not work the way Darwin thought. A systematic study of systems in nature will give us the facts of how they are patterned and systematically arranged to cycle and reproduce following given pathways that are not linear as Darwin was misunderstanding and ignorant about.

Sorry, but your claim was falsified years ago. And that's just this thread.

[FREE SERVANT]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you WILL find truth unfortunate.
God didn't do it the way you think it did.
Or it's a liar.
There are no other options.

NO, the Creator can not lie or we would not be here and miracles are beyond your understanding!

[The Dude]

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>NO, the Creator can not lie

Stop telling God what to do. It is not limited by your petty limited imagination.

FREE SERVANT wrote:

or we would not be here and miracles are beyond your understanding!

And yours too. Therefore rather than appealing to evidence we do not have, I simply refer to the evidence provided by God itself. Assuming it even exists.

[xxxooxxx]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you WILL find truth unfortunate.
God didn't do it the way you think it did.
Or it's a liar.
There are no other options.

No it created itself... is your claim. Breaking one of the most fundamental laws of science... you imply An effect without a cause.

But the concept of God creating the Universe does not break the law of cause and effect.

In fact, if you claim that a cause does not need an effect(as you do) then "God dunit with magic" readily applies.

[KittenKoder]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
No it created itself... is your claim. Breaking one of the most fundamental laws of science... you imply An effect without a cause.
But the concept of God creating the Universe does not break the law of cause and effect.
In fact, if you claim that a cause does not need an effect(as you do) then "God dunit with magic" readily applies.

No one says any life was created. The simplest method to explain why there is life is that it's the result of chemical processes, since life is chemical processes.

You're the only ones suggesting everything was "created" and thus adding extra steps and complicating the process even more.

[xxxooxxx]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
No one says any life was created. The simplest method to explain why there is life is that it's the result of chemical processes, since life is chemical processes.
You're the only ones suggesting everything was "created" and thus adding extra steps and complicating the process even more.

So if nothing was created as you claim, you imply that it(Universe) has always been here...is that your claim?

[Langoliers]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>No one says any life was created. The simplest method to explain why there is life is that it's the result of chemical processes, since life is chemical processes.

You're the only ones suggesting everything was "created" and thus adding extra steps and complicating the process even more.

"No one says any life was created"

I do! I claim God created all life.

"The simplest method to explain why there is life is that it's the result of chemical processes"

This is a lie. You expect spontaneous life coming from rain falling on rocks creating a speck of life and that very first self creating speck of life mutated (against all we know about mutations) for the better billions of times (not once but billions of times) to be the mother of all life on the planet. And then put of the other side of your face you claim bottle neck with Adam and Eve.

[xxxooxxx]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
No one says any life was created. The simplest method to explain why there is life is that it's the result of chemical processes, since life is chemical processes.
You're the only ones suggesting everything was "created" and thus adding extra steps and complicating the process even more.

and again...if life is just the result of chemical processes, why can you not show proof, by making the very simplest of simple life forms...such as a single cell organism? It would be apparent that the chemicals are readily available...but yet you can't why not?

[FREE SERVANT]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but your claim was falsified years ago. And that's just this thread.

No it was not correctly addressed and spoken to!

[The Dude]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
No it created itself... is your claim.

Not definitively, no. But it's possible.

xxxooxxx wrote:

Breaking one of the most fundamental laws of science

Ever heard of Newton's Law of Gravity? Planet Mercury breaks it all the time.

So now what? Put out an APB on Mercury?

xxxooxxx wrote:

you imply An effect without a cause.

This is not a problem in quantum physics. However some of the other hypotheses I mentioned in days past are still cause and effect phenomena, therefore should not offend your incredulous ideas about cause and effect.

xxxooxxx wrote:

But the concept of God creating the Universe does not break the law of cause and effect.

Actually yes it does. The rule is that EVERYTHING must have a cause. If God doesn't, then neither must the universe.

xxxooxxx wrote:

In fact, if you claim that a cause does not need an effect(as you do) then "God dunit with magic" readily applies.

Not really. Particle/anti-particle pairs have been scientifically observed to spontaneously appear in a vacuum. There is no cause. But this is fine under quantum physics. No magic involved. Although it may seem that way to anyone who doesn't know anything about quantum physics.

[The Dude]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
So if nothing was created as you claim, you imply that it(Universe) has always been here...is that your claim?

That is one possibility.

[thewordofme]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
and again...if life is just the result of chemical processes, why can you not show proof, by making the very simplest of simple life forms...such as a single cell organism? It would be apparent that the chemicals are readily available...but yet you can't why not?

Give us time dude...we've only been working on it about 60 years or so. Nature had millions and millions of years.

You expect miracles or something..:-)

[The Dude]

Langoliers wrote:

"No one says any life was created"
I do! I claim God created all life.

Who cares?(shrug)

Langoliers wrote:

"The simplest method to explain why there is life is that it's the result of chemical processes"
This is a lie. You expect spontaneous life coming from rain falling on rocks creating a speck of life and that very first self creating speck of life mutated (against all we know about mutations)

You know nothing about mutations. If you knew something about mutations you wouldn't be using anti-scientific creationist arguments.

We know chemistry creates life. We know the first organisms in the fossil record are microbial/bacterial in nature. We hypothesize that chemical processes eventually led to an imperfectly self-replicating organism. Life developed from there. It is acknowledged that this is not a theory and currently only in the hypothesis stage, but a number of scientific institutions are researching the subject as we speak.

However since you object to the concept then I suggest you actually go to Harvard and tell them how they failed to take invisible Jew magic into account.

Langoliers wrote:

for the better billions of times (not once but billions of times) to be the mother of all life on the planet. And then put of the other side of your face you claim bottle neck with Adam and Eve.

Yes, such a bottleneck would be a problem with sexual reproduction, not so much for organisms that don't reproduce that way. Sorry, not our problem.

[The Dude]

xxxooxxx wrote:

and again...if life is just the result of chemical processes, why can you not show proof

Go visit a maternity ward. Life created purely by natural chemical processes.

xxxooxxx wrote:

by making the very simplest of simple life forms...such as a single cell organism? It would be apparent that the chemicals are readily available...but yet you can't why not?

We're talking about an event with an unknown amount of variables that took place 4 billion years ago that may have even taken place over possibly hundreds of thousands of years. There are numerous potential environmental specifics and countless potential different chemical combinations. Ergo it is not reasonable to expect us to recreate an event that took place so long ago over a period of time potentially longer than recorded human history and do it in just 30 years.

What we do know at least is that we can get to RNA via naturally occurring chemistry, the trick is getting from RNA to DNA. In the meantime while actual biochemists are hard at work doing the research and making discoveries, we have creationists sitting on their fat lazy azzes on their couch at home criticizing it from the sidelines and complaining the scientific community don't listen to them.

[xxxooxxx]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Give us time dude...we've only been working on it about 60 years or so. Nature had millions and millions of years.
You expect miracles or something..:-)

what? you implying faith in science?lmao

[xxxooxxx]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Not definitively, no. But it's possible.
<quoted text>
Ever heard of Newton's Law of Gravity? Planet Mercury breaks it all the time.
So now what? Put out an APB on Mercury?
<quoted text>
This is not a problem in quantum physics. However some of the other hypotheses I mentioned in days past are still cause and effect phenomena, therefore should not offend your incredulous ideas about cause and effect.
<quoted text>
Actually yes it does. The rule is that EVERYTHING must have a cause. If God doesn't, then neither must the universe.
<quoted text>
Not really. Particle/anti-particle pairs have been scientifically observed to spontaneously appear in a vacuum. There is no cause. But this is fine under quantum physics. No magic involved. Although it may seem that way to anyone who doesn't know anything about quantum physics.

So Basically, you can created an X amount of Theories that support whether it do or whether it don't, so you can claim to be right under any circumstance.

Rhetorical BS prevails. LMAO