Evolution vs. Creation

[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

[Holy Ghost]

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.

Its complicated. Its mind boggling in the human sense. Tell a story, write a book.......believe? Don't apply human knowledge and theories to Alien Beings. Its like a race between a ant and H. Bolt(fastest man alive). Most humans cant think beyond earth bound concepts.Humans are heading into the future with an anomaly on the brain. If it continues humans will go the way of the dinosaur.

[The Dude]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
what? you implying faith in science?lmao

No, evidence makes faith superfluous. When evidence is tentative then they do research. If science relied only on "faith" as you say, they'd just take a leaf outta the creationist handbook and sit on their azzes all day making baseless pronouncements and put off any and all research work until Jesus came back.

[The Dude]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
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

Actually my posts are in line with the scientific community. You also still can't tell the difference between the terms scientific hypothesis and scientific theory. Also, multiple hypotheses doesn't automatically make all of them, or even one of them right. It could easily be quite possible that they are all wrong. Which is why I already pointed out that scientific hypotheses regarding the very beginnings of the universe are tentative, and it is very dishonest of you to caricature my claims otherwise.

Again, your ignorance of science has no bearing at all on the validity of science. Don't complain to me just because you're unable to maintain a coherent debate.

[TerryL]

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.

Why would you use something you obviously know nothing about (science) to argue against wat you clearly know nothing about (science)? Stupid much?

[Langoliers]

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?

According to them we should get new life forms every rain storm. LOL

"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event, the amount of time available is long enough to overcome this problem. This fallacy is because they (and most of us, really) just haven’t gotten around to some actual calculating on some of these problems.
The difficult thing is to conceive the size of some of the figures obtained. James F. Coppedge in the bookEvolution: Possible or Impossible? has given some fascinating examples, one of which is here presented. Consider first this statement from the evolutionist George Wald writing on The Origin of Life in the Scientific American (1954):

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.
Now using Coppedge’s figures, let’s take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let’s look at Coppedge’s example; assume we have an amoeba—and let’s assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let’s further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom until (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 10^21 complete universes!

This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time.

Coppedge’s book makes fascinating reading in other respects and is one of the few works that really comes to grips with this matter of molecular biology and probability mathematics.

Evolutionists would have us believe that modern molecular biology lends its support to their world view, but the more information comes to hand, the more preposterous the whole idea of a naturalistic origin of life becomes."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...

[xxxooxxx]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Go visit a maternity ward. Life created purely by natural chemical processes.
<quoted text>
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.

Well, I would say that creationists are sitting at home laughing their azzes off...because they know it takes the 'will of God' to make life. And not just putting chemicals together. Maybe in like a thousand years, you'll understand.But please keep trying, I think God's getting a good kick out of it too.lol

[Langoliers]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>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.

"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."

If all life started from one speck of life, some where along the line you'll wind up with your first human. Why then would there not be a bottleneck.

Oh and God has no issues with your sexual reproduction bottlenecks.
You can't seem to grasp that God controls the laws they don't control him.

Go figure.

[xxxooxxx]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually my posts are in line with the scientific community. You also still can't tell the difference between the terms scientific hypothesis and scientific theory. Also, multiple hypotheses doesn't automatically make all of them, or even one of them right. It could easily be quite possible that they are all wrong. Which is why I already pointed out that scientific hypotheses regarding the very beginnings of the universe are tentative, and it is very dishonest of you to caricature my claims otherwise.
Again, your ignorance of science has no bearing at all on the validity of science. Don't complain to me just because you're unable to maintain a coherent debate.

Is that a hypothesis on your part, or a theory?

[Langoliers]

10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#1 The warm pond theory

The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.

[Langoliers]

10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#2 The supposed simplicity of the cell.

......So it turns out that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot? In fact, no laboratory has come close to replicating even a single human hair!

[Langoliers]

10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#3 His ideas about information inside the cell.

Because he believed in the simplicity of the information of the cell, he came up with a theory called "pangenesis," where huge variations simply popped out of cells at random—something that was later proven to be entirely false.
Everything we know about DNA indicates that it programs a species to remain within the limits of its own general type. Genetic changes that do occur are typically small and inconsequential, while large mutations, rather than producing improved and novel designs, are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism's survival.

[xxxooxxx]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
No, evidence makes faith superfluous. When evidence is tentative then they do research. If science relied only on "faith" as you say, they'd just take a leaf outta the creationist handbook and sit on their azzes all day making baseless pronouncements and put off any and all research work until Jesus came back.

You have no evidence, but you believe that it will happen...that would imply faith on your part would it not?lol

[Langoliers]

10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#4 His expectation of intermediate fossils

During his life, Charles Darwin was puzzled over the fossil record. For it to back his theory, the evidence should show a fine gradation between the different animal species and have millions of intermediate links.

He stated it this way: "The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory [of evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth" (The Origin of Species,1958, Mentor edition, p. 289).

Yet faced with the evidence, he admitted: "The distinctiveness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory" (p. 287).