Creationists

[Hollie]

He was not the author of "Talk Origins".

But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.

After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.

The gods will punish me.

In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?

Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?

Do you really think you are in a position to question anyone else's credentials Rugged man hands??

Your writing / emotional skill level is barely 7th grade so yes, I am perfectly positioned to understand you're a goofy little boy.

Run along now. Scoot.

 

[Hollie]

You are a troll with no objectivity at all.

Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.

You're dismissed.

I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?

I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.

Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation because I say so.

He was not the author of "Talk Origins".

But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.

After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.

For your use and information, there are a host of articles on radiometric dating at the linked site. Included in this post are the references to peer reviewed papers and scientific journals appearing just one of the articles.


Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale



References (also refer to "Other sources")

Baadsgaard, H.; Lerbekmo, J.F.; Wijbrans, J.R., 1993. Multimethod radiometric age for a bentonite near the top of the Baculites reesidei Zone of southwestern Saskatchewan (Campanian-Maastrichtian stage boundary?). Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.30, p.769-775.

Baadsgaard, H. and Lerbekmo, J.F., 1988. A radiometric age for the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary based on K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb ages of bentonites from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Montana. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.25, p.1088-1097.

Eberth, D.A. and Braman, D., 1990. Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and vertebrate paleontology of the Judith River Formation (Campanian) near Muddy Lake, west-central Saskatchewan. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v.38, no.4, p.387-406.

Goodwin, M.B. and Deino, A.L., 1989. The first radiometric ages from the Judith River Formation (Upper Cretaceous), Hill County, Montana. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.26, p.1384-1391.

Gradstein, F. M.; Agterberg, F.P.; Ogg, J.G.; Hardenbol, J.; van Veen, P.; Thierry, J. and Zehui Huang., 1995. A Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous time scale. IN: Bergren, W. A. ; Kent, D.V.; Aubry, M-P. and Hardenbol, J. (eds.), Geochronology, Time Scales, and Global Stratigraphic Correlation. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication No. 54, p.95-126.

Harland, W.B., Cox, A.V.; Llewellyn, P.G.; Pickton, C.A.G.; Smith, A.G.; and Walters, R., 1982. A Geologic Time Scale: 1982 edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 131p.

Harland, W.B.; Armstrong, R.L.; Cox, A.V.; Craig, L.E.; Smith, A.G.; Smith, D.G., 1990. A Geologic Time Scale, 1989 edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, p.1-263. ISBN 0-521-38765-5

Harper, C.W., Jr., 1980. Relative age inference in paleontology. Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248.

Lubenow, M.L., 1992. Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids.

Obradovich, J.D., 1993. A Cretaceous time scale. IN: Caldwell, W.G.E. and Kauffman, E.G. (eds.). Evolution of the Western Interior Basin. Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 39, p.379-396.

Palmer, Allison R. (compiler), 1983. The Decade of North American Geology 1983 Geologic Time Scale. Geology, v.11, p.503-504. [Also available on-line from the Geological Society of America web site at http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/public/geotime1.htm {Now broken link. See archived copy instead. -- September 12, 2004 } ]

Rastall, R.H., 1956. Geology. Encyclopaedia Britannica 10, p.168. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.: Chicago. [As cited in Harper (1980).]

Rogers, R.R.; Swisher, C.C. III, Horner, J.R., 1993. 40Ar/39Ar age and correlation of the nonmarine Two Medicine Formation (Upper Cretaceous), northwestern Montana, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.30, 1066-1075.

Woodmorappe, J. (pseudonym), 1979. Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised. Creation Research Society Quarterly, v.16, p.102-129. [Also available in the book "Studies in Flood Geology", published by the Institute for Creation Research.]

Other Sources

This document discusses the way radiometric dating is used in geology rather than the details of how radiometric techniques work. It therefore assumes the reader has some familiarity with radiometric dating. For a technical introduction to the methods, I highly recommend these two books:


Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth. Stanford University Press: Stanford, 474 pp. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6

Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd. edition. John Wiley and Sons: New York, p.1-589. ISBN 0-471-86412-9
An excellent introduction to radiometric dating can also be found in the talk.origins FAQ archive:

Age of the Earth FAQ
Isochron dating FAQ
Both are by Chris Stassen.
An excellent source about the integration of radiometric dating, biostratigraphy (the study of fossil succession) and general stratigraphic principles is:


Blatt, H.; Berry, W.B.N.; and Brande, S., 1991. Principles of Stratigraphic Analysis. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Boston, 512p. ISBN 0-86542-069-6.
The history of the geologic time scale is ably described in:

Berry, W.B.N., 1987. Growth of a Prehistoric Time Scale. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Boston, 202p.

And a good summary is in "Changing views of the history of the Earth" by Richard Harter and Chris Stassen.




I would be pleased to review the peer reviewed papers and scientific journals that appear as references relative to your earlier posting.

 

[LOki]

So loki where are all the supposed transitional species that were better adapted to pass on their traits from one species to a destinctly new organism ? Why do we have the beginning species and none of of the transitional species that passed on their better adapted traits ?

Demonstrated for you dozens of times already.

Maybe that is what you believe in your mind but that is not the case through evidence.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ"]Then let's restart here[/ame]

And in anticipation of your refusal to accept any evidence of transitional species:

"Evolutionists have shown that indeed there are transitional fossils, and there are plenty of examples of them. For instance, see this article. Here is the key point...even if young earth creation science experts accept these examples of transitional fossils, they will still claim that there are no transitional fossils! These fossils will either be called unique species, or they will come up with some reason (disease, birth defect, etc) that accounts for the apparent transition feature.
...

The fact that young earth creationists will not be convinced, no matter how much evidence is presented, makes this a weak argument. The argument is not based on science, but on assumptions based on a young earth interpretation of creation."--Old Earth Ministries​

 

[LOki]

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.

The biggest absurdity is non life developed life

Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.

The evidence is overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things; why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?

And how is it not absurd, that the creator/designer you posit can be the source of life?

 

[LOki]

It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.

So if one is perect he doesn't need relationships? Explain that.

Why wouldn't God share some of the same attributes as his creations?

In order to be a Christian it requires faith.

The difference is Christians admit their faith the secularists cannot or will not admit to the faith required to believe some of the theories they hold onto.

There is no faith requirement for secularism.

The real difference is that Christians refuse to admit that their superstition is just as irrational as homeopathy and astrology.

The question is why do they call out others that have faith in their beliefs.

The better question is:

"Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any other creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered more intellectually honest?"​

 

[LOki]

Your problem is you think we (Christians) all believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I don't know how old the earth is, nor do you or anyone else for that matter.

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.

The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.

Not Really.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

Not really.

 

[LOki]

The source doesn't discount the fact.

I could but you would ignore it.

And you counter with an opinion blog.

The source doesn't discount what fact? Can you show me where "Creation Ministries" has submitted their data for peer review? No. I didn't think so.

Would you agree that "Creation Ministries" suggests a certain agenda in what they promote?

And you're incorrect that my link was to an opinion blog. If you review the link, you will see that material, data and figures are provided with references.

The KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable. The KBS Tuff (for "Kay Behrensmeyer Site," after the geologist who first described it) is a layer of redeposited volcanic ash, so it contains a mixture of older sediments, too. It is still possible to date the layer, but care must be taken to choose only the youngest rocks, else one would be dating the age of older sediments washed into the layer, not the age of the layer itself. This is what happened with the first ages reported from the tuff. In a study to test the feasibility of dating samples from the tuff, the samples were contaminated with non-juvenile components which could not be separated out, giving ages over 200 million years. It was recommended that new samples be collected from which suitable individual crystals could be separated (Fitch and Miller 1970). These new samples were dated at 2.61 +/- 0.26 million years, based on the 40Ar/39Ar dating method (Fitch and Miller 1970). Discrepancies with this date soon turned up, though. Work with animal fossils, particularly of pigs, showed that the strata in question matched younger strata in the nearby Omo Valley. In its early stages, this fossil work was imprecise enough that the 2.61 Myr date could still be justified (Maglio 1972). However, the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved (White and Harris 1977). And in 1975, another lab, using K-Ar dating, reported dates of 1.82 and 1.60 Myr (Curtis et al. 1975). Fitch and Miller turned to an independent method to resolve the discrepancy, fission-track dating. Initial results gave an age of 2.44 +/- 0.08 Myr (Hurford et al. 1976). This fit well with the age of 2.42 Myr, which Fitch et al. (1976) recalculated from their original results. Subsequent 40Ar/39Ar measurements they took gave a scattering of ages from 0.52 +/- 0.33 to 2.6 +/- 0.3 Myr. They attributed the spread to reheating of the crystals after deposition. Paleomagnetic studies gave ambiguous results (Brock and Isaac 1974; Hillhouse et al. 1977). The weight of evidence soon began to converge on an age near 1.9 Myr, though. A study of trace elements in the minerals showed that the KBS Tuff correlates with the H2 tuff in the Shungura Formation, uncontroversially dated about 1.8 Myr (Cerling et al. 1979). The 1.60 Myr age reported by Curtis et al. (1975) was found to be an error due to a faulty balance (Drake et al. 1980). A later fission-track study which took pains to eliminate possible errors gave an age of 1.87 +/- 0.04 Myr (Gleadow 1980). Because the controversy had become quite heated, another expert, Ian McDougall, was called in to do independent dating. He came up with an age of 1.89 +/- 0.01 using K-Ar dating and 1.88 +/- 0.02 using 40Ar/39Ar dating (McDougall et al. 1980; McDougall 1981, 1985). Geological evidence and the consistency of dates derived from various sources indicates that reheating after deposition is unlikely.

This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.

Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.

"The KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable."

 

[LOki]

Radiometric dating is flawed.

Not so much.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I disagree. This errors on that fundamentalist belief of "I'm right/You're wrong" or "I'm the only one that has the truth and you don't." I believe the Bible is ABSOLUTELY true. I am just not good with some fundamentalist interpretations of it, 6,000 year old earth being one of them. Most people can't read Genesis without preconceived notions from their parents or pastor or the current religious party line. I take the Bible at exactly what is says. Light and Dark existed because God created photons. The Bible CLEARLY states the Sun and Moon came along after several days of Creation. So how can your guy say there is no doubt these were 7 literal solar days?? Here is a guide on interpretation that might clear some things up. There are a great many denominations that don't have this grasp on interpreting the Bible. It is called Hermenutics:

How to Enjoy Bible Study - Grace to You with John MacArthur

I said it before. When you pretend Genesis was written for us in the 21st Century, you rob it of its originally meaning and power.

"You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote, "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred, he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the studio audience began to applaud.

At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible."

Charismatic Chaos - By John MacArthur

Why are we to believe a day that we witness today was longer back then ? I believe the light that existed when God created was himself. Why is he called the light of the world does that mean just because he is truth ?

So we should ignore the chronology of man that was given by the word of God. I will respectfully disagree with you. If God can say let there be light and there was light we can interpret that as it taking a long period of time for that light to appear.

But still you are basing your views off mans assumptions the same men who say we are products of natural processes and we are all products of evolution. I still think you should watch that video I posted and go through each scripture that is brought to our attention.

The question isn't about solar days, but really your reasons why you believe that passage is meant to be taken literally and others in the Bible are not? Who has decided this for you?

40 years of not just reading scriptures but studying them. I am merely asking you for scriptures that support an old earth view. Why were days of creation longer then the days of man ? How long do you believe man was on this planet ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.

The biggest absurdity is non life developed life

Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.

The evidence is overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things; why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?

And how is it not absurd, that the creator/designer you posit can be the source of life?

Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion. We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My questions to you don't appear to be particularly difficult to understand. Peer review is a valuable process of science wherein results of experimentation can be presented to scientists in similar fields for review, falsification and/or repeatable tests.

It's just a consistent pattern where creationists refuse to publish their work for the scrutiny of peer review. If, as you suggest, the entirety of mainstream scientists have gotten the data regarding a very ancient earth so completely wrong, why would creationists have such pause not to produce their data?

THIS VIDEO IS LACED WITH SARCASM (to those who have difficulty sensing it). Scientists admit that radiometric dating, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old is flawed!!!

I thought it was dishonest to claim that Scientists admit that radiometric dating, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old is flawed!!! when I saw no scientist admit such a thing.

Many do because of the assumptions that are used in the method.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Radiometric dating is flawed.

Not so much.

Are you saying their assumptions are not flawed ?

 

[UltimateReality]

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.

Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.

Days or ages in Genesis 1

Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Please provide a meaningful way to test the biblical tales for accuracy.

Please provide a way to test the "just so" stories of evolution for accuracy. You can start by providing a scientifically testable definition for fitness. I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand these things with just a high school education.

Where did you go to College?

If you ever step foot in a university or browse through a library (you can even find links on the web), you will discover there is a wealth of informative and factual data detailing evolutionary science.

How would you know?

 

[UltimateReality]

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.

The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

Your sources, as expected, are from creationist websites.

Of course they are. Do you expect him to cut and paste from Panda's Thumb to support his arguments? You know, Hollie, you ain't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Probably because you didn't got to College.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.

Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.

Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?

creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.

I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?

Chuckle.

You are a troll with no objectivity at all.

When I obsess over Hollie late at night, I kind of picture her as a troll. Big hairy feet, scraggly hair, and one of those chick mustaches that should be waxed. Oh and really thick man hands that have a Rugged Touch.

 

[UltimateReality]

The gods will punish me.

In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?

Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?

Do you really think you are in a position to question anyone else's credentials Rugged man hands??

Your writing / emotional skill level is barely 7th grade so yes, I am perfectly positioned to understand you're a goofy little boy.

Run along now. Scoot.

Oh you poor dear. Can't handle the heat so you want me to run along? How is your GED coming along?

 

[UltimateReality]

Why are we to believe a day that we witness today was longer back then ? I believe the light that existed when God created was himself. Why is he called the light of the world does that mean just because he is truth ?

So we should ignore the chronology of man that was given by the word of God. I will respectfully disagree with you. If God can say let there be light and there was light we can interpret that as it taking a long period of time for that light to appear.

But still you are basing your views off mans assumptions the same men who say we are products of natural processes and we are all products of evolution. I still think you should watch that video I posted and go through each scripture that is brought to our attention.

The question isn't about solar days, but really your reasons why you believe that passage is meant to be taken literally and others in the Bible are not? Who has decided this for you?

40 years of not just reading scriptures but studying them. I am merely asking you for scriptures that support an old earth view. Why were days of creation longer then the days of man ? How long do you believe man was on this planet ?

I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.

 

[UltimateReality]

Radiometric dating is flawed.

Not so much.

Are you saying their assumptions are not flawed ?

Now YWC, please quit harassing Loki. He has already conceded that he has no problem with 43 "might haves" and "could haves" coming together miraculously to produce life. He is demonstrating it takes just as much faith to believe in his fairy tale as it does for us to believe in ours. He is just too arrogant and too scared of God to admit it.

 

[LOki]

The biggest absurdity is non life developed life

Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.

The evidence is overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things; why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?

And how is it not absurd, that the creator/designer you posit can be the source of life?

Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.

There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.

We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes.

Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.

Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?