We did too listen, Omega answered every single question in that list of yours. (how was the Grand Canyon formed, how are stars formed, etc etc) You promised a long time ago to give us the proof for Creation that you kept saying you had, and we're still waiting... So that's why everybody has gone sarcastic on you.
The Force> To go back to the first post i posted in this topic (I think). The one to which you STILL haven't had the courtesy to reply to I'll post it AGAIN:
When I have to wat two months for a reply ýou promised to supply me with "when you got home" I'm more than entitled to go sacastic on you and your lack of evidence. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself I suggest your ANSWER:
So you call people who do not agree with you retarded???
You seem to know absolutely nothing about cosmology. What on Earth gave you the idea, that Big Bang just blew up and created life like that –snaps fingers –
Only hydrogen and helium were created in Big bang. Heavier elements were created in stars, and ejected into space in supernovas. Heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen, which are among the building blocks of life.
You say you want to answer questions: Well, go ahead and answer the questions I posted in my previous post then. Such as the scientific evidence for creation.
1) Palaeontologists have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"😉, Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.
2) Yes, living beings are complex. But the complexity of life doesn’t prove it was created by any divine being or beings. Nature also has quite a lot of organisms, that show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.
In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.
3 There are gaps in the fossil record due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. Evolutions, however, explaions the fossils. Creationists do not, and cannot account for the age of the fossils if the Earth is only 6000 years old (as Bishop Ussher calculated it to be according to the Bible).
4) Scientists don't claim that cells and multi-cell creatures came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors
5) That we can’t explain the origins of something, doesn’t prove divinity. A few hundred years ago, people had no clue how lightening worked, and even earlier that was contributed to Gods.
Before life evolved 3,8 billion years ago, the Earth atmosphere consisted mainly of CO2. The presence or not of oxygen, does not create a problem for evolution. That God appearantly first created a planet with CO2 atmosphere, and then changed his mind, is a problem for creationists.
6) Define intelligent signal. Let’s assume it has a specific pattern and is as such recognisable as being send by intelligent beings, and easily seen against the background of space, as having such a pattern. It’s exactly seeing it against a disordered background, that makes it recognisable to us humans, being intelligent. But if the rest of space is so disordered, then it is by definition NOT ordered, and God made a mess.
Also: Vast information stored in DNA does not prove intelligent design. As pointed out above, there’s a lot of appallingly bad designs in nature.
7) DNA codes for proteins that are either building blocks or codes for processes in the body. DNA does not code for DNA. Nonsense.
8) Just as senses evolved.
9) An arrowhead proved useful to early humans and therefore helped them survive. Do you know what fusion is? It’s what makes the sun our energy source. Fusion transform lighter elements into heavier elements. Do you really believe we do not consist of elements?
10) What three planets are you talking about? Are you talking about axis-rotation? That, say, Uranus spins around it’s “equator”? What’s wrong with that? It’s not a scientif puzzle. Impact with asteroids can force a planets spin to change. If some god created the solar-system, why the mess?
11) We currently believe the Earth was hit by a big meteor or asteroid, and the Moon was created through rejected material. Why should students be told the scientific reasons for rejecting the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What is your problem with the moons? There’s no scientific problems with moons.
12) Big Bang. Water simply consists of oxygen and hydrogen. What’s the problem with water now?
13) Through fusion. And through the growing amount of heavier elements. Older stars contain less amounts of heavier elements than younger stars. That’s a fact.
14) No, I’m not aware of unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who says the Earth is 4,5 billion years old. Again – science evolves. Which is a good thing. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided. Or do you claim that science is wrong? You’re not sitting by a computer?
15) What living bacteria in billion year old meteorites are YOU talking about??
16) According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of a decay in the speed of light for example was based on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements, many of which were taken hundreds of years ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
17) Because most likely the Earth’s climate changed drastically some 12.000 years go, giving rise to flood legends in many areas on Earth. This only proves that there may’ve been a flood. The producers of America's 1993 CBS television show, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," were hoaxed. Other ark discovery claims have not been substantiated. Why have no one found the Ark?
18) I have no idea where the claim of a recalculation of mitochondrial eve reset the date to 6000 years ago came from. Who did this recalculation? How was it done? I suspect that some creationist just made it up. It may shock you to learn this, but many creationists lie, and many more work to perpetuate the lies out of sheer, appalling ignorance.
19) Actually, no. We may be the Martians for all I know, life may’ve come here from Mars. Salt, organic chemicals etc. are not indigenous to Earth.
20) Geological features are created through such processes as erosion, Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, movement of tectonic plates, etc.
There. Easy as that. You, however, have not provided me with a single shred of evidence for Creationism. Creationism is NOT a science, since there is ZERO proof for it.
Yessot> This was on page 3 and it about two months ago. I didn't get an answer back then, so I doubt I'll get one now 🙂
Why? Because there IS no proof of Creation.
Is been awhile since I mention that the existence of God can be proven in Philosophical terms. Proving that God exist has been debated for centuries, and still the only proofs have been discover have been acredited to philosophy. If God can be proven to exist therefore creations exist. Human beings can reason but most reasoning is practical. If we were able to uncover pure reasoining in our minds, I'm sure there would be ways to find God.
To get a better idea here is some Kant (focus on the idea of reason):
Kant's arguments agaisn't ontological proof is that is all a verbal exercise, for the essence of this proof is the assertion that since we have the idea of the perfect being, it would be contradictory to say that such a being does not exist. Such denial would be contradictory because the concept of a perfect being necessarily includes the predicate of existence. A being, that is, that does not exist can hardly be considered a perfect being.
But Kant argues that this line of of reasoning is "taken from judgements, not from things and their existence," that the idea of God is made to have the predicate of existence by simply fashioning the concept in such a way that existence is made to be included in the idea of a perfect being. This argument nowhere indicates why it is necessary to have the subject of God. There would be contradiction if a perfect being did exist and we denied that such a being was omnipotent. But to say that we avoid a contradiction by agreeing that a supreme being is omnipotent does not by itself demonstrate that such a being exist. Moreover, to deny that God exists is not simply to deny the predicate but to abandon the subject and thereby all the predicates that go with it, and"if we reject subject and predicate alike, there is no contradiction; for nothing is then left to be contradicted" 🙂
It follows from Kant's critical remarks about the "proofs," that just as we cannot demostrate God's existence, neither can we demostrate that God does NOT exist. By pure reason alone we can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. If, therefore, the existence of God cannot be effectively dealt with by the theoretical reason, which Kant has gone to such lengths to show has releveance only in the realm of sense experience, some other aspect of reason must be considered as the source of the idea of God.
Proving the existence of God is essential for Creation. Those that dismiss Creation are certainly dismissing the idea of God. Therefore, if the idea of a perfect being is dismissed. Then dismissed Philosophical thinking as well. Since it serves no purpose to skeptics. But be sure that sometimes such decision can lead to Materialism. Thus, the idea of essence in a being is forever lost in a matter of thinking.
WindDancer> Human imagination in and of itself proves nothing. I can imagine moving faster than the speed of light – yet movement faster than the speed of light has never been observed.
I can imagine visiting my great-great-grandmother in the 19th century, yet such a travel will never be undertaken.
So an imaginary concept is not a one-way street to existence. That is the same as saying that everything humans can imagine must necessarily exist.
Does that then mean ALL gods and goddesses imagined exists, along with aliens, flying saucers and so on and so forth?
And while Kant has some good ideas, I’m sorry, but I cannot see how God is proven to exist if you can only do so on philosophical terms (how that is done still eludes me).
That the non-existence of God can’t be proven proves nothing. As I already stated and showed a few posts back: You cannot prove a negative. The one making a positive assertion carries the burden of proof.
“Proving the existence of God is essential for Creation. Those that dismiss Creation are certainly dismissing the idea of God. Therefore, if the idea of a perfect being is dismissed. Then dismissed Philosophical thinking as well. Since it serves no purpose to skeptics. But be sure that sometimes such decision can lead to Materialism. Thus, the idea of essence in a being is forever lost in a matter of thinking.”
Mind telling me how dismissing the idea of God equals dismissing philosophy? That reasoning is flawed. At least if “idea of” (as you stated earlier) is to be taken in the sense of “must then exist.” As I showed the human mind can come up with all sorts of wacky ideas – imagination does in no way prove anything.
On the contrary – modern society is flawed with all kinds of cultural delusions, because society still suffers under accepted cultural delusions. ✅
Hang on, that's muddling the subject to say that to deny creation is to deny God. The only way in which people are 'denying creation' is in belieiving in evolution. Believing in evolution is NOT inconsistent with beleiving in God! In fact, beleiving in evolution is not even inconsistent with believing in creation- to a religious scientist who believes in God, evolution is God's means of creating Man.
Yerssot> On page 5 of this thread, written on the 17th of February (So it’s almost three months ago) The Force promised to prove Creation and answer the replies/questions I posted “when I get home, k, btw they are nice answers , and i can answer most of them without outside help.”
So isn’t it ironic it’s taken TF almost three months to get home? Why should I be nice, when TF calls the BB theory and anyone who believes it retarded?
The Omega> I wasn't talking about human imagination, I was referring to reason and thinking. Which is the key to the human mind. Sure you can imagine whatever you like. But that itself isn't reasoning. Reasoning is to search for the truth. I've already gotten into the topic of truth and the ultimate truth in a thing (no need to re-write all that).
If you dismiss God then you obviously dismissed Theology. Theology is one of the main branches of Philosophy. If you chose to do so, that's your option. It may not appeal to many but Theology goes deep into the root of the religious mind. For me to investigate the human mind is essential for the purpose of knowledge. What better place to learn more than into the mind of the religious belivers. They are not creating fictional characters. Somehow they are searching for their creator. If there is such a creator, shouldn't that creator be able to be found? That search is unique. That's why I was mentioning Metaphysics earlier. Because Metaphysics is a tool to find truths behind the mind.
Originally posted by The Omega
WindDancer> Human imagination in and of itself proves nothing. I can imagine moving faster than the speed of light – yet movement faster than the speed of light has never been observed.
I can imagine visiting my great-great-grandmother in the 19th century, yet such a travel will never be undertaken.
So an imaginary concept is not a one-way street to existence. That is the same as saying that everything humans can imagine must necessarily exist.
Does that then mean ALL gods and goddesses imagined exists, along with aliens, flying saucers and so on and so forth?And while Kant has some good ideas, I’m sorry, but I cannot see how God is proven to exist if you can only do so on philosophical terms (how that is done still eludes me).
That the non-existence of God can’t be proven proves nothing. As I already stated and showed a few posts back: You cannot prove a negative. The one making a positive assertion carries the burden of proof.“Proving the existence of God is essential for Creation. Those that dismiss Creation are certainly dismissing the idea of God. Therefore, if the idea of a perfect being is dismissed. Then dismissed Philosophical thinking as well. Since it serves no purpose to skeptics. But be sure that sometimes such decision can lead to Materialism. Thus, the idea of essence in a being is forever lost in a matter of thinking.”
Mind telling me how dismissing the idea of God equals dismissing philosophy? That reasoning is flawed. At least if “idea of” (as you stated earlier) is to be taken in the sense of “must then exist.” As I showed the human mind can come up with all sorts of wacky ideas – imagination does in no way prove anything.
On the contrary – modern society is flawed with all kinds of cultural delusions, because society still suffers under accepted cultural delusions. ✅
i already copied and pasted that to Microsoft Word, and what happened with the 3 month thing... i procrastinate.... alot, sorry
The Force> Searching for some interesting proofs of creation? Look no further than the writtings of an Irish Monk named John Scotus Erigena. You have to read his philosophy of Nature that creates and is Not created.
Trust me! You'll find some great arguments about creation. If you are a creationist his works will inspired you. 🙂