Guess who has the burden of proof!

[Donald H]

Why would any Christian need to prove that the earth was created by the god 6000 years ago?
just take it on faith and move on.

It's not a topic to debate or that needs proving. It just IS and only Satan would say it ISN'T!

 

[Hollie]

There was an explosion?

That's the theory. Maybe the explosion was God and both sides are right.

There was no explosion. The Ill-named "Big Bang" refers to the expansion of universe, not a literal explosion. The idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption in time and space followed by expansion of the universe.

.

 

[Orangecat]

There was no explosion. The Ill-named "Big Bang" refers to the expansion of universe, not a literal explosion.

.

What caused the "expansion"? God? Why would an expansion create life?

 

[BreezeWood]

The existence of God is the Theory

There is no proof of that Theory

The existence of the universe in and of itself is the evidence for God's existence, and logic proves that God necessarily exists.

.

The existence of the universe in and of itself is the evidence for God's existence, and logic proves that God necessarily exists.

.
is the water bottle created by the universe, therefore whatever created the water bottle is god ...

Humans invented the bottle; however, GOD created the water and all the elements that went into the fabrication of the bottle.

.

Humans invented the bottle; however, GOD created the water and all the elements that went into the fabrication of the bottle.

.
sure but they did not create the water bottle. proving a single source is not necessary for a creation.

also the periodic elements were spontaneously created after the initial cyclical conversion from energy to matter.

 

[Ringtone]

[

The only thing leftists, indeed, statist bootlicks, will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads. —Ringtone

What a great way to kick off a topic for the religion section!

It's not my mindset. I'm a classical liberal and, therefore, respect and defend the inalienable rights of others. I'm describing the mindset of leftists, statist bootlicks. Did you read something into that that's not there? LOL!

 

[Hollie]

There was no explosion. The Ill-named "Big Bang" refers to the expansion of universe, not a literal explosion.

.

What caused the "expansion"? God? Why would an expansion create life?

There is nothing to indicate your gods or anyone else’s gods caused the expansion. Can you offer anything to indicate that a supernatural event caused by your gods was the reason.

The chemistry of the universe makes the building blocks of life abundant. Why would your particular gods make the universe so vast, put in place the chemical compounds that support life and then abandon it all by making the planet 6,000 years ago and supernaturally creating life on the planet?

 

[Hollie]

[

The only thing leftists, indeed, statist bootlicks, will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads. —Ringtone

What a great way to kick off a topic for the religion section!

It's not my mindset. I'm a classical liberal and, therefore, respect and defend the inalienable rights of others. I'm describing the mindset of leftists, statist bootlicks. Did you read something into that that's not there? LOL!

“Atheism is the belief in magic. —Ringtone”

Do you spend lots of time at the Henry Morris madrassah inventing a hoped-for comedy routine?

What is magical about concluding that supernaturalism is not a viable explanation for life on the planet?

Is there any good reason to believe that in your world of magic and supernaturalism there are men in nightgowns living in the clouds? Do fat, naked babies really play harps in heaven? Do winged horses really carry people through the clouds?

 

[Hollie]

Guess who has the burden of proof!

Let’s examine the title of this thread and see if the hyper-religious types can answer the question. The standard model for ID creationer apologetics falls under the formula, and viciously circular argument found on any of the ID creationer sites.

It goes along the lines of:

A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion


B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion


C. Exempt the gods from "A"

I should point out that prior to anyone insisting that their partisan gods are responsible for existence, it would be a reasonable presumption to expect that they would offer a supportable case for those gods.


ou, making the positive assertion that something exists, bear the burden of proof. You admit you cannot do so but then require that others must disprove what you can't be bothered to make a positive case for. That's ridiculous.

It's a rational and reasonable position to conclude that a belief system based on magic and supernaturalism including gawds, spirit realms, etc., are no different than other superstitious ramblings that have plagued humanity in the past. It's evident that the supernaturally based belief system provides allowance for the existence of Leprachauns, Bigfoot, Nessie and all manner of takes and fables. So, I would expect the supernaturalists to meet the burden of proof that identifies one particular set of gods as ‘real’ and extant.

 

[Orangecat]

There is nothing to indicate your gods or anyone else’s gods caused the expansion. Can you offer anything to indicate that a supernatural event caused by your gods was the reason.

I don't have any gods. I'm just not so pompous as to believe I know how life and the universe started, like you obviously are.
A god is just as plausible as your theory, perhaps moreso depending on your definition of "god".
An "expansion" caused life to begin from nothing? Ok, boomer.

 

[Ringtone]

There is nothing to indicate your gods or anyone else’s gods caused the expansion. Can you offer anything to indicate that a supernatural event caused by your gods was the reason.

I don't have any gods. I'm just not so pompous as to believe I know how life and the universe started, like you obviously are.
A god is just as plausible as your theory, perhaps moreso depending on your definition of "god".
An "expansion" caused life to begin from nothing? Ok, boomer.

By God, we mean an eternally self-subsistent, timeless, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.

The atheist's contention is that either the physical world has always existed, in some state or another, which entails the inexplicable absurdity of an infinite regress of causation, or that it came into existence by some other feat of magic, i.e., that an ontological nothingness caused something to exist or that something, before it existed, mind you, caused itself to exist. LOL!

When mere mortals examine this gibberish and note that the rational and empirical evidence tells us that the physical world necessarily began to exist and that God must be, atheists go apeshit and mindlessly scream "Burden of proof! Burden of proof!"

Go figure.

 

[Hollie]

There is nothing to indicate your gods or anyone else’s gods caused the expansion. Can you offer anything to indicate that a supernatural event caused by your gods was the reason.

I don't have any gods. I'm just not so pompous as to believe I know how life and the universe started, like you obviously are.
A god is just as plausible as your theory, perhaps moreso depending on your definition of "god".
An "expansion" caused life to begin from nothing? Ok, boomer.

I don't claim to know with certainty the specifics of how the universe started or precisely how life began. We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.

1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular;y rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.

4) The genetic mutations within species are “synchronized and harmonized” through the many well understood processes we together call “population genetics.” I am happy to also go into much greater depth here if you are interested.

5) Genetic mutations between different species are not “synchronized” or “harmonized,” so there is no mechanism that requires proposal.

6) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is extensive and fruitful. But the point remains, (snark) the first DNA was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Allah, Maybe Vishnu or perhaps by a formidable, unionized consortium of gods.

6.5) Humans evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.

 

[Ringtone]

There is nothing to indicate your gods or anyone else’s gods caused the expansion. Can you offer anything to indicate that a supernatural event caused by your gods was the reason.

I don't have any gods. I'm just not so pompous as to believe I know how life and the universe started, like you obviously are.
A god is just as plausible as your theory, perhaps moreso depending on your definition of "god".
An "expansion" caused life to begin from nothing? Ok, boomer.

I don't claim to know with certainty the specifics of how the universe started or precisely how life began. We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.

1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular;y rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.

4) The genetic mutations within species are “synchronized and harmonized” through the many well understood processes we together call “population genetics.” I am happy to also go into much greater depth here if you are interested.

5) Genetic mutations between different species are not “synchronized” or “harmonized,” so there is no mechanism that requires proposal.

6) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is extensive and fruitful. But the point remains, (snark) the first DNA was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Allah, Maybe Vishnu or perhaps by a formidable, unionized consortium of gods.

6.5) Humans evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.

Utter hogwash! The myths of abiogenesis and evolution are solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, the atheist's religion, which is neither logically nor scientifically verifiable. The naturalist/materialist begs the question, unwittingly assumes his conclusion in his premise, and calls his religious convictions science.

In the meantime. . . .

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[Bezukhov]

It's one thing to argue for the existence of a First Cause. Quite another thing to prove that it was your version of this First Cause that was responsible for everything.

Yes, of course it is. Per the first principles of metaphysics, logic and physics, we know that the physical world began to exist. Only utter nincompoops allege to argue from the imperatives of logic and simultaneously deny the ontological imperative of sufficient cause or reason. The divinity of classical theism is the only empirically and rationally justifiable candidate. There's only a very small handful of religious traditions that are classically theistic. Of the few, there's only one that thoroughly accounts for the facts of reality.

In the meantime, naturalism/materialism is inherently contradictory, self-negating.

If I had to choose Hindu Cosmogony makes the most sense

 

[Orangecat]

By God, we mean an eternally self-subsistent, timeless, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.

Does this God know my name and care about my well being?

 

[Orangecat]

I don't claim to know with certainty the specifics of how the universe started or precisely how life began. We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.

Your theory isn't any more valid than a religious person's theory.
You can't hide behind a wall of text.

 

[Hollie]

There is nothing to indicate your gods or anyone else’s gods caused the expansion. Can you offer anything to indicate that a supernatural event caused by your gods was the reason.

I don't have any gods. I'm just not so pompous as to believe I know how life and the universe started, like you obviously are.
A god is just as plausible as your theory, perhaps moreso depending on your definition of "god".
An "expansion" caused life to begin from nothing? Ok, boomer.

I don't claim to know with certainty the specifics of how the universe started or precisely how life began. We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.

1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular;y rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.

4) The genetic mutations within species are “synchronized and harmonized” through the many well understood processes we together call “population genetics.” I am happy to also go into much greater depth here if you are interested.

5) Genetic mutations between different species are not “synchronized” or “harmonized,” so there is no mechanism that requires proposal.

6) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is extensive and fruitful. But the point remains, (snark) the first DNA was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Allah, Maybe Vishnu or perhaps by a formidable, unionized consortium of gods.

6.5) Humans evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.

Utter hogwash! The myths of abiogenesis and evolution are solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, the atheist's religion, which is neither logically nor scientifically verifiable. The naturalist/materialist begs the question, unwittingly assumes his conclusion in his premise, and calls his religious convictions science.

In the meantime. . . .

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Oh, gawd. Not that collection of paste and paste nonsense again.

 

[Hollie]

I don't claim to know with certainty the specifics of how the universe started or precisely how life began. We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.

Your theory isn't any more valid than a religious person's theory.
You can't hide behind a wall of text.

You can’t hide behind ignorance of science.

 

[Ringtone]

By God, we mean an eternally self-subsistent, timeless, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.

Does this God know my name and care about my well being?

He would by definition know all things.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is nothing to indicate your gods or anyone else’s gods caused the expansion. Can you offer anything to indicate that a supernatural event caused by your gods was the reason.

I don't have any gods. I'm just not so pompous as to believe I know how life and the universe started, like you obviously are.
A god is just as plausible as your theory, perhaps moreso depending on your definition of "god".
An "expansion" caused life to begin from nothing? Ok, boomer.

I don't claim to know with certainty the specifics of how the universe started or precisely how life began. We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.

1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular;y rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.

4) The genetic mutations within species are “synchronized and harmonized” through the many well understood processes we together call “population genetics.” I am happy to also go into much greater depth here if you are interested.

5) Genetic mutations between different species are not “synchronized” or “harmonized,” so there is no mechanism that requires proposal.

6) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is extensive and fruitful. But the point remains, (snark) the first DNA was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Allah, Maybe Vishnu or perhaps by a formidable, unionized consortium of gods.

6.5) Humans evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.

Utter hogwash! The myths of abiogenesis and evolution are solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, the atheist's religion, which is neither logically nor scientifically verifiable. The naturalist/materialist begs the question, unwittingly assumes his conclusion in his premise, and calls his religious convictions science.

In the meantime. . . .

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

.

Utter hogwash! The myths of abiogenesis and evolution are solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism.

.
the burden of proof for evolution is materially undeniable and in reverse order directly insinuates a natural moment of singularity from a compound material to organic transformation. abiogenesis, what a true theist would attempt to comprehend is the origin of the abiogenesis physiology and the inseparable, unique spiritual content that does lend credence to the metaphysical for its origin. and how that may be possible.

 

[Ringtone]

There is nothing to indicate your gods or anyone else’s gods caused the expansion. Can you offer anything to indicate that a supernatural event caused by your gods was the reason.

I don't have any gods. I'm just not so pompous as to believe I know how life and the universe started, like you obviously are.
A god is just as plausible as your theory, perhaps moreso depending on your definition of "god".
An "expansion" caused life to begin from nothing? Ok, boomer.

I don't claim to know with certainty the specifics of how the universe started or precisely how life began. We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.

1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular;y rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.

4) The genetic mutations within species are “synchronized and harmonized” through the many well understood processes we together call “population genetics.” I am happy to also go into much greater depth here if you are interested.

5) Genetic mutations between different species are not “synchronized” or “harmonized,” so there is no mechanism that requires proposal.

6) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is extensive and fruitful. But the point remains, (snark) the first DNA was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Allah, Maybe Vishnu or perhaps by a formidable, unionized consortium of gods.

6.5) Humans evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.

Utter hogwash! The myths of abiogenesis and evolution are solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, the atheist's religion, which is neither logically nor scientifically verifiable. The naturalist/materialist begs the question, unwittingly assumes his conclusion in his premise, and calls his religious convictions science.

In the meantime. . . .

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Oh, gawd. Not that collection of paste and paste nonsense again.

I wrote it, and it's predicated on prevailing science. But you won't read it or directly refute it. That's not your style, Hollie. You just spout ad hominem and slogans in the face of the rational and empirical evidence that falsifies the tenets of your religion. You're a fanatic, a broken record, a smile and a shoeshine, all hat and no cattle, more at, all mouth and no common sense. You don't know or really understand squat about the pertinent biochemistry anymore than you grasp the metaphysical nature of your assumptions. You're a mindless denizen of scientism, a total phony.

LOL!