Creation v Evolution argument can end

a reply to: Raggedyman Firstly it was not you I was addressing. 2nd what strawman argument? I asked a question. also whats pointless about showing up the holes in the very theory you are discussing? oh right I see only evolution bashing is allowed in this thread pfft you don't deny ignorance you are the epitomy of it but hey if you want me off your precious thread I will go because quite frankly I think you will not accept anything contrary to your belief CUSTARD OUT

Raggedyman,

I will not call you an utter moron, no that would be a pointless ad hominem. But you must know, you are acting very much like one. You are either a troll, or an incredibly willfully ignorant human being. I don't really care which. Both can be equally entertaining, to a point. A point that to me, you passed.

You're a talker. Plain and simple.

You want empirical evidence, yet can't even be bothered to discuss presented evidence seriously. Of course that comes as no surprise to anyone in this subforum. As I said, you're the zillionth predictable creationist. There isn't anything that could come out of your mouth that we haven't heard before. Your "arguments" are as tired as your outdated religion. That is not an attack on religion, just my personal observation of it.

Maybe you can make me spill my beer and come up with something new?

I don't know... spilling a beer may be sacrilege. Bah, you won't come up with anything thought provoking. I'm not worried. Actually just disappointed.

Your rebuttals are trolls. "whale hip bones" blah blah blah.

Don't act so ignorant please.

The evidence that whales descended from terrestrial mammals is here divided into nine independent parts: paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological. Although my summary of the evidence is not exhaustive, it shows that the current view of whale evolution is supported by scientific research in several distinct disciplines.

It isn't as simple as "hip bones"...

Taken together, all of this evidence points to only one conclusion - that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. We have seen that there are nine independent areas of study that provide evidence that whales share a common ancestor with hoofed mammals. The power of evidence from independent areas of study that support the same conclusion makes refutation by special creation scenarios, personal incredulity, the argument from ignorance, or "intelligent design" scenarious entirely unreasonable. The only plausible scientific conclusion is that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals. So no matter how much anti-evolutionists rant about how impossible it is for land-dwelling, furry mammals to evolve into fully aquatic whales, the evidence itself shouts them down. This is the power of using mutually reinforcing, independent lines of evidence. I hope that it will become a major weapon to strike down groundless anti-evolutionist objections and to support evolutionary thinking in the general public. This is how real science works, and we must emphasize the process of scientific inference as we point out the conclusions that scientists draw from the evidence - that the concordant predictions from independent fields of scientific study confirm the same pattern of whale ancestry.

www.talkorigins.org...

You don't want to learn. You have demonstrated that perfectly.

You act as if the evidence is simple or contrived.

Nope. Sorry but this isn't religion where feels and faith are the foundation of belief.

ETA:
Stop running from Phantom.

Agree on some defined terms (still waiting on empirical) and get on with it.
Agree on the terms, don't agree to agree that is his definition of said term.






Tear down the wall, Raggedyman. Tear down the wall.

a reply to: coldlikecustard

Ok where in the bible does it say it was absolute infinite empty space I don't recall.

It is stated in verse 2.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

If you read verse 1. What God is going to create you know that verse 2. states that there is nothing, absolutly nothing in existence. Earth does not exist because God have not created it yet. Nor have God created the firmament.

- Many christians think Earth was already formed. But for some reason they dont understand what they read.

- Genesis dosent explain how Earth was formed within Our solar system.

- From verse 1 to 8. Moses explains how Our universe/firmament was formed.

but what light did he create if there was only empty infinite space

It was the creation of the firmament that emittet the light that Moses observed. He couldnt see the firmament do to the light.

The firmament could only have been created by a finite compression of absolute infinite energy. Because Our universe is not infinite. When the firmament was formed it must have had a specific finite energy mass. And i Guess that agrees With science right?

Surely there can not have been a night and day before the sun got there?

There could not have been a 24 hour day. Unless the sun is formed and Earth rotates. It is not mentioned in genesis when Earth started to rotate. But it would probably have been in verse 14.

Does empty infinite space have days and nights?

No. There are no finities present in the void to emitt light/energy. The void of space that is absolut empty and inifinite is absolute neutral and a absolute constant. This means that its time line is a absolute constant as well. This void is aslo described as a absolute vacuum. Something we will never find or create within Our universe.

We do use a vacuume to calculate constants. Like the speed of light and atoms and much more.

a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion. If God always was and always is, God must be this infinite void. God cant be anything else if he is infinite.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How
How can there be an organic environment to inspire life if there is no life to leave an organic environment
Seriously, do you think before you speak?

Guess you didn't read what pthena posted.

That I have to explain it to you shows how completely ludicrous your faith in evolution is

Science does not mix with your faith

Why do you hate science

You seem to be on autopilot but I would really like you to stop saying this to me because I have told you numerous times, in this and other threads, that I don't have faith in evolution. I can accept it as a possible answer and also accept that it can be wrong.

I don't care all that much about it for you to keep saying it is my faith or my belief. That is why I said that "my beliefs are not the topic of this thread".

a reply to: spy66
I thank you for your replies. I don't agree with what you say but at least you answered my questions without resorting to the shameless tactics of others and presented a thought provoking argument. hopefully some others will follow your example thanks again

a reply to: spy66

there is this

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

which is eventually followed by this

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

this strikes me as what some would call a 'continuity error'. how do you have night and day if the sun wasnt created until after the initial light? not to mention the lack of a solar body (coupled with an absence of atmosphere) would prevent there from being a body of water to hover over. water would boil then freeze, due to a molten earth and exposure to the vacuum of space. then it talks about plants appearing before the sun was allegedly created. LOLWUT. but who is paying attention to details?

thinking-critically.com...

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

a reply to: TzarChasm

too late, creationism is in your thread title. now share with us your superior model of creationism. or do you not believe in reciprocation? you are a peer here, its not up to you to judge or dismiss discussion as though you are a court justice. and its your turn to present theories and evidence and defend them to your peers.

The creationism model can get extremely complex, but we can theorize the beginning when the first essential ingredients appeared.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

Well i personally think that is Scientific mambo jumbo. No one can for certen say how big the singularity was initially before expansion.

Science even go as far as to state that the singularity was infinitely small when it was formed. That is Equal to it being non existent. Its odd that People dont notice details like that?

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

Well i personally think that is Scientific mambo jumbo. No one can for certen say how big the singularity was initially before expansion.

Science even go as far as to state that the singularity was infnitely small when it was formed. That is Equal to it being non existent. Its odd that People dont notice details like that?

its odd that people can look at the big bang and regard it as a suspicious story but be right at home with the magic act popularly known as genesis.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Life is not a prerequisite for complex, organic molecules to exist. The proof that these organic compounds (the basic building blocks of all life) exist in the proto planetary disc of a nascent star system still in the early stages of forming shows that not only is the hypothetical possibility of such an occurrence now actual reality, but that the Earth isn't special or unique in the Universe.

The newly formed star system, MWC 480, was analyzed by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), reaffirms that the conditions that spawned the Earth and Sun are not unique in the Universe. It shows that the compounds are in an area analogous with our Kuiper Belt. It's well known that our Kuiper Belt is home to our star systems comets which are known to contain water as well as other organic molecules capable of forming the precursors to life under the proper conditions and it's also known that comets bombarded the early Earth, bringing water and organic molecules along for the ride.

Studies of comets and asteroids show that the solar nebula that spawned the Sun and planets was rich in water and complex organic compounds," noted Karin Öberg, an astronomer with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, and lead author of the new paper.

"We now have even better evidence that this same chemistry exists elsewhere in the Universe, in regions that could form solar systems not unlike our own." This is particularly intriguing, Öberg notes, since the molecules found in MWC 480 are also found in similar concentrations in the Solar System's comets.

For when you're thinking to yourself "who does this ass think he's fooling with this talk about cyanides?"-

Astronomers have known for some time that cold, dark interstellar clouds are very efficient factories for complex organic molecules -- including a group of molecules known as cyanides. Cyanides, and most especially methyl cyanide, are important because they contain carbon-nitrogen bonds, which are essential for the formation of amino acids, the foundation of proteins and the building blocks of life.

www.eso.org...

What's a kipper belt and where can I find evidence of it

I am joking, of course I know of the theory of the kuiper belt, can you show me empirical evidence for it?
Thanks?

I think you're confusing the Kuiper Belt with the Oort cloud. The Oort cloud is still in the realm of Theory wereas the Kuiper belt is a designated area on an elliptical plane beyond Neptunes orbit that lies between 30 and 50 AU. Kuiper belt objects can be seen with a telescope and there are over 1000 catalogued and verified KBO's. Here is a decent page to check out for some basic information. It will at least give you a starting point- www.space.com...

As for cyanides in space, cool, does that mean you can show me empirical evidence that this lead to life evolving or I should assume

Thanks in advance for clarifying

As there are only hypotheses for how life initially formed on Earth( abiogenesis, panspermia et al. ), no, I can not give you empirical evidence. The entire point of my initial reply with this information was to counter the supposition that you needed preexisting organic life for organic molecules to exist. This clearly isn't the case. Furthermore, the formation of amino acids is dependent on the presence of cyanides, or similar organic compounds, because they contain carbon-nitrogen bonds. Without those compounds we would not see the formation of amino acids, which as we know, are the foundation of proteins and the building blocks of life. Ergo, without these organic molecules already present, which we know from both our own solar system and now MWC 480, are present and not unique properties to our own system, we would have no life period on Earth.

I don't know precisely how life began on Earth and I don't claim to possess that knowledge. I do know that multiple experiments have shown that under certain conditions, Abiogenesis can certainly happen. I do know that while it is not conclusive as yet, we are much closer to understanding the conditions that existed on Earth early in its geologic history today than when the Miller-Urey experiments occurred. I know that anyone who tells you they know how life began on Earth is completely full of their own excrement and the same holds true for anyone who tries to state definitively how life did NOT begin on Earth. I also know that none of this has any bearing at all on Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and the truth about evolution as a biological process.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

Well i personally think that is Scientific mambo jumbo. No one can for certen say how big the singularity was initially before expansion.

Science even go as far as to state that the singularity was infnitely small when it was formed. That is Equal to it being non existent. Its odd that People dont notice details like that?

its odd that people can look at the big bang and regard it as a suspicious story but be right at home with 'my way or the highway' yahweh.

That is true for both camps.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

Well i personally think that is Scientific mambo jumbo. No one can for certen say how big the singularity was initially before expansion.

Science even go as far as to state that the singularity was infnitely small when it was formed. That is Equal to it being non existent. Its odd that People dont notice details like that?

its odd that people can look at the big bang and regard it as a suspicious story but be right at home with 'my way or the highway' yahweh.

That is true for both camps.

but not all camps are created equal. modern evolutionary synthesis and creationism are not equals in terms of publication and peer review and application.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I wouldn't call you a coward as you wouldn't call me names?

I not e you havnt offered any evidence unless saying that a whale evolved from a hippo or whatever

Scientific inference is not empirical
What is empirical science in your argument

If you would like, how about you take up the banner that phantom tossed overboard, we agree on the term "empirical evidence" live science and Wikipedia are still ok by me
And you charge heart a flutter, sweat streaming at my weak line

Lots of talk, no evidence, unless talk origins link is to an experiment conducted and recorded as opposed to a few pages of unsupported dribbles

Or as I expect, take the yellow flag and turn

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

Well i personally think that is Scientific mambo jumbo. No one can for certen say how big the singularity was initially before expansion.

Science even go as far as to state that the singularity was infnitely small when it was formed. That is Equal to it being non existent. Its odd that People dont notice details like that?

its odd that people can look at the big bang and regard it as a suspicious story but be right at home with 'my way or the highway' yahweh.

That is true for both camps.

but not all camps are created equal. modern evolutionary synthesis and creationism are not equals in terms of publication and peer review and application.

I agree, i dont believe the main stream creationism. They are making a joke out of themselves.
WHat i poste is not even in the ballpark of what they claim. But i do believe in a creator, as i have stated earlier in this poste.

I dont believe in a random beginning from nothing = a absolute infinite empty Space. That is not possible do to that such a void is absolute neutral and constant.

Speaking of the big bang, I watched a really compelling movie last night on Netflix called Einstein's Biggest Blunder (which refers to the cosmological constant, which Einstein himself said was his biggest mistake). In the movie, a couple of physicists are suggesting that the speed of light has not always been constant (that is, it is the same in all intertial frames of reference, but in the past the universal speed limit was a lot higher). It's pretty darned fascinating as an alternative to cosmological inflation,, and it explains a lot of nagging questions, in particular dark energy. Check it out if you have time.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

Well i personally think that is Scientific mambo jumbo. No one can for certen say how big the singularity was initially before expansion.

Science even go as far as to state that the singularity was infnitely small when it was formed. That is Equal to it being non existent. Its odd that People dont notice details like that?

its odd that people can look at the big bang and regard it as a suspicious story but be right at home with 'my way or the highway' yahweh.

That is true for both camps.

but not all camps are created equal. modern evolutionary synthesis and creationism are not equals in terms of publication and peer review and application.

I agree, i dont believe the main stream creationism. They are making a joke out of themselves.
WHat i poste is not even in the ballpark of what they claim. But i do believe in a creator, as i have stated earlier in this poste.

I dont believe in a random beginning from nothing = a absolute infinite empty Space. That is not possible do to that such a void is absolute neutral and constant.

Not a void, a super dense mass surrounded by...we dont yet know really. key word being yet.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

Well i personally think that is Scientific mambo jumbo. No one can for certen say how big the singularity was initially before expansion.

Science even go as far as to state that the singularity was infnitely small when it was formed. That is Equal to it being non existent. Its odd that People dont notice details like that?

its odd that people can look at the big bang and regard it as a suspicious story but be right at home with 'my way or the highway' yahweh.

That is true for both camps.

but not all camps are created equal. modern evolutionary synthesis and creationism are not equals in terms of publication and peer review and application.

I agree, i dont believe the main stream creationism. They are making a joke out of themselves.
WHat i poste is not even in the ballpark of what they claim. But i do believe in a creator, as i have stated earlier in this poste.

I dont believe in a random beginning from nothing = a absolute infinite empty Space. That is not possible do to that such a void is absolute neutral and constant.

Not a void, a super dense mass surrounded by...we dont yet know really. key word being yet.

hehehe... i think you haev missed what i have been talking about.

The key Words is not yet either when it comes to science discovering what is surrounding the singularity. All science can observe is what is within. Our universe.