Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[james bond]

The truth is the existence of life is an elementary fact, but it cannot be explained by evolutionists.

And the fact that life once did not exist is another elementary fact. Scientists can explain it. Abiogenesis occurred due to selection by physical forces working on a bunch of chemicals. Explained. No need for any Gods. But feel free to say this was God's plan, if you like. That doesn't intrude on anything.

We found out that even Darwin avoided his mentor's question. So what you bring up as elementary fact is the crux of the matter between our differences. I have to say you've changed in terms of not going early with the ad hominems. Now you just state things that can't be backed up. I can see your view, but think it's based on rationality and circular logic.

 

[james bond]

A word about chaos ... that's a mathematical structure with some usefulness in macroscopic systems ... looking at atoms and molecules though, things are pretty much set in stone, it's more useful to analysis the individual bonding energies and motion ... casting this microscopically as chaos has no predictive value, so it's pointless ...

With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such. Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology, or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?

Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone. What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use. As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen. I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna. It's all about chance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We found out that even Darwin avoided his mentor's question.

Irrelevant.

 

[Hollie]

Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science cannot examine unique events ...

No, what is written in Genesis is creation science. It can be backed up by the scientific method. We know that God created adult animals first such as birds and sea creatures for Earth and Earth only.

I’m struggling to identify anything scientific or anything that can be backed up by science about the Genesis fable. You refuse to identify how an ancient fable describing supernatural events is supported by science. It’s an odd notion to suggest that Genesis must be a literal rendition of creation because writers of later books of the Bible believed it to be so. That’s an argument straight out of the creation ministries.

 

[Hollie]

A word about chaos ... that's a mathematical structure with some usefulness in macroscopic systems ... looking at atoms and molecules though, things are pretty much set in stone, it's more useful to analysis the individual bonding energies and motion ... casting this microscopically as chaos has no predictive value, so it's pointless ...

With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such. Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology, or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?

Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone. What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use. As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen. I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna. It's all about chance.

Substituting “philosophy of science” for science is an obvious error.
The problem faced by various forms of Biblical creation proponents is that the movement was not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, a vocal proponent who was the primary instigator for the movement, acknowledged that it is about religion and philosophy, not science, (Belz).

(Belz, Joel. 1996. Witnesses for the prosecution. World Magazine 11(28): 18. World Magazine Article)

The problem you face with the “philosophy of science” slogan is that millennia of philosophers and theologians have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't think anything was selected. the beginning of life was a random thing so it could not have been selected.

The selection for persistent forms that were the precursors to life was not random. The reason one complex protein persisted and another did not was not a random event. The same rules applied everywhere and the same complex proteins kept forming and persisting. That's nonrandom selection operating.

of course it was random.

Trillions upon trillions upon trillions etc etc random events over billions of years so it only makes sense that some of those random events and chemical processes produced the precursors of life as we know it and most likely some life we can't imagine at all

 

[PredFan]

That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."

Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.

That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.

You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.

Yes, I've read of it. It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).

"Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another

IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.

To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.

This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.

Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (New Scientist, 6 February, p 28).

The chaos theory of evolution

Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another

www.newscientist.com

--

The "laws of evolution" are just the laws of physics. Randomness and chaos may lead to different physiologies, but nonrandom selection is what produces the ones that persist. He and i are on the same page. You are that flat earther languishing at odds with all the facts.

I have a better than layman's knowledge of evolution, but you two are arguing above me. I'll leave you two to it.

 

[james bond]

We found out that even Darwin avoided his mentor's question.

Irrelevant.

But his question could be is very important.

I want to make sure you understand this point with the diagrams I showed. Once you learn the truth or design about something, i.e. gain knowledge and truth, then you can't just unlearn it (unless you get amnesia or something). Our minds are designed to fill in the blanks. That's how you know how our universe could've formed. (We also see that it's being destroyed because of our advanced satellites, telescopes, and technology. There are forces out there that a supernova or galaxy cannot withstand.) Without that intelligence behind what you discovered, then you have nothing.

Here's a good example of how your mind is easily tricked. Even the old pros were fooled by newer ones coming up. esalla is so tricked that he can't even read straight anymore.

 

[ChemEngineer]

He fooled two homosexual atheists. How impressive.

 

[james bond]

Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science cannot examine unique events ...

No, what is written in Genesis is creation science. It can be backed up by the scientific method. We know that God created adult animals first such as birds and sea creatures for Earth and Earth only.

I’m struggling to identify anything scientific or anything that can be backed up by science about the Genesis fable. You refuse to identify how an ancient fable describing supernatural events is supported by science. It’s an odd notion to suggest that Genesis must be a literal rendition of creation because writers of later books of the Bible believed it to be so. That’s an argument straight out of the creation ministries.

According to evolution, what had to come first? The baby or egg. This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did. How do I know what happened. We have God's autobiography. He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.

That's why I brought up design. We find there is intelligence behind the design. Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be. Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.

For example:

2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?

and so on. We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables. Yet, if we see the design, then our minds fill in the blanks.

2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...

 

[esalla]

We found out that even Darwin avoided his mentor's question.

Irrelevant.

But his question could be is very important.

I want to make sure you understand this point with the diagrams I showed. Once you learn the truth or design about something, i.e. gain knowledge and truth, then you can't just unlearn it (unless you get amnesia or something). Our minds are designed to fill in the blanks. That's how you know how our universe could've formed. (We also see that it's being destroyed because of our advanced satellites, telescopes, and technology. There are forces out there that a supernova or galaxy cannot withstand.) Without that intelligence behind what you discovered, then you have nothing.

Here's a good example of how your mind is easily tricked. Even the old pros were fooled by newer ones coming up. esalla is so tricked that he can't even read straight anymore.

Tell us the truth Mr. Bond

 

[ReinyDays]

With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such. Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology, or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?

Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone. What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use. As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen. I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna. It's all about chance.

I was addressing your misuse of the term "chaos" ... in every way, Biology can be (and usually is) described in chemical terms ... Biochemistry ... DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, water, ATP ... these are all chemicals and all obey the laws of chemistry ... and the laws of thermodynamics ...

If you're not in a position to discuss chemistry ... you're in no position to discuss evolution ... the two cannot be separated ... if you don't understand how ethane is made from two methane, you'll never understand how two methane and an ammonia form amino acids ... without understanding the chemical properties of amino acids, you'll never understand what proteins are ... how can we take seriously anything you say about life if you can't grasp the simple energy transfer between ATP and ADP ... something I believe is common and abundant in all cellular life ...

The concept of "non-zero probabilities" comes up in just about all the natural sciences ... weather reports regularly state the chances of rainfall, new cars come with warranties ... try to wrap your head around this fact: the number of liters of water in all the world's oceans is trivial compared to the number of water molecules in each of those liters ... I know, really only astronomers can grasp the magnitude of astronomical numbers ... but the chemist endures remarkably well ... credit where credit's due I say ...

 

[ReinyDays]

According to evolution, what had to come first? The baby or egg. This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did. How do I know what happened. We have God's autobiography. He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.

That's why I brought up design. We find there is intelligence behind the design. Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be. Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.

For example:

2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?

and so on. We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables. Yet, if we see the design, then our minds fill in the blanks.

2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...

Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...

Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...

How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...

 

[james bond]

A word about chaos ... that's a mathematical structure with some usefulness in macroscopic systems ... looking at atoms and molecules though, things are pretty much set in stone, it's more useful to analysis the individual bonding energies and motion ... casting this microscopically as chaos has no predictive value, so it's pointless ...

With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such. Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology, or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?

Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone. What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use. As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen. I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna. It's all about chance.

Substituting “philosophy of science” for science is an obvious error.
The problem faced by various forms of Biblical creation proponents is that the movement was not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, a vocal proponent who was the primary instigator for the movement, acknowledged that it is about religion and philosophy, not science, (Belz).

(Belz, Joel. 1996. Witnesses for the prosecution. World Magazine 11(28): 18. World Magazine Article)

The problem you face with the “philosophy of science” slogan is that millennia of philosophers and theologians have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

I did nothing of the kind, but pointed out people who use non-zero probability as part of something happening in science aren't following what the philosophy of science recommends. If you have two chances -- slim and none -- then you shouldn't bank your hypothesis on it. Yet, we see this with abiogenesis (which Fort Fun Indiana and I were discussing), existence of intelligent aliens, microbes, as well as how the big bang happened. The atheist scientists have had to propose multiverses and such to counter the fine tuning facts that scientists found. Creation scientists finally got an admission that life is rare.

 

[Hollie]

Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science cannot examine unique events ...

No, what is written in Genesis is creation science. It can be backed up by the scientific method. We know that God created adult animals first such as birds and sea creatures for Earth and Earth only.

I’m struggling to identify anything scientific or anything that can be backed up by science about the Genesis fable. You refuse to identify how an ancient fable describing supernatural events is supported by science. It’s an odd notion to suggest that Genesis must be a literal rendition of creation because writers of later books of the Bible believed it to be so. That’s an argument straight out of the creation ministries.

According to evolution, what had to come first? The baby or egg. This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did. How do I know what happened. We have God's autobiography. He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.

That's why I brought up design. We find there is intelligence behind the design. Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be. Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.

For example:

2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?

and so on. We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables. Yet, if we see the design, then our minds fill in the blanks.

2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...

Your baby or egg dilemma involves magical thinking and is best left to those at your creation ministries. The first shelled egg appears to have evolved about 300 million years ago or so. That timeline represents quite a dilemma to the YEC’ists. While there is overwhelming evidence of a very ancient planet, resolving supernaturalism, 900 year old men and Arks sailing the oceans just a few thousand years ago represents magical thinking.

In order to find intelligence behind design, you first need to make a defendable case for ID’creationism. Absent any demonstration that your gods had a hand in any supernatural creation, you make the initial mistake of providing no support for the existence of your gods. I find it comical that you rail against any association with the term intelligent design (ID’creationism), yet you acknowledge that is precisely the ideology you embrace.

I‘m not so sure you have a grasp on your Bible’ology or some basic definitions. None of the gods wrote any of the Bibles. Therefore, you don’t have any of the god’s autobiography. There were many authors, most of them unknown, who wrote the tales and fables you call the Bibles.

It‘s really concerning that you have so little understanding of the “genesis” of the books you worship.

 

[james bond]

According to evolution, what had to come first? The baby or egg. This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did. How do I know what happened. We have God's autobiography. He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.

That's why I brought up design. We find there is intelligence behind the design. Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be. Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.

For example:

2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?

and so on. We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables. Yet, if we see the design, then our minds fill in the blanks.

2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...

Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...

Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...

How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...

I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first. However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen. Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first. Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.

Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...

C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie. Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge. I can give you more complex examples if you want.

How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...

I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg. We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3 Notice, he didn't create the sun. He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.

 

[Hollie]

A word about chaos ... that's a mathematical structure with some usefulness in macroscopic systems ... looking at atoms and molecules though, things are pretty much set in stone, it's more useful to analysis the individual bonding energies and motion ... casting this microscopically as chaos has no predictive value, so it's pointless ...

With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such. Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology, or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?

Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone. What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use. As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen. I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna. It's all about chance.

Substituting “philosophy of science” for science is an obvious error.
The problem faced by various forms of Biblical creation proponents is that the movement was not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, a vocal proponent who was the primary instigator for the movement, acknowledged that it is about religion and philosophy, not science, (Belz).

(Belz, Joel. 1996. Witnesses for the prosecution. World Magazine 11(28): 18. World Magazine Article)

The problem you face with the “philosophy of science” slogan is that millennia of philosophers and theologians have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

I did nothing of the kind, but pointed out people who use non-zero probability as part of something happening in science aren't following what the philosophy of science recommends. If you have two chances -- slim and none -- then you shouldn't bank your hypothesis on it. Yet, we see this with abiogenesis (which Fort Fun Indiana and I were discussing), existence of intelligent aliens, microbes, as well as how the big bang happened. The atheist scientists have had to propose multiverses and such to counter the fine tuning facts that scientists found. Creation scientists finally got an admission that life is rare.

You have never provided anything that supports your claimed non-zero probability. The standard ID’creationist argument against both abiogenesis and biological evolution is nothing more than “the odds are too great”. That’s not an argument as it is obviously false. We know with certainty that abiogenesis occurred and secondly that the “odds” are typically presented by ID’creatiinist ministries which have a predefined agenda.

You’re hoping to substitute the methods of science with something you call “philosophy of science”. What separates science from philosophy is that philosophers ”ponder” ideas while scientists experiment, test, observe, and test again to see if their theory meets standards of demonstration. Experimentation and observation have always been the foundation on which scientific understanding progresses.

 

[esalla]

With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such. Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology, or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?

Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone. What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use. As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen. I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna. It's all about chance.

I was addressing your misuse of the term "chaos" ... in every way, Biology can be (and usually is) described in chemical terms ... Biochemistry ... DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, water, ATP ... these are all chemicals and all obey the laws of chemistry ... and the laws of thermodynamics ...

If you're not in a position to discuss chemistry ... you're in no position to discuss evolution ... the two cannot be separated ... if you don't understand how ethane is made from two methane, you'll never understand how two methane and an ammonia form amino acids ... without understanding the chemical properties of amino acids, you'll never understand what proteins are ... how can we take seriously anything you say about life if you can't grasp the simple energy transfer between ATP and ADP ... something I believe is common and abundant in all cellular life ...

The concept of "non-zero probabilities" comes up in just about all the natural sciences ... weather reports regularly state the chances of rainfall, new cars come with warranties ... try to wrap your head around this fact: the number of liters of water in all the world's oceans is trivial compared to the number of water molecules in each of those liters ... I know, really only astronomers can grasp the magnitude of astronomical numbers ... but the chemist endures remarkably well ... credit where credit's due I say ...

Evolution is not chemistry, evolution is the running of the code that is transmitted by chemicals, as DNA is a molecular operating system, without the code which must come first there is nothing to evolve

 

[Hollie]

According to evolution, what had to come first? The baby or egg. This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did. How do I know what happened. We have God's autobiography. He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.

That's why I brought up design. We find there is intelligence behind the design. Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be. Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.

For example:

2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?

and so on. We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables. Yet, if we see the design, then our minds fill in the blanks.

2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...

Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...

Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...

How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...

I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first. However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen. Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first. Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.

Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...

C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie. Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge. I can give you more complex examples if you want.

How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...

I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg. We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3 Notice, he didn't create the sun. He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.

You spend a great of time railing against evilutionist atheists such as me. There’s nothing ‘hateful’ about requiring ID’creationers to present a defendable argument. I think you let your emotions steer your argument as opposed to presenting supportable statements.

BTW, “God said....” is a misnomer. The gods didn’t write the Bibles. The gods never dictated any part of Genesis to humankind. You do know that Genesis was not recited to any human from a first-person directive, right?

 

[esalla]

According to evolution, what had to come first? The baby or egg. This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did. How do I know what happened. We have God's autobiography. He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.

That's why I brought up design. We find there is intelligence behind the design. Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be. Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.

For example:

2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?

and so on. We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables. Yet, if we see the design, then our minds fill in the blanks.

2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...

Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...

Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...

How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...

I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first. However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen. Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first. Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.

Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...

C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie. Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge. I can give you more complex examples if you want.

How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...

I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg. We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3 Notice, he didn't create the sun. He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.

You spend a great of time railing against evilutionist atheists such as me. There’s nothing ‘hateful’ about requiring ID’creationers to present a defendable argument. I think you let your emotions steer your argument as opposed to presenting supportable statements.

BTW, “God said....” is a misnomer. The gods didn’t write the Bibles. The gods never dictated any part of Genesis to humankind. You do know that Genesis was not recited to any human from a first-person directive, right?

AS if Hollie has a credible argument.

LOL you find out the names of species that were observed speciating yet?

Play on