News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

U.S. courts are as corrupt as any in the world. In a discussion among grown-ups their opinions mean next to nothing. The impact of their corruption, that's another thing.


Yadda yadda US legal system. Other than talkdeceptions, where could you find a less reliable source to cite?

Speaking of unreliable sources, Professor John Hauptman had this to say:
"The assistant professor, Guillermo Gonzalez, works in the ISU Physics and Astronomy Department in the area of astrobiology. He is very creative, intelligent and knowledgeable, [color:"red"] highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher [/color]. Students in my Newspaper Physics class like to interview him."

So far so good (or bad depending on one's perspective)

Later on, right in the same article, he says
"It is purely a question of what is science and what is not, and a physics department is not obligated to support notions that do not even begin to meet scientific standards."

He admits to voting against Gonzales on the grounds that he supposedly "doesn't know" what science is. Clearly this is evolutionese for "he accepts ID".

Now if what you say is true; and what he says is true, To wit: "nobody who accepts ID knows what science is"; then how could Gonzales possibly have been "highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher"?!!!!! This is ain't kindergarten - this is a serious academic setting.

At least one vote clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with science, job performance, or anything other than the religion of evolutionism.


"Christains" can't discriminate against Christians? That's news to me! Looks like the kind of "Christian" that doesn't blend his faith (enough) with evolutionism can be discriminated against by the kind that does.



None of Gonzales' 68 published papers was on ID according to a source I lost. History folder's a mess & I can't find that one.

According to what it says here The funding excuse doesn't hold up either. So much for their "primary reason".

The "embarrassment factor" you mention is in my opinion a very thin excuse to discriminate. I'll bet you wouldn't even try it to justify racial or sexual discrimination. "I can't be seen working next to a woman!" - like that'd fly...

But I begin to understand your concern. In your science-by-majority paradigm, every vote counts, doesn't it?

Belay that post!
I found it

You refuse to accept that evolution and abiogenesis could even be possible. You refute all evidence presented for these, claim that there simply is no evidence, and instead continually slot in inflammatory language about how evolution is a religion and evolutionists are cunning deceivers. This stacks up to one massive denial. You can argue from the standpoint of being incredulous and give your reasons why, but explaining your reasons doesn't change your standpoint.

If you look in earlier posts, which would probably be a handy thing to do since you are new here, you will see that Russ often argues from this standpoint too. Many creationists do because the nature of their beliefs is such that they will not accept the possibility of anything that contradicts them. The idea of irreducible complexity is a form of the argument from incredulity and Russ and I have had several conversations about that.


Crikey, you mean someone has claimed before that you were presenting an argument from incredulity? Incredible. Maybe you are hearing these things because they are appropriate comments to make, though I am getting used by now to expecting little in return from you apart from ad hominem remarks about myself or evolutionists. I'm used to hearing them here. They don't exactly flatter their authors.


You seem to think that science is a conspiracy. I don't expect to hear any more incredulous remarks about claims that you think scientists are liars. Examine your language in the above statement.

You seem to presume that all scientists have preconceived notions and that the only reason they do experiments or advocate theories is to dupe the public into believing them. Maybe I can understand now why this baselessly hostile way of thinking persists. What people actually do have preconceived notions about how things are, and must fit all the facts they come across into their world view, twisting or rejecting them as necessary? I can think of a few. But this is not a description of science or scientists. I've explained to you myself that I see the evidence such as the fossil record, and I agree that evolution is the best explanation. We don't seem to be able to get past the little bee in the bonnet about how I must have some kind of fervent religious desire to believe in evolution, and therefore the fossil record and anything else I can find are handy in stoking the flames.

When you find the time -- I know there are a lot of posts here -- I'm waiting for some ideas of experiments we can do to test the validity of creationism; a better explanation for the sorting of the fossil record and phyletic gradualism than evolution provides; and a list of those creationist scientists whom you say are esteemed by mainstream science.

To get back to your quote above, LinearAQ addressed this. Investigation and experimentation can change the way we think the world works. This is what science is based on. Theories are changed as new ideas come to light. Newton was right -- but so was Einstein. I fully expect our notions to continue to change as more discoveries are made. But these will be done via the scientific method. Can any creationists claim to have made discoveries which have contributed to the body of scientific knowledge?


The same tiresome tactics I have already highlighted: ad hominem comments, including an apparent claim that abiogenesis can't be a viable theory because scientists don't completely understand how it could work. So we don't know all the details -- fancy that! A good scientist never claims that they do. So the fact that we're learning more about a new and interesting field of science means nothing to you other than our lack of knowledge is proof to you that the whole field is invalid? I read the Wikipedia article that LinearAQ linked to; did you? Scientists have discovered a great deal more than I realised and there are some very interesting lines of study.

I've read estimates that up to 94% of the universe is composed of things called dark matter and dark energy, which we know little about. This is pretty amazing, don't you think? Yet I have never heard a creationist claim that this line of study is invalid because we know so little about it, and scientists don't agree. You seem to like to be selective about where you're going to criticise.


Read the Wikipedia article on the origins of life. You never know, you might learn something. You will find many citations there of the scientists involved in the research, and their papers and theories. Theories, by the way, do not become theories if the research involved cannot be replicated by other scientists.


That's what scientists are attempting to do. In the meantime you can't show me that it is impossible either, which means more research is needed, as I stated earlier.


What I told you about the burden of proof is not just my personal opinion, but that of some other scientists whose books I have read. They have a beef about dogmatic skeptics who think that a matter is open-and-shut when it can be "explained away." What they do not seem to accept is that their methods of explaining something away also need to be tested to ascertain whether or not they are valid alternatives. If an idea has been rigorously investigated by many experts in the field, then why should someone who claims it's all nonsense, without presenting an equally compelling body of evidence, be taken seriously?

Don't take your lessons from Percy. He doesn't get this either.


Here is an example. The Bible is literally true, therefore God must have created everything according to what the Bible says, because the Bible is literally true.

I've explained to you that I, and any good scientist, go where the evidence leads. In my opinion the evidence points pretty strongly to evolution. I have not come across an alternative which explains it better. When the field of genetics arose, it might have completely invalidated the theory of evolution; instead it has ended up complementing it.


I'm not sure how you got to this line of reasoning from my remarks about Gonzalez. But in this case, I imagine the people who employ him and who have read his work would know more about him than you, yes.

We both know that the majority is not always correct. However, what they say should not be ignored entirely, especially if it involves people whose life work is in that field. Ignoring what they say makes no sense. If, however, you have listened to their arguments and you still disagree, then you need very good evidence of your own to back you up. Otherwise you are doing nothing but conspiracy-mongering.

They're corrupt because they have made rulings that you don't like? Nice one. Betcha wouldn't be saying that if they'd ruled the other way. There are other forums to talk in here if you want to complain about judges but it's pretty far off topic here.

The rest of the views you state here are reiterations, and I have already addressed them. I asked you to look at the link from Wikipedia which gives a graph and an analysis of Gonzalez's work on a timeline, which is compelling enough evidence for why he wouldn't have been granted tenure.

The fact of the matter is that ID is religion not science. The first two replies at the end of the article you linked to said the same thing (I didn't read further than that). If you want to claim that it is science then I suggest you start a new thread and offer some evidence in your OP. You'd have to explain, for a start, why there are so many scientific errors in creationist publications.

I am done discussing this dull affair unless you come up with any fresh and relevant evidence to present.

So this then is a valid CS hypothesis:
On the third day, when He made the dry land appear, could God have used iron sulfides to..." Again, it wouldn't mean God had to do it that way.

Science can test the materials and their properties. The results are expected to be repeatable, etc. The same results, however can be applied equally to either model. So how could one discriminate and call one set of tests "scientific" and the other "religious".?

If abiogenesis is to have a proper hypothesis, this hypothesis will have to distinguish it from the alternatives.

Okay, a brief scan of the wiki & "Deep-hot biosphere" model of Gold caught my eye. I think something like this can be distinguished, but could it be falsified?

That's the whole problem. Any little baby-step hypothesis will apply to all; and any hypothesis that's distinct is unfalsifiable.

You define it. You define what Darwin meant. It the archaic form of your religion - not mine!


The "geological evidence" and "fossil record" you refer to are explained by the "theory". Therefore, they do not constitute evidence that it is true. Please review circular reasoning.

Genetics demolished evolutionism. Things were so bad that the Soviet Union banned genetics. As you've indicated you're unfamiliar with the history of your religion, I won't burden you with the deceitful ploys that allowed the religion to survive. Not just yet. This would stray too far off-topic to suit me. I had been thinking of starting a thread on some of these things, and now there seems to be a call for it. I'm undecided: 2 threads or one to cover the X-club & related conspiracies and the genetics story & issues. Probably 2.


First off, it was an evolutionist way back in the 40's or something that showed how flawed that horse story was. It's ancient history (which is why you don't know it - sorry I keep forgetting).

Secondly, you tell me how fossils can be evidence for a theory explaining fossils. Or alternatively, show me a premise I can't prove if I'm allowed to employ circular reasoning, since you appear to think it's valid.


I provided it so we can maybe begin to make some progress. So long as you advocate or employ circular reasoning, well, we'll just run around in circles.


Here's something your majority-is-right glasses might enable you to see:
There are 20+ scientific methods of determining the age of the earth which give dates under 50k years.
There are what? 4, 5, 6 that indicate it's billions of years old. Which is more likely: that 20 methods give right answers or that a handful will give right answers?


This is true. Sometimes the strata are disturbed by natural and human-made processes. But when fossils are found in situ, they are always sorted in the same order. There are various ways that geologists can tell when and how strata have been disturbed. [/quote]

And the #1 way? They're "out of order". There's plenty of documented cases where fossils were reassigned or dates were rejected with no other justification. That's all it takes to classify something as an "intrusive burial", you know. They'll look around for more indications, but if they find none it's no big deal.

Is this a lie? How can it be? They already know the proper dates and levels for these things. They're every bit as convinced as you are before they start looking. And if they're not, they're unfit for the job, by your criteria.


Creationists need do nothing whatsoever to "invalidate evolution". We try to demonstrate that it always has been invalid. I suppose I should either start a new thread or survey what's out there. There's plenty of evidence, but if you've already determined anyone presenting such evidence is telling lies, what's the point?

Mind you've indicated this with 2 lines of reasoning at least! You say anyone disagreeing with evolutionists is calling them liars, and since the majority is right they have to be wrong. You've also said all creationist websites are full of lies. (I've actually reviewed at least a dozen such accusations and found them without merit. So I have a dim view of these accusers.)

I've just noticed that the evos on EvC don't have a lot of time for your remarks. I'm wondering if you are thinking that it will be different here.


If you're writing it then you need to put the quote in the proper context. Then we will both see what was meant. Do you think I have The Origin of Species memorised?


You evidently haven't been taking any notice of Dr. Adequate's comments. This is a silly fantasy in your head.


A theory is an explanation which fits the facts. We can see that there is a geological column which contains fossils which are sorted. The theory of evolution explains how this is possible. Tell me how creationism explains it. I also suggest you cease this silly circular reasoning claim. If you think that decades of scientists have been tripped up by such a simple (non)mistake then you're living in the fantasy in your head.


This will be news to geneticists as well as other scientists. Do explain how this happened.


"Things" were "bad"?


This is a silly fantasy in your head.

If you won't burden me with a proper explanation then I won't burden myself with listening.


If you don't start backing up these silly claims with some evidence, like proper citations and explanations, then I honestly will stop giving any of my time to these discussions. I still admire Bex the most out of the creationists here. She honestly attempts to back up what she is saying.


More unsubstantiated assertions. I thought they trained you better than this at EvC. A couple of ways we know that the earth is very old are radiometric dating and astronomical data. First you need to invalidate those. Secondly you need to tell me what exactly your creationist evidence is which is better.



Cite one then.


That's got to be one of the most obvious dodges I've ever seen.


Which website would you like me to check? I've been to a few and they're riddled with inaccuracies. But if you can name one that isn't I'll be glad to look at it, it would certainly make a change.

You're so lucky I speak evolutionese.
Please compare what you said to what you meant . Technically, you can get away with this, but see the usage notes, and consider carefully whether it's a good idea.

You likely picked this up at EvC, where many are in the habit of communicating deceptively. They frequently claim to have "refuted" an argument, hoping that lurkers are fooled into believing the common meaning of the word. If called on it, they can then turn around and claim they meant the other (virtually never occurring) meaning. But that's all on the up & up because they're pushing evolutionism, right?

As you cannot provide a single example of me making an argument from incredulity, it would be proper to consider a retraction. I don't have that many posts here, and most are in this very thread. It shouldn't be hard to find an example. If only one existed!

Now if you mean "arguing while incredulous" - shoot yes! Everyone does this. Any time something absurd comes up. It's impossible not to do it. Furthermore, if you mean "arguing to incredulity" that also applies. The whole point of argument is to make people incredulous about things that should not be believed.

But "arguing from incredulity" means failing to support one's argument with anything beyond one's own sheer disbelief. It's pretty rare for anyone to do this, and when it actually happens it usually isn't noticed because the absurdity of the proposition is obvious to everyone already.


You clearly don't understand the term. There are many reasons given in most any IC argument. Many more are implied simply from everyone's daily life.

Fact is, one can't even frame the IC argument without stating some reasoning. But one could certainly argue the other side from incredulity.

"You can't convince me anything's impossible no matter how hard you try". See? Piece of cake.


I can't tell here. When you say science, do you mean science, or evolutionism. One is a method of obtaining knowledge available freely to everyone, including animals. The other is, well you know what it is.

For the record I do think some scientists are liars. That one pretty thoroughly contradicted his own statement about Gonzales' capacity to do his job. And using evospeak to deny it was over ID while simultaneously saying it was over ID, that ain't exactly honest either.

Actually, it's required that some scientists must be mistaken. They do have disagreements, you know. But I consider everyone a scientist, so I try not to use the term too frequently, lest people become confused. You probably think there's something special about "official" scientists, and why not? You think what you want with your mind.


Ah! "A better explanation of the sorting of the fossil record" - now that's valid. (I hope) Comparing two or more explanations is a good idea. Claiming that one explanation is the best merely because the thing it explains exists, well I'm not going there.

If you saw my post to LinearAQ, you may recognize that much of what you consider to be abiogenesis research is equally valid when viewed as CS research. Can I trust you not to tell 'em? It's expensive stuff, and if they're happy doing our work... I say let'm go on happily working! Shoot, we pay taxes too.

[/quote]To get back to your quote above, LinearAQ addressed this. Investigation and experimentation can change the way we think the world works. This is what science is based on. Theories are changed as new ideas come to light. Newton was right -- but so was Einstein. I fully expect our notions to continue to change as more discoveries are made. But these will be done via the scientific method. Can any creationists claim to have made discoveries which have contributed to the body of scientific knowledge?[/quote]

Now you're confusing me. Or didn't you know Newton was a creationist? I guess not, or you wouldn't have asked that question there at the end.


How much do you want to hear? The cosmic evolution chapters of the story are no better than the rest. It usually takes creationists time to get around to that nonsense, but as they learn more & think more about what's scientific and what's not... well, imaginary stuff that can never be detected by any means doesn't cut it. *

Unfortunately, many have fallen into the relativity trap as well, so it's hard to find discussions of any cosmic models that have any chance of being accurate.


In Darwin's Origin of Species he refers to "my theory" several times. I haven't searched for earlier abuse of the term, but he was surely one of the pioneers. But then he probably knew he'd be deified, so maybe it wasn't too arrogant of him. Presenting an hypothesis, testing, verifying - all that stuff's for mortals.


Huh? Attempting? So you're upset because I don't accept the results of something that hasn't been done? Get real.


You're overlooking something: the law of biogenesis has been "been rigorously investigated by many experts in the field". So rather than trying to explain it away, someone needs to show something. I don't care how much you think it's possible. That's just the argument from credulity. What you need is a testable hypothesis backed up by some testing, and maybe throw in any other evidence you can find for icing on the cake.

I know you see a lot of "abiogenesis research" going on, and you assume things are getting closer and closer. The truth is, they keep butting their heads up against new obstacles. There may be a series of 5 experiments along a line, and the last four are just trying to get around a problem they found on the first one. Then they try another approach when they finally realize they can't go that way.

Just look how many pathways they're exploring. That's because the earlier pathways they thought would work are failing. They're not getting closer, they're searching for more new alternatives. Just look at that very article. Look at how crazy some of that stuff is, if you don't think they're getting desperate. I don't dispute the results of their tests, why would I? What I don't have is blind, unlimited faith that somehow, some day, they'll pull it off.

Thank you for that sound advice.

Well stick around a while. I intend to present a thing or two.


I try to give ideas a hearing based on their merit. I really don't care too much about how many people believe it or don't. I just want the truth. If they're such all-fired experienced wise men, they should be able to explain it in clear language using sound reasoning. They shouldn't need circular reasoning, and they shouldn't try to confuse anyone.

* "imaginary stuff that can never be detected by any means doesn't cut it." I don't maintain that that's a perfect literal interpretation of current dogma. They've toned it down to "for all practical purposes undetectable by current methods", and even claim "indirect detection" is possible. They have like 2 blurry images and claim dark matter's the cause and this proves dark matter. Like there's not a dozen other things that can and do blur images... 'nuf said.

See, that's more like it. That's how to sucker me into wasting my time<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Study the tactics of iceage & crashfrog.

I'm getting tired of reading posts containing no evidence. You can claim anything in the world is true as long as you don't have to back it up.

By the way, I've clearly explained to you several times why evolution is not a religion. In detail. And yet you ignore this and persist with remarks about "evolutionism" designed to provoke. This is ad hominem nonsense. The branches of science I personally find most interesting are astronomy, followed by archaeology. Yet strangely, no creationist has accused me of worshipping Galileo.

You were warned at least once on EvC to stop using the inflammatory remarks. You continue to use them here because you know you will receive no such warning. Therefore I can only conclude that you are enjoying a little fantasy and I will remind you of this as necessary, since it has nothing to do with the real world.

Argument from Ignorance


You have stated that the theory of abiogenesis is currently insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not) be true.
Because of this perceived lack of evidence by you, presumably you think this makes creationism more likely.

This is technically akin to the argument from incredulity:


If you are not using an argument from incredulity with abiogenesis, then are you now admitting that abiogenesis might be possible -- not proven but possible?


Yes, I do. It's a silly fantasy in your head.


Explain. With evidence. You know, that E-word that seems to be anathema to you.


In those days no one knew otherwise. By 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly creationist geologists. The relative order of the strata was first determined by the principles of stratification. Reverend Benjamin Richardson and Reverend Joseph Townsend were a couple of early geologists involved in this work. By 1830 Lyell's famous textbook, Principles of Geology, came out. The captain of the H.M.S. Beagle, a very strong Bible believer, made it a point to have a copy of Lyell's book for the ship's library. Obviously, even Lyell was not pushing evolution at the time. Such was the age of the great creationist geologists.

When I asked my question I was thinking about more recent times, now that the theory of evolution exists. Are there any creationist "scientists" now who are as open-minded as the people I just cited, and who will honestly follow the objective evidence where it leads -- possibly to new discoveries, even if they appear to conflict with their religious faith?

Do you actually have that list of creationist scientists esteemed by the mainstream, or is that part of your fantasy too?


Unsubstantiated fluff. Unless you can provide some . . . gosh, I'm going to have to use that E-word again.


Ad hominem rubbish. Evolution is accepted as a fact today for the very reasons that many branches of science have discovered solid evidence for it over the decades.

I like how Darwin can be trashed here like this, yet everyone takes offense when I call Hovind for the scientific idiot that he is -- and give evidence to prove it. Nice.


Nothing you say from your argument from incredulity is monumental enough to upset me. Bore me, maybe.


If I hold my breath much longer I'll be in danger of passing out.

So you don't agree that dark matter and dark energy are possible. Well this is a surprise. I'd ask you to tell me how else you think the gravitational effects that we see in the universe can be explained, being the expert astronomer that you are, but it's way off topic here.

Or maybe you came here because you found the heat in the kitchen a little uncomfortable? They wasted no time in explaining how you were mistaken about a number of things, yet you come here and present the same arguments. Do you think the fact that you now have a larger creationist audience is somehow going to make those arguments any more valid than they ever were?


Ad hominem rubbish from your fantasy world.


Does the fact of people like you requiring me to say them over and over somehow invalidate them? If you took any notice I wouldn't have to repeat them.


All right, from now on I will say "evolution is the best way we know of to explain the evidence of the geological column." I'm still waiting for the evidence you say you have which is better.

You also haven't explained how you think that genetics has invalidated evolution. Goodness knows what you meant about "things" getting "bad" in Russia.


This is a slippery dodge. Radiometric dating and astronomical observations present solid evidence for the age of the earth. If you say you don't accept them then of course you need to explain why. Any theories competing with existing theories need to take those existing theories into account, and explain why they don't adequately explain the evidence.

If you can't do this then I don't expect to hear any more assertions on the subject from you.


No, it's a PRATT. What's more, if you'd asked about this on EvC, you would have heard from a number of people with knowledge of the subject, some of whom might be working as experts in the field. You wouldn't by any chance be avoiding them? I'm not going to cover areas they've already explained.

You will see in this thread that RAZD and "the creature" Dr. Adequate have explained this for you. RAZD has posted here so I'm sure he won't mind me referring you, and anyone else who wants to read, to his post there.

Galley Hill Man

The date for this fossil was arrived at by comparative dating of early palaeolithic gravels, a number from later palaeolithic (i.e. Upper Pleistocene) deposits in neighbouring pits, and some from recent deposits, including part of a Saxon skeleton. It has indeed been proved to be an intrusive burial. Where you do get the evidence for your assertion that "the soil conditions in the area are, if I may say it, "less than ideal" to obtain accurate results." This "Talk deceptions" link is to the small blurb on Talk Origins that you alread quoted. By the way, I suggest you make at least a small effort to stick to those "standards" you mentioned and call the site by its proper name. Or would you like me to have some fun in turn with making up silly pretend-names for creationist websites?


On the contrary. Unless you start backing up your numerous assertions with actual evidence then what you say here amounts to nothing more than name-calling and meaningless blather.

CS means "creation scientist" I assume. Yes, that is absolutely the right question for a creation scientist to ask, except for the "On the third day, when God made the dry land appear" part. All he then has to do is design an experiment whereby he can get God to manipulate the iron sulfides to form primitive energy transfer pathways. And, of course be able to show it was God doing it. Otherwise that question degenerates into "iron sulfides may have provided the first primitive energy transfer pathways".

When you add things to the question/hypothesis, you must test those things. For example, you believe the Earth is young (a guess from your "on the third day statement), but almost all scientists have concluded the evidence shows the earth is very old. We should not argue age of the Earth here, I will join you in another thread if you wish to start it. So, a scientist researching abiogenesis makes a hypothesis that may state "billions of years ago" because he feels that the Earth has been shown to be billions of years old and he can point to those experiments and research to show this to be a plausible assumption. Unfortunately, you cannot point to any definitive experimental results to show that God made dry land on the third day. Therefore, that part of your hypothesis must be supported with experimental evidence within the experiment or in another experiment before it could be accepted at face value.

You are assuming that God is written out of the equation altogether by the way the hypothesis is worded. The exact sequence of events written in Genesis may be excluded, but God is not, He is just not tested for. The hypothesis "Iron sulfides....blah, blah, blah" only describes what may have happened. Since scientists have not been able to design an experiment to provide evidence that differentiate God's hand from naturally occurring factors, they cannot say in the experiment's conclusion that God, Ra, Juno, Shiva or Allah manipulated the iron and sulfur together to form the first primitive energy pathways. It would not be a conclusion drawn from the evidence, therefore not scientific.

Your meaning of "lock up" is not seen in nature. There is no chemical that cannot be made to react with another chemical. Even noble gases like neon can be made to form compounds. For example: The battery in your car is made from plates of Lead and Lead Dioxide submerged in a solution of Sulfuric Acid. When it is providing electricity, lead sulfate is formed on the lead oxide plates from the lead in solution and the sulfate in solution because the charge differential between the plates is changing. Put the battery on a charger and the charge differential changes to put the lead sulfate back in solution and put lead back on the lead plates. The chemical reaction is reversed by adding energy.

Yes the compounds become inert for the temperature/pressure/wetness/electrical state that the compound is in at the time. However, if you change any one of those conditions and all bets are off....ie, lead sulfate goes back into solution and the lead plates increase in weight from the lead coming out of solution onto them.
The Earth is a volatile system. Volcano's, rain, erosion, ocean currents, and hydrothermal vents all change the chemical equilibrium in different locations at different times. Chemical equilibrium changes and chemical reactions occur. These appear to be random events but many have said that God uses random events and coincidences to work his miracles.

Changing chemical conditions doesn't always break up a molecule, in fact that is not the usual occurrence at all, especially in a water solution. Things dissolved in water break up into ions (plus and minus charges) then they combine is all sorts of ways...breaking apart and recombining...partially breaking up and adding new atoms/compounds....just adding new compounds...etc. Changes in environmental conditions change the mixture, just like the battery but lots more players in the mix.

In the oceans right now there are literally quadrillions of atoms/molecules in solution. There is the potential for nearly endless combinations of atoms to form compounds. The only difference between now and before life existed is that now the compounds used for life are sucked up by life forms to make them grow. Back then there was no life to suck up those compounds, so they had the potential to combine beyond the basic compounds that are used by life forms now.

One so intelligent that he could design a 4.6 billion year experiment that resulted in adopted children in heaven <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I understand your distrust, but I have not maneuvered you yet, have I?

Nothing against you, but I don't think you can show that there is a distinct genetic limit nor a chemical limit even now. I bet if we took enough time to breed dogs and only allowed the dogs with sharper toenails and pointed ears to breed, we could come up with an animal that looks very much like a cat. We could even breed for behaviors that would be more cat like, stealth like a pointer, speed and willingness to chase like a labrador...etc. If creation scientists can show that this animal (dog breed that looks like a cat) cannot be done, then they would have a case for genetic limits. Sounds like another thread, cause it would take us too much to a side track.

How can you say that physical complexity and chemical complexity have limits that don't include life, when you know that your body's mechanisms all work with chemistry? Absolutely, chemical and physical properties have limits but life is certainly not excluded by those limits. If it were, I would not be here to type this message. Maybe I would understand what you are trying to say here if you could elaborate on chemical and physical limits.

I am not arguing against "design" because I can't prove there is no Creator, just as you cannot prove there is a Creator. I am arguing that the formation of life could have been a result of the "design" of nature. Whether that nature is a purposeful act of the divine or not is left up to the viewer.

A belief that maggots and mice arose from dead meat and dirty straw. Irrelevant to the abiogenesis hypotheses.

This is just a post to all on this Good Friday. May you be comforted in your remembrance of Christ's willing sacrifice for you. Most assuredly you will celebrate His victory over death on Sunday.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. - 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

So when one adds "this all happened by random natural forces without any intelligent agent involved" to the hypothesis, one needs to add it to the experiment as well.


My point is that all of these experiments would be perfectly valid if they were conducted for ID research. All the hypotheses apply equally well. Because they are interpreted in an atheist framework, they are perceived as only supporting atheist abiogenesis. The truth is, they support ID just as much, and ID has equal claim to the results. So when people ask if ID is science, well, it's got the same body of work backing it up as atheist abiogenesis.

All that's really being tested is how chemicals behave under certain conditions, nothing more.

There is no testable atheistic abiogenesis hypothesis. They have no viable science which applies exclusively to their belief.

Now when atheist abiogenesis devises an experiment or hypothesis which distinguishes it from ID, they might be able to claim to have a monopoly. Otherwise, they should be honest and admit that ID is their equal.

OK. Do you have an example of a hypothesis in evolution where the researcher specifically states that an intelligent agent is not involved?

Saying, "An intelligent agent is not involved in the establishment of energy transfer pathways by iron sulfides" is not the same thing as saying "I am not or cannot test for an intelligent agent". This may seem like semantics to you, but it is not really. Until we can come up with a test that can reveal God, we can't include Him in our hypotheses.

What I am saying is that abiogenesis is not necessarily atheist. It just doesn't look for a Designer that we don't know how to find in any kind of repeatable experiment. Back to gravity. Gravitational experiments don't look for God and don't reference Him in their hypotheses. Does that make gravitational experiments atheistic? I don't think so.
If ID scientists are experimenting to find out how chemicals may have been combined to form the first primitive replicating molecules, that's is science. That's one of those funny things about science, anybody can do it no matter what they believe. It's when they add the Designer putting those chemicals together that they either move away from science or must test for the Designer.

Have ID scientists produced an experiment that tests for a designer?

Exactly!!! An atheist chemist studying abiogenesis cannot apply atheism to his experiment any more than his partner who happens to be a Hindu or the Christian chemist who tries to repeat their experiment can apply their Gods to the experiment.
The atheist can't say "this shows that God does not exist".
The Hindu cannot say "this shows Shiva started life with fire".
The Christian cannot say "this shows God mixed the chemicals together"

What they can, and do, say is "These chemicals could have mixed this way and produced the first replicating molecules." Gods are not added or taken away because they weren't tested for.


That is assuming that the "atheist" claims to have a monopoly. Saying "I see no god at work here" is not the same as saying "There is no god at work here".

This is where things fall a little flat. ID's basic hypothesis is that there is a Designer. If an ID believer does experiments that don't look for the Designer then he is not working in ID. He is just doing the science that everyone else does.
Example: A doctor is trained in oncology (cancer research). If he claims to be an oncologist but does research in gynecology then he is doing nothing to advance the knowledge toward a cure for cancer.
In the same way, if a scientist does experiments that don't look for identifiable signs of the Designer then he is doing nothing to advance the field of ID. It doesn't matter how well he does his experiments.

ID is not science unless they have a hypothesis that evidence may be able to falsify. Until they provide that hypothesis and perform experiments that try to falsify it, but doesn't falsify it, ID cannot be taught as a viable hypothesis.

Amen Linear, thank you for this. God bless you!

So don't read 'em. Or get some rest.


I must have missed that. Can you point me to an explanation. I figure belief systems requiring blind faith, adherence to doctrines, recitations, etc. are religions. Here you claim otherwise, but you're just arguing from incredulity. If that much. Looks more like an unsubstantiated assertion now that I think about it.


Truth can be inflammatory to some. I can't help that.

I can try to tease a little less, but I'm not too strong so don't tempt me.

Um, first you need an hypothesis. Guess I shouldn't have deleted the quote. But the word's there, plain as day.

I've been thinking about that too. Since these experiments are never random, and always carefully designed by intelligent agents, I'm beginning to think they support ID much more than they support standard abiogenesis.


I already told you.


I was trying to be polite. You said it - not me.

What do you mean "with evidence"? Sound reasoning about how to interpret science stands on its own. If my reasoning is unsound, I hope someone will point out my error. But "with evidence"? You're just a-temptin' me now.


What'd I say? I told you to do your own research. You act like I owe you an answer. And besides, it's more funny when you claim silly things about peoples capacity to perform science, speaking as one who doesn't know them or anything about them.

Awwww, why not? Dr. George Washington Carver. I doubt you'll attack him too viciously.


Who brought up dark matter? Did they pack any evidence? Oh - that's right - there ain't none!


Trashed? I divulged the fact that his story was one of the first "Theories! Hot off the press!" Why does the truth offend you so? When advancing an idea as important as that, surely a little hype in blatant disregard for scientific custom can't be too out-of-order, can it?


It certainly is. And I've seen how evolutionists react when threatened by astronomy.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/chiefwiggum.jpg" alt="" />

I'll tell you exactly why I left there: fairness. I still have a couple of things I'm tempted to post there, but as I'd already made it a policy to leave biased forums when things got too blatant, it would have been inconsistent of me to remain. If I stay at EvC, that means I'd have to consider returning to other biased places as well, or make a special exception. They deserve no special consideration, and I ain't about to go back to the others. Policy's policy.


Better evidence? I thought you wanted a better explanation of the evidence.

That's cool. Things take time to prep & post, and since you can't make up your mind it looks like another free dodge.


No I haven't.


So indecisive! But I've seen it before. S.O.P. Never allow the discussion to focus on any one area long enough for it to get anywhere. Distract, distract, distract. 'Fraid I'll bring the heat?



Ah, appeal to (such impressive) authority! Well, if you'd done as I suggested and looked up the history of the Oort cloud, you would have learned why it was imagined in the first place. If you had then applied a little rational thought, you might have asked yourself why they're still searching for it...

But you have your priests to turn to in times of trouble. Guess you don't need blind faith in an Oort cloud after all - just blind faith in RAZD.


Determined how? By the fact that it was in the wrong place - not from any evidence of intrusion. That's just what I originally said! Please try to keep up. "Determined" = "Designated" in evospeak.

Websites purchase their url's. They cannot purchase the English language. My policy is to use accurate terms.

I don't see any progress on the falsifiable hypothesis for abiogenesis. Can't seem to find one at EvC, either. So much time, so many evolutionists, so little science.

But then isn't the atheist "outside of his field" when he fails to test for the absence of God?


Y'all keep sayin' that & I'm gonna start postin' links. I'm no big fan of ID, but I get tired of seein' 'em badmouthed all the time. Shoot, you claim about the same thing some of them do. I don't see why you need to be so down on them. Job security?

It'd be a little more polite to just say "only the mainstream can ever be science."

CTD there appears to be little of actual substance in our discussions at the moment. That's what I'd like to focus on -- substance. I'll let you and LinearAQ discuss abiogenesis here without interfering since you are making some of the same points to me and I would give you similar answers to him.

I will tame the sarcasm if you agree to start backing up your assertions with evidence. That is, after all, the basis of science, whoever is doing it. If you make a claim then you need some evidence for it. If you challenge an existing claim then you need some evidence for it.

George Washington Carver: great man. Knew and taught a lot about agriculture. It seems to me that this could co-exist quite easily with creationism because it does not involve evidence about fossils, geology, astronomy, biology or genetics.

Sure, Joe could have, but since you have no evidence of Joe, saying "Joe did it" cannot be a conclusion. It is mere speculation, and not science.

Showing chemicals combining and saying they can combine like that, then concluding starting life is possible by chemicals combining like that is not saying that there is no God. It's just saying that this is one way life could have started, which supports the hypothesis that life began by chemicals combining together.

Maybe I'm just sleepy, because this looks like a you're saying that because humans make experiments that life had to have a designer. You will really have to flesh this out for me to make the logical connection. It may seem obvious to you, but it escapes me how the two are connected.

It may seem as supporting atheistic abiogenesis because God/aliens/pink unicorns/fairies are not mentioned. However, the designer is not seen. Design is not conclusively seen. So what should they do? Should they say something like "The designer we cannot show evidence for must have done it like..."? That's exactly like saying "The designer made this river curve right here" or "The designer made this snowflake just like this". In science you cannot attribute a result to a particular cause unless you can show evidence of causality.


Don't tell me...SHOW me. Show me this intelligent being or real evidence of his work. Show me how you decide which parts of life are designed and which parts are from natural causes. If it is the God of the Bible, show me His work and explain how you differentiate that from the work of chemicals combining. Until ID does that, their claim that a designer exists is only a hypothesis that is not even mature enough to have falsification possibilities defined. It certainly cannot be accepted as a theory that science will consider viable.

I'm an engineer. My job security does not depend on evolution, so that dog won't hunt.

Post your links to the falsifiable hypothesis and the experiments being done to show the designer or strong evidence of the hand of a designer. I am confused as to why you would threaten to do that instead of just doing it. If those links support your side of the debate, they should already be here for us to see. If I am wrong, I have no problem being shown that I am wrong.

First, I think it would be less polite. Second, it would be a falsehood. Just ask Copernicus, Newton, Mendel and Einstein.

You're trying to leverage historic methodology vs. scientific methodology. Thanks! I love history.

The past doesn't repeat (although history tends to do so). A limit of science concerning the past is that it can never say what happened. It can only test for what is possible and what is impossible.

So if science says "A designer =>Joe could have..." It's reached it's limit. But this is still valid science. Science alone will never say anything more, and one needs to turn to trustworthy methods of investigating history if one is to learn more.

Now let's fantasize for a moment: Joe creates life in his lab. This tells us that ID is a distinct possibility. We cannot say the atheist model is a distinct possibility. We cannot say your model is either. At this point, ID becomes the strongest candidate, because it's the only one of the three that's been demonstrated actually be possible. The others haven't been ruled out, but they've got to play catch-up. They need to demonstrate that they too are possible.

Meanwhile, ID is free to continue investigating, turning its focus to historic methods.

Alternatively, ID can attempt to go on the offensive and scientifically demonstrate the others are impossible (I do not say this hasn't already been done, so nobody start.)

You mean "life could have begun by chemicals combining together. Remember the limits of science.


See above.


I does not seem at all to support atheistic abiogenesis. Not to any person paying close attention. I think we agree. But it is always claimed to be supporting atheistic abiogenesis anyhow. On this we may not agree - I don't know.


I think you were sleepy at this point. That's not what I was talking about.

And the mystery of your loyalty remains unsolved.

Now, just to assess where we are, do we both agree that there's no testable scientific hypothesis for what actually happened?

If so, do there exist testable hypotheses for what could have happened aboigenesiswise? I mean the whole thing - not increments. Increments only count if they add up to life.

And not to wander too far astray, but I do have some questions about this model of yours which, if I understand correctly, is based on the idea that on a molecular level, matter is pre-designed to assemble life when given the opportunity.

Is there any evidence for this self-assembling property? Is is still active and available for testing, or has it discontinued? Is there a proposed mechanism by which it operates?

not really, read this

We were just about to form an expedition to the site when another huge foundation was located nearby. Some symbols, possibly First Tongue, were described on one of the stones. But, sadly, the site was abruptly shut down and the excavations were bulldozed with earth by some arm of our own government. An informed source close to the family that owns the land reported that the family was threatened with harm if they allowed anyone to dig on their land in the future. They were told to forget what they saw.

http://www.viewzone.com/oklahoma.southend.html

it's no wonder american kids are doing so badly academically compared to so many other countries. Their heads are filled with lies and then we tell them they can't think, literally, they are told not to think, not even to ask. plenty of evidence of that right here.

mental slavery.


did you notice the blocky robotic-like people in the tower of babel poster?

Good point. What some won't do to "protect" their lies... Actions speak louder than words, for sure.

I had noticed that they were draw oddly, but I hadn't made the robot connection. I won't venture to guess how many other non-so-obvious symbols may be present in that drawing. Sometimes I'd just as soon let things "go over my head", if you know what I mean.

yeah I was wondering about the upside down stars too.

makes me just a little nervous, the people of europe enjoying themsleves being represented as blockheads.

I noticed our evos didn't blink twice at it. I guess the desire to be part of something is strong enough to include the pile of bones that get bulldozed over for the sake of continuing the proper narrative.

I've had a look at this article but it's unfortunately rather vague. The most concrete claims I could find seem to be about The Heavener Runestone and similar stones. Are they evidence of the Norse in America in pre-Columbian times? Or are they more modern? Are they even genuine? No one seems to be sure yet.

These sites mentioned in the article -- without knowing more than that they are "in the hills," it's more or less impossible to find any information about them.

The rest of the article is full of assertions which may or may not be true. I'm afraid I'm not all that eager to buy into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Like this?

That 50-60 years ago, people at several places conspired to forge Viking artifacts is indeed unsubstantiated. It's particularly thin, since the hoaxers kept quiet about them for an awful long time, and may very well be unable to enjoy the results of their hoax.

In retrospect, I think I may have wrritten this too quickly.

If everyone is to understand, I need to a better job of making this clear.

The wiki article we've been discussing divulges some key information.

There are avenues which have been largely abandoned: Miller's experiments, Fox's experiments, Eigen's hypothesis.

There are several avenues being investigated: Wächtershäuser's hypothesis, Radioactive beach theory, "Genes first" models: the RNA world, "Metabolism first" models: iron-sulfur world and others (which appears = Wächtershäuser's hypothesis, but they felt it needed to be listed twice), Bubble Theory, Autocatalysis, Clay theory, "Deep-hot biosphere" model of Gold, Lipid World, Polyphosphate model, PAH world hypothesis, and references to others.

Now I concede that I may have missed some overlap, but for the most part, advocates of any one model have rejected all the others. DNA worlders reject RNA world & vice-versa. I'll assume they all accept the "somehow someway it had to happen" article of faith, but other than that, I agree with much of what they believe. Many of them reject the RNA world model - so do I. Many reject the Clay theory model - so do I.

The article plainly states "There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life." Who can disagree? If the mainstream could pick a horse in this race, they surely would. History indicates they'd back it with propaganda and take measures to eliminate the competition. They'd cut off funds, media access, and all other support to the extent they could get away with it. They'd publicly denounce them as "unscientific", and slander their jockeys. But they can't even pick a horse that they think could win a rigged race! That in itself says something about the crippled condition of the stable.

This is true. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from the testing, evidence observed, or samples collected can only include that which is supplied by that testing, evidence or samples. Any statement that falls outside of that is speculation. I'm sure that scientists could say that the Great Designer or My Little Pony used iron sulfides to create energy transfer pathways. However, since neither the Great Designer nor My Little Pony EVER SHOW UP in an experiment, that statement is not a conclusion from the evidence. Since it is not a conclusion from the evidence, IT IS NOT A VALID SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION.

As soon as another scientist reads the research that says "Joe could have...", that scientist will ask the first one where the evidence is that shows Joe could have. Of course there is no evidence and that "Joe could have..." statement will be labeled as unscientific. So saying "Joe could have..." is not science. Science would be showing evidence that supports the statement.

Putting aside your implication that science is not trustworthy, what are the trustworthy methods of investigating history.

Well, since it has been shown the imperfectly self replicating molecules can develop on their own, I guess ID has to play catch up and the "atheist" model is the strongest candidate. Thanks, for your validation of abiogenesis.


Which you conveniently fail to provide.

I thought they were already on the offensive. (In Texas, In Kansas, In Dover....)

Sorry, I forgot that science excludes your God since He isn't a good enough designer to build a universe that can bring forth life once it is started rolling.

The claims that people make about the conclusions drawn by science does not affect the validity of those conclusions. The conclusions drawn in physics experiments say nothing about God, yet you and yours seem to have no problem with their conclusions. However, I could say that these physics experiments show that God was not involved in physics.

The solution is evidence. Provide some and I might change sides.

I said there is no way to find out what actually happened, yet. There may never be a way to find that out. There is no exact hypothesis, anyway. They are all approximations. Gravity may not work exactly as the Theory of Gravity states.

Certainly there are hypotheses that make attempts to explain the process from chemicals to life. However, they are not completely fleshed out. They have to be modified as evidence and experimentation are accounted for.

Assuming there were a Designer, the evidence points to a universe designed to operate on its own for the most part. Chemicals combine different ways under different conditions. They seem to do this on their own. Self-replicating molecules have been shown to develop on their own. Simple ones are crystals. More complicated ones are the result of combinations of amino acids which form proteins that, once formed, replicate themselves as long as the raw materials are available.
These things have been observed in labs, so, yes the process still works.

I found much of your post uninterpretable. No responses are attempted for those portions.

They include examining artifacts and documents from the past. They include comparing narratives from different sources.
I conveniently omitted to look into the future and see your request, if that's what you mean.

But my parenthetical vision of the future, well this time I didn't omit. I knocked that one out of the park.
In other words, increments.

There exists hope of an incomplete group of incompatible baby-steps, which still do not add up to anything remotely resembling life. No news there. We all knew that.

Sorry I asked. Due to an imperfection in the definition of "molecule" it does encompass crystals. That's right - a diamond is one big molecule. A sheet of graphite is also technically a molecule. There's no indication that it's alive, or on the way to becoming so.

A crystal can indeed be a molecule, but it doesn't replicate - it just grows larger and larger. Feel free not to understand the difference.

The "more complicated ones" are the man-made ones. Or man-confiscated (from life). How well do they perform? I'll let AIG field this issue. These are not natural, not capable of performing in a natural setting, and the experiments indicate they will not lead to life, even in the lab. I don't see them overturning the law of biogenesis.

Of course you did since you can't understand that not mentioning God is not the same as saying He doesn't exist, even though you do it every day.


And you examine artifacts without using the scientific method? You compare sources without using the scientific method?

That's because according to the Discovery Institute and apparently you, "scientifically demonstrating the others are impossible" is best done at school boards and among elected officials and not with scientists. Obviously the evidence is so strong that we should just bypass the people who understand biology and go right to the people who don't.

Since you never really provided a refutation of any of the steps associated with abiogenesis theory, I don't see how you can make the "incompatible baby-steps" proclamation and expect me to accept it without some evidence supplied by you.

You mean the atoms just continue to get larger? So much for my chemistry knowledge. I actually thought they added atoms to the crystal structure in order to increase the physical size of the crystal.
Since the atoms themselves get physically bigger (as you alluded to) have they ever grown a diamond atom big enough that they could see the nucleus and the electrons?

Of course the amino acids that we found on meteorites were made by man and sent into space so that it would look like they were naturally occurring.
It's too bad you and Answers can't tell the difference between an experiment set up to mimic naturally occurring environments from one that is set up to manufacture a particular product. Perhaps you could provide the research report from one of those experiments that resulted in the "man made" replicating molecules. Then you could point out for me exactly which part of the controls or environment set up are improper.

You seem determined to entertain.
What type of repeatable experiments can be performed on the information contained in a document?

You've said yourself that science can't tell us what happened - only what might have happened. Historical evidence is needed to find out what actually did happen. This used to be common sense.

The same people who invented the myth that science can explain everything and no other form of knowledge can be trusted are the very same people who are credited with first applying "science" as an euphemism for atheism. It would have been more consistent for them to claim science can never produce any truth at all.

I suggest you consider who you follow and why you follow whenever you are tempted to use "science" as an euphemism for evolutionism.
According to me, everyone's a scientist. I'll discuss truth with anyone, whether they have a keen understanding of biology or not. I submit my participation in this thread as evidence.
The wiki article we've been discussing indicates incompatibility. Did you read it? Have you forgotten some parts? Perhaps you overlooked the aspects that did not conform to your preconceptions.
I didn't say atoms get larger. I clearly said molecules get larger. Do you maintain 'molecule' is a synonym for 'atom'? So much for your chemical knowledge indeed!
Have you evidence?
From all indications, you seem to be the party who is unable to discern between the two. Some choose to believe any chemistry experiment involving a small subset of the chemicals found in life proves abiogenesis. The rest of us disagree.

As AIG points out the cases we have of the latter are such that they could not succeed under the conditions of the former. Would you have me believe this indicates they're confused?

If it were easy to create life in a lab, they would have done it in the 19th century. If it were difficult, they would have done it in the 1940's or 50's. If it were extremely difficult, they would be doing it now. All experimental evidence available consistently indicates it is impossible.

Huh???
If we haven't done it by now, it must be impossible?
You seem to think we are at the epitome of scientific and technological development.
Strangely, only the most conceited scientists -- the very ones you criticise for thinking they know everything -- would say such a thing.

Comparison with other documents written at the authorship time claimed by the document in question.
Carbon dating of the oldest copies of the document in question.
Comparison with later documents that should have referred to the original document.

Archaeologists use the scientific method to minimize mistakes in their interpretation of evidence that they find. Closely detailed documentation of the circumstances and locations of their finds.

Who was it that first applied "science" as a euphemism for atheism? Names and quotes please. I never claimed any this nor have I heard a scientist claim this. Provide support or publicly retract this blatant falsehood.

I have debated with you in good faith without purposely insulting you or your side, yet you have increasingly spouted invectives that have no other purpose except to evoke emotion from your side and insult mine. Is this what passes for proper human interaction in Christian circles?

Discussion is one thing, providing evidence instead of appealing to emotion is quite another.

Perhaps you have no clue what my preconceptions are. The article as I remember it, stated a number of different hypotheses concerning abiogenesis. Since none of the hypotheses required any of the others to have occurred, they very well could be incompatible. I will read the article again to see what you think I missed about interdependencies of the hypotheses. Perhaps it would be easier if you could point out where one step required a previous one that was incompatible.

From here

Evidence in support of something is not proof. It is just evidence.

So, all the difficult things were accomplished in the 1950's and the extremely difficult things are already accomplished.
So AIG states that everything that science is doing now will never come to fruition because it is impossible? Their claim is true then, AIG knows everything. Do they have the next lottery numbers?

Well, for starters, that which begins in one place isn't beginning in the other places. Since most of them are looking for a way to just get things started, they can't very well be compatible.

In a way, I wish they'd hurry up. I'm curious to see the next crop - I can't imagine too many more environments for them to try, but I expect they can.

Mix of results on this. The wiki author claimsBut BYU says just the opposite.
Yet another site saysThe space alien seeders don't appear all that bright. Amino acids, although associated with life, come in other varieties. The compounds they sent don't seem to be such a good mix for "sparking life". Another vehicle might also be better - one that releases its cargo rather than holding it embedded in stone where it can't do anything.

They could perhaps keep better records too - no point seeding here again for a while, at least not until after harvest season. I can't comment much more, as I haven't researched this fantasy too deeply.

Found an interesting entry at Creation Safaris.
There's more. And the researchers seem to be knocking holes in each others' fantasies, just like in earthbound abiogenesis. In addition to the article, they have a link to a video, but I haven't tested it.

The "we can't make it work on Earth, so we'll try even worse places" approach is failing even faster than I realized. Of course scientific failure hasn't really proven to be a problem for the faithful.

First off, a little trivial business. "Rock-to-man", for those who still might not realize it, ain't no strawman.
Not that that's out of the way, I'm callin' dibs on the first hemi formed by ahumanogenesis. And the first refridgerator, VCR, TV, laptop, and V-twin motorcycle. See, I been thinkin', and I'm really sure things haven't ever come together on their own and formed complex machines. But just in case... I'm callin' dibs.

Considering how vast the complexity of the "simplest" life, random generation should have created many billions of the things I listed long before it could have created life, right?

Double-Talkin' Dicky Dawkins digs himself deeper into the hole. He's claiming Darwinism is the only valid way to account for abiogenesis.

Don't nobody tell me they don't know it's all one big, united, interdependent fairy tale. Don't even try. No wonder LindaLou's not fond of Dawkins. Nobody needs allies like that. I mean, we'll gladly take him if it turns out to be God's choice; but... you know.

Russ likes to argue by video, so I thought I would try this for some variety ... hope it works.

For those interested in where real science is currently at with the study of abiogenesis, try this simple video (it is Part 1, Origin of Life)



The video is from CDK productions and the science is provided by Dr. Szostak, Professor at Harvard Medical School, and there is also this followup interview with Dr. Szostak



You will notice that -- for some curious reason -- he doesn't talk about either rocks or man ...

... possibly because he is concerned with what the scientists are actually studying rather than creationist myth conceptions.

I'll just add that vesicles have been formed from the organic materials found on meteors, just by adding water. Likewise we know that many amino acids existed on earth and in space. This makes the origin of life more a matter of assembly of existing parts than some magic poof creation of a cell.

Enjoy.

Alright. I've typed up another way to express my main point there, so I might as well post it.

My main point is that creationists are more in agreement with the scientists researching Spontaneous Generation than are evolutionists.

I shall now demonstrate this mathematically. There are several schools of thought about how to create life from non-life. For the sake of simplicity and time, I will discount a few and simply label the schools A, B, C, and D.

I will keep score abbreviating creationist to c and evolutionist to e. For each point of agreement, a point will be added; for each point of disagreement, one will be deducted.

School A believes life came from non-life by means of A. e + 1 c -1
School A believes life could not have come from non-life by means of B. e -1 c + 1
School A believes life could not have come from non-life by means of C. e -1 c + 1
School A believes life could not have come from non-life by means of D. e -1 c + 1

School B believes life came from non-life by means of B. e + 1 c -1
School B believes life could not have come from non-life by means of A. e -1 c + 1
School B believes life could not have come from non-life by means of C. e -1 c + 1
School B believes life could not have come from non-life by means of D. e -1 c + 1

School C believes life came from non-life by means of C. e + 1 c -1
School C believes life could not have come from non-life by means of A. e -1 c + 1
School C believes life could not have come from non-life by means of B. e -1 c + 1
School C believes life could not have come from non-life by means of D. e -1 c + 1

School D believes life came from non-life by means of D. e + 1 c -1
School D believes life could not have come from non-life by means of A. e -1 c + 1
School D believes life could not have come from non-life by means of B. e -1 c + 1
School D believes life could not have come from non-life by means of C. e -1 c + 1

Total score: e -8 c + 8

Creationists agree with the very people researching this stuff on more points than do evolutionists.

Hey CTD, I'm back from field work in Antarctica just in time to read your parody of statistics.
Great joke!!! A laugh riot!!!

Thanks for the humor.

I'm glad to hear you had a safe journey.

It's always good to have one's math double-checked. If you find any mistakes, I hope you'll bring them to my attention.

You mean you were serious with that?!!

No mistake in the math that I could see. It is just a statistic that is pretty meaningless so I thought it had to be a joke.

Ohhhh... Now was that really necessary?

As an explanation of my original reaction to the post, yes.

If it is not a meaningless statistic, then CTD or you can explain how it even says anything substantive about the validity of a particular belief on the beginning of life.

What's to argue?

From an evolutionists' perspective it is pretty meaningless that they're conclusion is in conflict with their own experts. All that matters is that they remain lovingly devoted to the conclusion. As an evolutionologist, I wouldn't expect it to be otherwise.

At one time in the past, there was no life on Earth. Later on there was life on Earth. These scientists are trying to figure out how it might have occurred. Since there are still a lot of unknowns then there are conflicting proposals as to how it occurred. So what?

As for your statistical "analysis"...

I shall now demonstrate this mathematically. There are several schools of thought about which God is right.

I will keep score abbreviating atheist to a and theist to t. For each point of agreement, a point will be added; for each point of disagreement, one will be deducted.

Christians believe in the God of the Bible. t + 1 a -1
Christians do not believe in Allah. t -1 a + 1
Christians do not believe in Shiva. t -1 a + 1
Christians do not believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. t -1 a + 1

Muslims believe in Allah. t + 1 a -1
Muslims do not believe in the God of the Bible. t -1 a + 1
Muslims do not believe in Shiva. t -1 a + 1
Muslims do not believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. t -1 a + 1

Hindus believe in Shiva. t + 1 a -1
Hindus do not believe in Allah. t -1 a + 1
Hindus do not believe in the God of the Bible. t -1 a + 1
Hindus do not believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. t -1 a + 1

Pastafanarians believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. t + 1 a -1
Pastafanarians do not believe in Allah. t -1 a + 1
Pastafanarians do not believe in Shiva. t -1 a + 1
Pastafanarians do not believe in the God of the Bible. t -1 a + 1

Total score: t -8, a + 8

Atheists agree with the very people who believe this stuff on more points than do theists.

Amazing statistical analysis...it works no matter what subject you do the survey on.

How do you score on your own little test?

The same way you do on your test...by adding up the numbers.

The universe is built on rules. Science is the process of discovering those rules.

The bottom line here is that there are no rules that facilitate the building of highly-complex, self-replicating, sexual (separate organisms with highly coordinated reproductive parts), symmetrical machines over time.

None.

For an intellectually honest person (one without a personal agenda), that should be the end of the argument.


Evolution is a religion based on myths and fairy tales. It just happens to be promoted by the most powerful people in the world because it legitimizes their corruption:

- Depopulation
- Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs)
- The cancer industry
- etc.

It's that simple.

Which rules specifically prevent the building of these machines and what is it about those rules that prevent it? Is there a rule that prevents the accidental duplication of certain parts of the RNA or DNA string and then reincorporating it into the DNA?

For me as an engineer, what personal agenda do you feel makes me intellectually dishonest.


President Bush is the most powerful leader and he doesn't buy into evolution and certainly doesn't promote it. Could you name one person in a powerful position today that is forcing evolution on the population? How is that person using his/her influence/power to cause this to happen?

Using knowledge for evil does not make that knowledge untrue. Gunpowder is used for evil every day. That doesn't make chemistry untrue.
You disagree with selective breeding of cats, dogs, cattle, chickens, corn and wheat?
Cancer is caused by knowledge of evolution?

Yes it is simple to blame all the evil in the world on a theory that you don't agree with. However, it is no simple task to actually show evidence to support your accusations. Care to try?
It seems that you feel as if any knowledge used for something bad should be eliminated. Burn many books?

If you're going to trip over your thumbs and fall flat on your face, I suggest dodging isn't worth the effort.

As for your false analogy, I think its employment speaks to the weakness of your case.

Spelling it out, lest anyone pretend not to understand: the point is not that disagreement exists; the point is that evolutionists are in disagreement with their own experts. The very people they send us to for evidence that they are right! These same experts agree with us on more of the relevant points.

If I send someone to a Hindu to verify something, you may expect said Hindu to largely agree with me on the relevant points. Maybe this expectation is not the case with everyone? Maybe that's just how I roll?

My attempt at humor fell on deaf ears (or would that be blind eyes since you were reading it?). Even so, you couldn't resist being snide, could you?


Actually it is chemists and biologists researching abiogenesis that are in disagreement as to the mechanism by which life came about....lest anyone try to make more of it than it is. Indeed they all agree that the process was a chemical one. Seems like they are only in disagreement over the which chemical processes were involved.


So they would agree that Jesus is the only path to everlasting life? Color me surprised.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the particular relevant points upon which you and the Hindu would agree and an atheist would disagree? This would greatly help in my understanding how your statistical analysis is less false than mine.

The "attempt at humor" might've been easier to detect if it had been accompanied or followed by an answer.

...then again, maybe the omission of answer is supposed to be the funny part...
Their disagreement is over which hair-brained scenario is even plausible enough to pursue.

"Chemical process"... get real. Life is made of physical, chemical matter. We know chemicals would be involved. The agreement is that God was not involved, and this agreement is reflected in the scores I tallied.
You colour yourself something else. I have not sent you to a Hindu to ask about Jesus. I do not recognize any Hindu as an expert in discussing Jesus.

Evolutionists have directed us to look at what these researchers have to report. See the difference(s) yet?

And maybe you failed to recognize that I said I would no longer discuss my beliefs regarding God or any other deities. So buzz off.

Which one of the scenerios states that God was not involved in the process?

Then what do you ask about that you and the Hindu would agree on and an atheist would not. Rember, this is about having more alike with the other theists than with the atheist.

Nope! Perhaps you could spell it out for me, such that you prove your statistical analysis is less false than mine.

Every last one of them. If they even admit that God might be involved, they are classified as "religion". You're simply being contrary for the sake of being contrary; nothing new.

Until I send you to a Hindu, why should we pretend I have? I see your desire to pretend so, but you have not provided any motive for me.

Oh well. I tried. And reviewing my efforts, I don't see a lot of room for improvement. I would expect you to be intimately familiar with false analogy. Based upon your extensive practice of the art, it is likely you know more about constructing one than anyone present.

Then again, if you had a record of constructing successful false analogies, that would be considerably more impressive.

I suggest you ponder this desire to have me pretend I sent you to a Hindu, when I have not done so. I think maybe you'll discover the key. At least on a subconscious level, I'm confident you already have.

Yes, this is a repost, but it has never been answered. I would love to hear an evolutionist respond to this...



The universe is built on rules. Science is the process of discovering those rules.

The bottom line here is that there are no rules that facilitate the building of highly-complex, self-replicating, sexual (separate organisms with highly coordinated reproductive parts), symmetrical machines over time.

None.

For an intellectually honest person (one without a personal agenda), that should be the end of the argument.


Evolution is a religion based on myths and fairy tales. It just happens to be promoted by the most powerful people in the world because it legitimizes their corruption:

- Depopulation
- Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs)
- The cancer industry
- etc.

It's that simple.

You indicated that you and a Hindu would agree on more things than you and an atheist would. I was just asking what things you would agree on that an atheist would not. You could at least try to address something I actually wrote.

You feel that your false analogy was successful?

Here's a good question for you:

Do you believe that water and minerals can form highly-complex, self-replicating, sexual (separate organisms having compatible parts), symmetrical machines over time withing the current known rules of physics?

Yes and so do you. God made Adam from the dust of the earth.

God formed Adam out of the dust of the earth. God made man - the dust did nothing. It was God who formed and breathed a living soul into it and gave it animation/life and dust we shall return.

It's interesting that Christ used mud on the blind man's eyes to perform a miracle - mud does not cure blindness, but God does. Only the power of God made the difference between mud and miracle.

Does evolution, contained within the teachings/textbooks, mention a Creator even as a possibility? - Or does it attempt instead to bypass the creator, as though it's all a result of coincidental occurances?

If it's unscientific to attribute this to a creator and include the idea in a science textbook, do you as an evolutionist find it scientific to exclude a creator? Surely to attribute this to blind chance/coincidence takes an even greater leap of faith to believe than a creator God? And from a standpoint of evolution, do they have the scientific proof to back up any exclusion of a creator and give the credit to blind chance/random processes and time?

Since evolution is taught in science classrooms and textbooks - the burden of proof again lies on the evolutionist. Since the world around us dictates life comes from life, I'd say that any theory excluding such, is unscientific until proven otherwise. As has also been mentioned, even if man could create life in a lab - this would also prove it takes outside intelligence and life to bring forth the same. Therefore, something much greater than us would need to be at work to bring forth all of creation, with all its balance and mathematical precision. All things are set up for life, survival/sustainance. One only has to look around and consider it all and it is indeed mind blowing.

He has revealed Himself in His creation. The evidence is all around us:

Quote

Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Quote

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies declare the work of His hands" (Psalm 19:1). "I will praise Thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Thy works are wonderful and my soul knows this full well" (Psalm 139:14).

You have frequently accused us of calling all scientists/biologists liars on this forum and you have been answered about this time and time again. You then repeat the same defensive accusations - when instead you could (or should) be presenting the scientific evidence to convince us of why we should place our trust in such a theory and not challenge or dispute it.

So I'll repeat - It is not science and biology itself that people take issue with - it the theory of evolution. I'll give an example of where such beliefs can lead a person and how truly ludicrous it gets:

Quote taken from: Here

Quote

Fish oil is now considered an essential nutrient, even for vegetarians. Recent research also revealed, that the transformation humans underwent when apes became intelligent and turned into humans happened only in coastal regions, where the apes started to consume large amounts of fish.

Now whether a person reads this and rolls around the floor laughing, or sits in disbelief shaking their heads is one thing, but consider that this is put across by somebody in the medical arena. He not only believes this as a fact, he's put it across as such in a medical/health article as though it is. Sadly there maybe members of the unsuspecting public that read this in blind faith without question. Others more clued up would probably challenge it a bit more Personally, I had to read it more than once to believe that anybody could state such a thing, let alone assume people would accept it in blind faith without checking it out.

We (creationists) are not obligated to accept all the evolutionary claims in blind faith - they are not gods, they are flawed human beings, as are those in the medical profession (all of us are). If people like this with their claims are never challenged or tried, regardless of concerns - it would be even more disastrous! It's thanks to those that do, that many of us are able to help ourselves (if we can repair the damage done). Yet, according to Linear's mindset, anybody who does challenge them are calling them all liars.....He should then not be surprised if the same kinds of accusations are employed towards himself!

Next - The study of Science and biology itself is commendable and very helpful. But it does not depend upon evolution, nor is it based in evolution. Evolution is simply a theory. And theories are just that "ideas". There is no reason why anybody is obligated to believe in evolution, especially through lack of substantial evidence to back it up as being clear cut.

Next - evolutionary scientists are not the only scientists. There are creation scientists who challenge the claims of evolution scientists - even though the majority wins in regards to having the loudest voice, there is another voice and one in which has every right to be heard.

It would appear from Linear's perspective, that it is ok to challenge/dispute/question the claims of Creation scientists and Genesis, but almost blasphemy if one dares to challenge the claims of mainstream evolutionary scientists/biologists .

Yet, ironically, Linear has no problem questioning/challenging scripture at it's very foundation - the word of the living God via inspiration of the Holy Spirit - as though the evolutionary scientists/biologists should be accepted on blind faith without questions/challenges (or we're calling them all liars) but God should not. Since it is God's statements (ultimately) that Linear is disputing/challenging, I'll apply Linear's accusations towards others back to himself - Since Linear questions what the Holy Spirit has revealed to us in Genesis about creation to mankind through his chosen instruments - Linear must therefore be calling God a liar, and all those who believe in His word from the beginning as stated in Genesis.

Quote

Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,
but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Since it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit via men that has given us the written truth within Holy scripture (Starting with Genesis) and that He is the ultimate author - I'd be very careful where one treads in this area and the statements they are making. Be careful about interpreting and symbolising scripture to the detriment of the literal. Any twists/ommissions/additions to scripture is a dangerous position to put oneself and could be a heretical one. We were warned about being a cause of scandal/doubt to others.

This is why fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.







Those who think they can treat His word as being second place to the flawed theories of man (which they appear to uphold as infallible truths) could very well be insulting God Himself. God is the source of all wisdom/knowledge, not an evolutionary scientist.

As something of a casual observer in these discussions with little time to put any real depth to my replies, I think what the other poster here is saying, Bex, is exactly what you've said above. The only difference he/she's saying is that evolution was the mechanism by which G-d chose to bring forth life (correct me if I'm wrong).

Over the years I've come to believe the same thing you're saying here, Bex: intelligence requires an intelligent designer. The only real matter in question here is the method with which G-d might have done this. In any which way the evidence points it still leads to G-d's work as the final say-so, evolution, big bang theory, Adam and Eve, or not. For me, the existence of the universe is sufficient proof for His existence. The rest is up for grabs (and for scientific venture).

Shalom!

Hi Egan,

I see your point. It is certainly about investigating our world and its inhabitants to find further clues to our beginnings. Regardless of whether those findings may upset or challenge our prior beliefs or not - which is easier said that put into action I know.

But even for a person who may not take the biblical word at face value (by faith), doesn't believe at all, OR does not believe in the personal Christian God, searches for how the world and its inhabitants came into being - they would surely be interested in looking at ancient fossils in order to find this out.

As a casual observer, you may not be aware of how many times this argument has been repeated on this forum. In fact, it was brought up again just the other day in a recent thread.

At any rate. Should a person who believes in the evolutionary process decides to check out the fossils, there poses a problem. The fossil record contains fully formed creatures - obviously functional and reproductive (since we find more examples of the same). Within most of those fully formed creatures, we find the same types of animals existing today. Whether differing in certain traits, or species, does not remove that reality.

Whether a person is an atheist or a theistic evolutionist - there is no viable proof that any such evolutionary process took place - whether one believes it began by chance and random occurances, or by a designer. One can imagine that an evolutionary scenario exists, but is it conclusive? Placing certain animals into an evolutionary sequence and then reporting this as the stages of evolution may not cut it.

The problem with that scenario is - If there really is an ordered fossil record that shows the stages of evolution in their sequences as claimed, how do they then explain the existence of supposed "missing links" existing around the sametime with the creatures they supposedly evolved into? This does not fit in with their claims of fossils showing the order of their evolution.

I have asked this before, but I still get taken around a cycle of excuses that once again, do not add up. Contradictions abound.

If you wish to check out ancient fossils, please do so http://fossil-museum.com/fossils/ Simple life to complex? On the contrary, we are faced time and time again with developed life forms, NOT "developing". I do not equate "growth" with evolution. So just to clarify the differences. Since a tree has it's beginnings in a seed (acorn for example). Which came first (chicken or the egg)? The information for either a tree or a chicken must exist first. We need trees to exist before we can gain further trees from the information they contain (whether a cutting or a seed).

How does this happen if the inhabitants of this earth started off so apparently simple? How are seeds spread without the first parents being fully formed in the beginning? Did God simply start everything off simple form and await billions of years for his plan to unfold through time and process to come to fruition?

If so, why do the fossils fail to mirror this?

Hi Bex, ((( Smiles )))

That really did catch me by suprise actually I'm just about speechless in reading that..
In a medical/health articule did you say..
Does it help them sell more vitamins??
Good for business???
Somebodies got to be makeing more money from that.
Humans are fish eater's too.
No wonder we were given dominion over the fish of the sea..
And God said we can eat them as food..
It's truely a miracle food isn't it..
But thats really miracules indeed.
That takes the cake.
Never heard that one before..
Interesting Bex..
Thats a good one..
Humans are truely creative beings aren't they..
The human brain is truely an interesting byproduct.
(( Smiles ))




Stay Well
Lynn

The important thing you're missing in this question is that I included the phrase "within the currently known rules of physics?"

You have said that God could have used Evolution to "create", but if this is true, then there would be an observable ruleset enabling evolution.

Of course, there is no ruleset enabling evolution, so this cannot be true.

So, to respond to your statement:



Unfortunately, you're wrong about what I believe.

I do not believe that God used the currently known rules of physics to create. He came from outside the system and performed "super"-natural acts to facilitate creation ("super"-natural means "beyond" nature, or outside the realm of natural processes).

This has been my position all along.

Hi Lynn,

Yes, it was a medical/health article and written by a well known individual who deals in mercury toxicity.

I am not sure whether it's to do with finance/business in including the evolutionary comment - one would think it might do the opposite. Certainly after reading that, it made me think twice about trusting this individual with any health/medical advice.




Not just humans - but bears, birds (gulls, eagles etc), and the bigger fish in the sea - the list goes on. Consumption of fish certainly hasn't appeared to have changed them over time - one wonders why it apparently did so for the apes? And you have to wonder who those particular apes were and boy the stories they'd have to tell after their transition from ape to human with a fish diet. Though they must have been pretty disappointed to discover their decreasing ability to swing from the trees.

I've yet to see an ape interested in eating fish by the way - and if they were, does one really believe it would make them "human"? Astounding isn't it? What people are willing to believe. But throw on a few billion years and you can come up with anything and attempt to make it believeable. One wonders how the magic of time would even be able to master such a feat.

Just think, we could start including fish in primates diets and wait for them to become human



I believe such ideas/beliefs is the result of being dumbed down, or allowing oneself to be dumbed down.



We were created in the image of God - we are indeed a miracle! For we are fearfully and wonderfully made.

God bless Lynn.

Maybe it only works with mammals. Whales and dolphins are reputed to be very smart, and I don't expect seals are at the other end of the spectrum.

Does the germ theory of disease mention the Creator as the source of our healing even as a possibility? Does it mention the fall as the source of the germs? Does it mention the demon of sickness as the instigator of sickness through the use of those germs? You seem to have no problem with that theory...or do you?

The theory doesn't mention the existence of a Creator because the evidence doesn't indicate that existence within the bounds of the causes of evolutionary change. Mutations and recombination occur following the rules of chemistry and physics, with changes that are statistically random. Natural selection also follows those same rules along with rules discovered about population dynamics. The changes in the environment that change the selection criteria are also following the rules of physics, chemistry, climatology and geology. There is no appearance of control over these events unless you believe that the existence of the rules is a form of control.
The point is that geology, chemistry, physics....etc don't mention the Creator as the source of the rules. Are their evidences and conclusions also invalid?

If you mean that evolutionist have the burden to prove that God doesn't exist, then I have to ask why. Can you name one scientifically accepted theory that mentions the Creator? Are all of the scientists that operate under those theories also required to prove that God doesn't exist? Can you name one scientifically accepted theory that states that God doesn't exist?

Your form of creationism dictates that life came from non-life.


Since we can create lightening in a lab that must mean that it takes outside intelligence to bring forth lightening.

Since we can create crude oil in a lab, that must mean that it takes outside intelligence to bring forth oil.

Since we can make fire in a lab, that must mean that it takes outside intelligence bring forth fire.

Doing something in a lab doesn't eliminate the possibility of that same thing occurring in the natural world.

How does the balance in nature and its awesomeness eliminate evolution? Please be specific in your answer.

Some people believe that the balance and resilience of life to evolve and respond to massive environmental changes really does showcase the intelligence and mighty power of God.


Russ' response to my accusation was that scientists will lie in order to save their jobs. How is that something other than saying that the scientists who support the theory of evolution are liars?

I have no problem with you challenging or disputing the theory of evolution. If it is incorrect then it is incorrect. I have no allegiance to the theory. It would be great if someone could challenge it with something that doesn't mischaracterize it.

So how did it make you feel about the conclusions from the rest of his paper?
Since he provides no reference to the fish story, I am inclined to pass it off as hearsay. However, doctors recommend diets higher in proteins, fats and oils for babies and small children to help in their brain development. Children in famine conditions, even when given a lot of carbs, but little fats and oils, have poor brain development in their younger years.
Would that change a particular individual and cause that individual to evolve a bigger brain? No, because evolution is not about changes within an individual. Rather it is concerned with heritable traits passed on to offspring.


Russ did call them liars. Regardless of their motivation to maintain the evolution lie (Russ' categorization, not mine), it still makes them liars.

Says you. However, most all biologists agree that most of biology makes no sense without the theory of evolution. According to them, there is no framework for how things operate within the sphere of life, without evolution.

What do you think...liars or really hard working smart people that don't understand the real way biology works?

Special Relativity is only an idea. The Atomic Theory of Matter is only an idea. There is no reason why anybody is obligated to believe them either.

The majority wins because the experiments and predictions regarding evolution have been repeated. This isn't a beauty contest. The theory of evolution went through the same trials that Special Relativity did and both are still going through.

Creation "scientists" have scientific claims? Point me to one and to the experiments that have been done to support such claims.

Challenge away all you want. My asking you for supporting evidence for your challenge is not me leveling charges of heresy. If you won't support your challenge then why should I consider it to have any validity whatsoever?

Do you believe that the statements are incorrect in Genesis, yet you profess them to be correct? I don't think so. Lying requires intent to deceive. Most people who support a literal Genesis creation actually believe in a literal Genesis creation so they are not liars. They may be incorrect but they are not trying to deceive.
Is God's intent by providing a simple story regarding creation to be considered an attempt to deceive? The story provides a demonstration of His power over the universe and His accessibility to each person. That is no more an intent to deceive than Jesus' use of stories to provide insight into ultimate truths. So, I guess I am not calling God a liar either, unless you consider the use of stories by Jesus as a form of lying.

I hope you remember that when someone asks you for your cloak. Make sure you give them your shirt too.


Could be insulting God, himself? Strangely, your assessment of the situation doesn't really scare me.

Maybe it is your lack of faith in God, shown by going to doctors and buying healing drugs and cures, that keeps you from being completely healed. Maybe it is your lack of belief in Christ as the healer that makes your walk fraught with struggles to curb your anger.

What parts of the Bible do you consider as parable, symbolism, or metaphor? What evidence do you have that supports your assessment that those portions are not literal history or completely factual? God made the universe. If there is something in that universe that seems to contradict our interpretation of His Word, then our interpretation is wrong.