If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

The problem is that it's very difficult to understand what nothing is and what its properties are. Under the theory of quantum foam nothing produces strings and then, over the course of an indeterminate amount of time things continue to become more complex until hydrogen atoms are created. Once that happens the hydrogen accumulates into giant balls and go nuclear which produces the other elements. Once carbon has been created life as we know it becomes possible. Technically life didn't come from nothing, it came from carbon. All life forms on Earth are carbon based. But everything started with nothing producing strings.

We just think that we are at the end of creation because we exist. However, the elements could still be becoming more complex so that in the far distant future there might be hundreds of new and more complex elements than there are now.

The main problem is that we have no idea what the universe really is. We might be a piece of cosmic dirt or a part of a living organism. Or we might be what we seem to be: nearly invisible creatures on a microscopic planet in an unimaginably large universe.

http://scaleofuniverse.com

 

Did the scientists place them in close proximity to each other then? Is that more accurate for your taste? BTW, the process was anything from natural. Heat was applied and a spark was instilled into the gaseous containers. The spark could only ignite for a split second or it would destroy the amino acid and oxygen had to be removed. That does not sound like any evolutionist's theory of early Earth atmosphere. Does it?

 

Creationism fails to explain the fossil record (what we find in the ground) that IS explained by evolution.

Furthermore denying evolution requires falsifying the cases of evolution that have been observed as they take place.

You haven't explained anything. "God did it" isn't an explanation - it is purely a belief supported by no evidence, in fact, falsified by what we see around us.

 

There is NO fossil record.

The facts are; an organism lived, it died and it was buried rapidly (like in a global flood) EVERYTHING else is speculation. Carbon dating and all other radiometric dating techniques require assumptions. Scientists have admitted if their test returns a date that does not fit what they assumed prior to the test, they throw out the results. That isn't science, it is an ideology, religion, orthodoxy.

 

It was an experiment believed to duplicate early conditions on Earth; a chemilcal evolution occurred and amino acids, the building blocks of life, were created through that experiment.

Baking bread will never lead to the Origin of Species (evolving).

 

The lack of Precambrian bat fossils doesn't fit the Creation model.

While it takes millions of years for trees to fossilize and stratified soil to turn into rock, it only takes a few decades to bury the tree in stratified soil.

Not a problem since the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old.

Again, the solar system is only 4.5 billion years old. And comets survive just fine while they remain in the Ort Cloud.

Evolution is not just chance.

Show me one thing in this universe that doesn't contain information.

Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that.

 

What you are discussing here is abiogenesis, NOT the theory of evolution.

I just want to make it clear that the theory of evolution starts AFTER there is life. It is NOT an explanation of how life began.

We have people here using the word "evolve" to imply that some changes caused greater complexity. :However, that is a separate issue from the theory of evolution.

You can blow away all the current theories of abiogenesis and still not harm the theory of evolution in ANY WAY.


As for earth's early atmosphere, many scientific disciplines have studied that - geologists, paleoclimatologists, etc. We have ice cores from which ancient air may be extracted - giving us samples of earth's atmosphere as far back as 800,000 years. There are other methods to move back farther in time.

Question for young earthers: Did God fake 800,000 year old samples of the atmosphere? If so, how and why?

 

Creationism does not mention evolution or the "fossil record". Were you not aware of the fact that the 'Bible' is not a science fiction novel like that other book written by Charles Darwin?

What specific observations have been made showing the evolution from one species to another? "God did it" is equally suitable to evolution as is the works of Darwin with regard to Theology. Darwin argues the following points in his original "origin of the species":
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
"1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures.
4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function.
5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life.
8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering."

What specifically does Darwin KNOW about God that would give him the special (alleged) knowing of what God would do or what God should have done?

 

I want to see where scientists throw out those results. Where can I find the source of this info?

 

OK, spell out what evidence would be actually acceptable to you. In detail please.

 

So are they nothing, yes or no?

 

This is absolute nonsense. We know the age of rocks through many dating mechanisms. There are world wide events such as volcanoes (which spew unique dust layers), shifts in earth's magnetic field (which leave differences in the magnetic fields that are solidified and left to us at the time rock is created) that allow correlation of dates, etc.

The assumptions involved in radiometric dating result in known error ranges that are taken into account. Plus, the fact that there are multiple dating methods means that even these tiny errors can be reduced.

And, your claims about how scientists proceed is just plain BS. You can produce nothing to suggest corruption is happening on a scale that could possibly save rapid creation as a possibility.

 

Except they had to remove all oxygen foe the experiment to work. With oxygen it would oxidize, without oxygen there would be no H2O.

Baking bread or man made amino acids will never get you to evolution.

 

How do trees last millions of years in the upright position? How do rocks bend without cracking that are millions of years old?

 

Please provide your scientific evidence to prove that the Bible is not a work of science fiction.

Perhaps you have fossil evidence of its evolution. Or maybe a copy written 2014 years ago.

 

Dodge!

- - - Updated - - -

Google!

- - - Updated - - -

I just did, pay attention.

 

http://www.icr.org/article/excess-argon-achillies-heel-potassium-argon-dating/

 

once again, I do not assert that something can come from nothing (even if we knew what nothing actually was, which we don't), YOU do. theists (Christians in particular) have this in common.

- - - Updated - - -

as predicted, studiously ignored. those inconvenient truths sure muddy up the fantasy of clear waters.

 

http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Failure-of-U-Th-Pb-Dating-at-Koongarra-Australia.pdf

http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/U-Th-Pb-Dating-An-Example-of-False-Isochrons.pdf

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Do-Radioisotope-Clocks-Need-Repair.pdf

http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Conflicting-Ages-of-Tertiary-Basalt-and-Fossilized-Wood.pdf

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-and-proof/

https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...the-fallacies-of-radioactive-dating-of-rocks/


If you are so naive to think that you will find any evidence contrary to what the church of Darwin teaches in a Darwinian website or institution, then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

There was no world wide flood. We know that for several different reasons.

First, there isn't any geological evidence of a world wide flood.

Beyond that, there is no source of water for such a flood. And, if there had been, there is no place the water could have gone to be unseen today.

If that much water had come from rain, one would only need to look at the heat equations for condensing that much water to know that no life on earth could possibly endure the temperatures that would result from that much water phase changing from gas to liquid. It would also imply that the water went back to the sky - which we know for a fact is impossible due to our ability to analyze how much water our atmosphere has.

If the water came from "the deep" then today we could find inside the earth the necessary volume of water (plus a mechanism whereby it could come from there and then go back to there) - and that is clearly NOT going to be found. If the water didn't go back there, we would find a hole that big. And, we do not.

Such a flood would have impact on life forms. For example if only 7000 "kinds" of animals were saved in the ark, there would have to be more than 10 species of life created EACH DAY between the purported date of the flood and today to account for today's life. How did the flood SPEED evolution when the claim is it wasn't going on before the flood - or today???

And, that is by no means the end of the problems.


Noah's flood is an allegory. As an allegory, it carries religiously important information about man's relation to God. As science, it is just plain silly. Is your religion silly?

 

And speculation based on observational evidence is science.

Per century? Why per century? The fossil record is nowhere near that complete. Especially since bats have incredibly light bones.

The hell does this have to do with evolution? And I don't think I've ever seen a petrified tree that still is standing in its original place. Making (*)(*)(*)(*) up again are we?

20 billion... the Earth is only 4.6 billion years old. How scientifically illiterate are you?

...Uh... The Universe isn't even that old. And comets weren't made during the Big Bang. And again, what does this have to do with biology?

Evolution isn't chance. Traits are "selected" for by natural selection. That isn't chance.

Uh... it's called DNA and mutations.

Half of these examples are based off of scientifically inaccurate information and have nothing to do with evolution or biology.

Sure, why don't you start with the simplest thing of all. Show us that you even understand what evolution is, in the first place. Define it for us. If you're unable to do that, I see no reason to continue on with evidence of something you can't even define.

 

..and from those muddy waters life emerged. Or some such nonsense.

 

no matter how tenuous these theories and tests might seem to you, none of them are even remotely approaching the outright absurdity of claiming it was all done by an invisible (middle eastern, jew-centric, very prone to human emotions) sky dwelling superhero. which itself is not even remotely more plausible than a giant turtle creating all of life and the universe as a gift for his lizard girlfriend.

- - - Updated - - -

mud ... dirt .....

- - - Updated - - -

I note you still refrain from addressing the point that theists are the ones asserting that something can come from nothing, not atheists.

 

SHow me one piece of scientific evidence FOR evolution and the Big Bang.

You all can try to lie about Creation and the Flood, but you are distracting from the lack of evidence for your position.

I'll now wait rather than you all piling on Creation. That isn't proof of your position.