Was stumped by a Creationist

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have no proof that matter is eternal.

I didn't state or imply that it is, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make, here.

As for life, if science knows how it came to be without intelligent design, why is it that with intelligent design they cannot replicate it?

Because we are still limited in our abilities to manipulate molecules. Replicate it...how? It might help if you were bit more specific.

We also cannot replicate star birth, or the iron core of a planet. That doesn't mean we don't have a fair understanding of both. We have never even seen an electron, yet we know they exist. So your complaint here is an absurd standard you have reserved specifically for a scientific theory you dislike.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Votto

Furthermore, abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life on Earth, then there was. What connects these two states of affairs is a physical processes governed by the deterministic physical laws. Else...magic.

But why introduce magical nonsense? Where once there was no star, then there was...we don't throw our hands up and say, "magic, I guess we are done here!" We assume a physical process governed by physical laws produced a star where once there was no star. Again, eschewing this obvious conclusion when it comes only to abiogenesis is an absurd idea that religious people reserve for scientific theories they dislike, with the distaste for them originating in religious superstition and fetishes.

 

[Votto]

You have no proof that matter is eternal.

I didn't state or imply that it is, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make, here.

As for life, if science knows how it came to be without intelligent design, why is it that with intelligent design they cannot replicate it?

Because we are still limited on our abilities to manipulate molecules. Replicate it...how? It might help if you were bit more specific.

We also cannot replicate star birth, or the iron core of a planet. That doesn't mean we don't have a fair understanding of both. So your complaint here is an absurd standard you have reserved specifically for a scientific theory you dislike.

It was not long ago that scientists believed in spontaneous generation.

You are seriously comparing the formation of a star to that of creating a living cell?

Really?

 

[Votto]

Votto

Furthermore, abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life on Earth, then there was. What connects these two states of affairs is a physical processes governed by the deterministic physical laws. Else...magic.

But why introduce magical nonsense? Where once there was no star, then there was...we don't throw our hands up and say, "magic, I guess we are done here!" We assume a physical process governed by physical laws produced a star where once there was no star. Again, eschewing this obvious conclusion when it comes only to abiogenesis is an absurd idea that religious people reserve for scientific theories they dislike, with the distaste for them originating in religious superstition and fetishes.

Why is it that life appeared immediately on earth after the earth came to be?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It was not long ago that scientists believed in spontaneous generation

So what? All you are doing is making a case for the strength of scientific theories , when you keep reiterating this dumb talking point. You are making my point and undermining your own.

Yes, I am comparing star birth the formation of cells, in that both are physical processes governed by the same, deterministic physical laws. That's not a mind blowing thing to scientists or philosophers. If it blows your mind, that's a "you" problem.

 

[Votto]

It was not long ago that scientists believed in spontaneous generation

So what? All you are doing is making a case for the strength of scientific theories , when you keep reiterating this dumb talking point. You are making my point and undermining your own.

Yes, I am comparing star birth the formation of cells, in that both are physical processes governed by the same, deterministic physical laws. That's not a mind blowing thing to scientists or philosophers. If it blows your mind, that's a "you" problem.

Scientists have tried to replicate life as a living cell, but not attempted creating a star.

There is a reason for that. One seems reasonable, the other does not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

Wrong, we have actually watched that happen. And you know that, which is why your original, parroted creationist blog talking point in this thread specifically mentioned only mammals. But oops, you forgot to hedge and accidentally reverted to the general talking point of "any species".

You know I mean mammals retard. And unless you can trot out an actual proof a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 or more distinctly different mammals you got nothing.

 

[Votto]

BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

Wrong, we have actually watched that happen. And you know that, which is why your original, parroted creationist blog talking point in this thread specifically mentioned only mammals. But oops, you forgot to hedge and accidentally reverted to the general talking point of "any species".

You know I mean mammals retard. And unless you can trot out an actual proof a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 or more distinctly different mammals you got nothing.

It definitely is a problem.

I'd say evolutionists would feel better if they could actually use the scientific method to prove it, which is to observe or duplicate it, but they can't.

No, all they have are educated beliefs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

Wrong, we have actually watched that happen. And you know that, which is why your original, parroted creationist blog talking point in this thread specifically mentioned only mammals. But oops, you forgot to hedge and accidentally reverted to the general talking point of "any species".

You know I mean mammals retard. And unless you can trot out an actual proof a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 or more distinctly different mammals you got nothing.

It definitely is a problem.

I'd say evolutionists would feel better if they could actually use the scientific method to prove it, which is to observe or duplicate it, but they can't.

No, all they have are educated beliefs.

They have assumptions guesses and fabricated information.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Scientists have tried to replicate life as a living cell,

So what? Scientists have also recreated fusion, which is star birth. Again, you say they failed to create an entire cell, therefore...abiogenesis is bunk? That's a ridiculous argument and a silly standard you have, once again, reserved only for a scientific theory you dislike. And your dislike for it has nothing whatsoever to do with the extant, empirical support for it, and everything to do with religious superstition. And,until you admit this, you simply are not capable of having an honest discussion about this topic.

And scientists find it quite reasonable that life as we know it formed via abiogenesis. You speak only for yourself. It is no surprise that you are not equipped to decide what is reasonable and what is not regarding this topic, as you clearly know less than nothing about it. Your opinions of what is reasonable are simply not worth much.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'd say evolutionists would feel better if they could actually use the scientific method to prove it,

See, this is what I mean. Evolution has been proven many times over, and it is an accepted fact. You freely and quite accidentally switch between the topics of evolution and abiogenesis, with this confusion and inconsistency due to your starting point: religious superstition.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation

Actually, a theoretical transporter doesn't create matter from nothing, it disassembles matter on one end, quantifies it and identifies its structure to the sub-atomic level, then recreates the same form of matter at another location using locally available matter.

The original matter is, for lack of a better term, killed and replaced by new matter with the identical structure.

One of the key actions in evolution is death. Death is the catalyst for natural selection.

Hindu Dinduism

In order to justify the belief that the born-rich deserve to be looked up to, it is necessary to assume a pre-life in which all souls were tested. Those that passed God's muster were then put into the fetuses inside the trophy wives of the plutocrats. The failures at pre-life were put into working-class wives. The only dogma that could justify our present domination by birth privileges is that some of us were Born to Rule, like the Bushes, Kennedys, and Kochs, and all the rest of us are Born Losers.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.

If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop vocal chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking.

We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.

Preppies' Pets, Pawns, Puppets, and Pit Bulls

Certain unproductive and brutal races would fit the definition of "talking animals." They must be tamed and forced to make themselves useful in service to the intelligent races. But it is the interest of our decadent hereditary ruling class to humiliate all other White people with this unscientific dogma of racial equality.

Darwinism led people into believing in the historically greatest destroyer of evolutionary progress: survival of the "fatherest," since successful and dominant mutations were believed to be passed on to the sons for the advancement of the species as a whole. If that theory of Birth-Class Supremacy were the least bit true, the sons would come out on top all on their own and wouldn't need any of Daddy's money, power, or influence.

For us to survive, it is necessary to cast out caste. Either the fatcats cut off their fatkittens at age 18 or we cut them down. They get in our way, so we must run them over.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang. It seems neither have any evidence and both require faith to believe.

What one believes, however, really comes down to the dispensation of that person, how they were raised, and the influences on their lives.

1. yes there is proof of the Big Bang

Those same photons - the afterglow of the Big Bang known as cosmic background radiation - can be observed today.

The Big Bang | Science Mission Directorate
2. Creationists claim god created the universe/etc...?
there is definitely, undeniably no proof of god--no science/math/etc involved

....creation deals with religion beliefs/faiths/etc where as evolution does not deal with religion
..religion is just a story/fairy tales/fake
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Quantum Quacks and Their Postmodern Superstitions

A singularity is an impossible concentration of matter/energy. A rational explanation would be that the material for matter, energy, light and even space itself entered from another universe in an eruption, a reverse Black Hole, from which the material in our universe goes back there.

The childish name, "Big Bang" indicates the kind of immature and escapist misfits we are brainwashed into calling "scientific geniuses." An independent mind would refer to them as creepy authoritarian irrationalists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An independent mind would refer to them as creepy authoritarian irrationalists.

Independent from any actual knowledge of their work, also. Don't forget that part....

 

[fncceo]

Science isn't authority ... science is a method for sifting through data and from it, acquiring knowledge.

Science is there, you can choose to learn what it has to offer or you can ignore it. It doesn't change the science and the science doesn't care.

The problem comes from people who say, "You must accept my science or else". While still others say, "I don't accept your science and refuse to allow you to either". They seek to use science to grant them authority over others.

Let's stop trying to convince each other what is true or false and just let folks get on with their lives.

 

[abu afak]

First of all, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They may be one in the same.

Secondly, IF evolution found different origins for both the Dino and man then the would just move onto another evolutionary theory dimwit.

Creationism and Evolution in the context of those we ARE debating with here, ARE Mutually exclusive for BOTH the OP/TOPIC HERE and other clowns in the thread. Goofy Sgt-whatever.

Your (LOL) "secondly" ('separate evolutions') has ALREADY been refuted by Evolution. The one and only we know that can account for all flora/fauna we DO know. Sure, separate 'origins' for each creature is .. creationism.

Third: Evolution is an Evidentiary Based 'belief,' acknowledgement, and FACT, while creationism is supernatural and baseLess horseshit. Not even rising to a hypothesis, much less a Scientific Theory. (not to be confused with the common use of 'theory').

This one thinks he can play semantics.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The problem comes from people who say, "You must accept my science or else".

"My" science...?

What is this nonsense?

You must accept evolution as an established fact, or else you're wrong. Or, you could prove it wrong, as all people are invited to do with all established scientific theories.

Gee, I hope the poor victims of this oppression can somehow dig out from under it!

 

[fncceo]

You must accept evolution as an established fact, or else you're wrong.

Things evolve, absolutely. The actual details of how it led to life on this planet is a little less well known but natural selection is the best answer we have.

My argument is, why does it matter if someone is right or wrong? We argue these things with a vehemence that is usually reserved for sports teams. However, unlike sports teams, the argument has no bearing on our lives in the slightest way.

The specifics of how life arose on Earth will always be speculative so why not allow everyone to speculate in their way?

Speculation has given us so much that enriches our lives (Thanks, Marvel!). I'd hate to see imagination beating into submission by a prosaic adherence to facts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My argument is, why does it matter if someone is right or wrong?

When having a discussion specifically about that topic? I mean, I can see your point of someone was accosting strangers unsolicited, or going door to door.

The specifics of how life arose on Earth will always be speculative so why not allow everyone to speculate in their way?

How am I 'disallowing' this? I'm not trying to pass any laws against it. If talking about how wrong they are bothers them, then it would be more correct to suggest to them that they don't put their ideas on the table to be scrutinized. It's not appropriate to tell others not to scrutinize them, when they are hung out in public.