A challenge has been issued

[Not_By_Chance]

Gravitational collapse of large gas clouds.

This has aapparently already been shown to not be possible (the gravitational pull would not be strong enough and there are others reasons too, which has led some scientists to conclude that if we didn't already know that stars existed, there are plenty of reasons to show why they couldn't form in the first place).

The current explanation is that during its accretion Uranus collided with a protoplanet one or two times the mass of the Earth, and that this collision caused the large axial inclination.

This idea has been used many times to explain other anomalies in our solar system. It would be more credible to admit that no-one knows.

I take it that you are asking why the Sun's equator is inclined by 7° to the plane of the ecliptic. I don't know; it's an interesting question. Have you got a hypothesis that can explain it,

It can't be verified, just as any other theories about the universe cannot be verified, but I suspect that the creator deliberately put these sort of things in place to confound man's feeble attempts to explain the origin of the universe without His divine power.

Biology is definitely not my subject, but you seem to have fallen into the error of vitalism, the idea that 'life' is an external 'element' that has to be added to 'lifeless chemicals' to animate them. As I understand it, life is an emergent property of complex chemical systems.

Not what I've been told and there is no scientific evidence to show otherwise. If it were possible, someone would have demonstrated how it could be done by now and even if they could do that (which they can't), it would only show that a huge amount of intelligence were required.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

So, you accuse people who accept evolution of presenting assumptions as facts.
I ask you for any examples of this.
You respond by accusing people who accept evolution of presenting assumptions as facts.

Not a convincing debate technique.

The point you're not getting is that evolution altogether is built on the presupposition that abiogenesis occurred in the first place.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Evolution is built on presupposition. This is the cornerstone of creationist argument which evolutionists just can't seem to acknowledge.
What you call 'fixed errors' are like crutches. Evolution can basically pull anything out of it's hat to fix any of these 'errors'. That is why it is so successful, because it is utterly infallible to itself just as you suppose religion is.

Another technique, like in the Nye/Ham debate is come out with a huge list of things why the myth of evolution is true so that it's impossible in the time allowed to counteract it.

The only way for a sensible debate on this to occur would be to follow a simplified version of the rules used in legal cases, but in segments to keep it simpler, ie.:-

• Both sides gather together the best evidence to support their case (maybe just a dozen items to keep it manageable).
• The two sides then disclose their "evidence" for the other side to scrutinise and prepare refutations.
• One side gives their first "evidence in chief," calling on any expert witnesses or slides/charts as necessary but within a manageable time scale.
  
• The other side cross examines the presenter of the evidence.
• The last two points repeat until all the evidence for the one side has been presented, after which they swap over and repeat the whole process.
• Finally, both sides are allowed to summarise their cases, based only on the evidence they have presented.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point you're not getting is that evolution altogether is built on the presupposition that abiogenesis occurred in the first place.

No, it isn't. Evolution works just fine if the first life was created by a deity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Another technique, like in the Nye/Ham debate is come out with a huge list of things why the myth of evolution is true so that it's impossible in the time allowed to counteract it.

So why not have a written debate?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

For the record, I would be happy to debate any creationist in an open written debate on genetics with limited but pragmatic rules (e.g. must use references that are accessible online). There is even a formal debate section. I will give full copyright privileges to the creationist organization for anything I write in the debate.

Do you think my offer will be taken up?

I don't know. I'll ask them and let you know if I get a reply.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

No, it isn't. Evolution works just fine if the first life was created by a deity.

But not if the first beings were already modern.

 

[Loudmouth]

But not if the first beings were already modern.

That is a matter of evidence, not theory. The first beings were not modern as shown by the fossil record. The earliest deposits with signs of life don't even contain multicellular organisms, just unicellular organisms. Even in the Cambrian we don't find any grasses, trees, flowers, bony fish, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, sharks, etc. The theory of evolution incorporates these facts.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

That is a matter of evidence, not theory. The first beings were not modern as shown by the fossil record. The earliest deposits with signs of life don't even contain multicellular organisms, just unicellular organisms. Even in the Cambrian we don't find any grasses, trees, flowers, bony fish, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, sharks, etc. The theory of evolution incorporates these facts.

The fossil record isn't nearly as extensive as evolutionists like to portray it. It is not something which sits in stone, either, it is consistently rearranged.
There is nothing illustrating anything of irreducible complexity either- the things within nature which would have to require many simultaneous moderations to exist as they do.

The most frustrating thing about evolution is that it is frankly a lot less substantial then what it is put forward as. Evolutionists tend to have a sort of god complex when it comes to it, as if to suppose any other perspective is inferior.

 

[The Cadet]

This has aapparently already been shown to not be possible (the gravitational pull would not be strong enough and there are others reasons too, which has led some scientists to conclude that if we didn't already know that stars existed, there are plenty of reasons to show why they couldn't form in the first place).

Where did you hear that? The gas cloud accretion theory is widely accepted and can be observed in real time in star-forming regions.

http://www.universetoday.com/24190/how-does-a-star-form/
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve/
abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html

Not what I've been told and there is no scientific evidence to show otherwise. If it were possible, someone would have demonstrated how it could be done by now

Wat.

Okay, first of all, the field of abiogenesis has made some very impressive strides in exactly this direction. But more importantly, why, if it was possible, would you assume it to have already been done? There are plenty of things which appear ostensibly possible, but for which we lack the know-how or the technical skills - a manned mission to mars comes to mind.

The point you're not getting is that evolution altogether is built on the presupposition that abiogenesis occurred in the first place.

No, it isn't. Evolution deals with extant life. Where that life came from is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

For the record, I would be happy to debate any creationist in an open written debate on genetics with limited but pragmatic rules (e.g. must use references that are accessible online). There is even a formal debate section. I will give full copyright privileges to the creationist organization for anything I write in the debate.

Do you think my offer will be taken up?

I've passed on your challenge, although I still think a formal debate would be more beneficial, provided a "Magistrate" could force participants to keep to the rules.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Where did you hear that? The gas cloud accretion theory is widely accepted and can be observed in real time in star-forming regions.

But apparently, only when stars already exist. It doesn't explain how the first stars were formed.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fossil record isn't nearly as extensive as evolutionists like to portray it. It is not something which sits in stone, either, it is consistently rearranged.

Fossils literally sit in stone. If you think hundreds of thousands of geologists have had it all wrong for 200 years now, then I think you are going to need more than some vague assertions.

You claimed that we find modern organisms right at the beginning of the fossil record. Can you show us a single modern mammal in the Pre-Cambrian?

There is nothing illustrating anything of irreducible complexity either- the things within nature which would have to require many simultaneous moderations to exist as they do.

The evolution of the mammalian middle ear shows just that. If you remove any of the 3 middle ear bones the structure stops working.

Since evolution proposes that mammals evolved from reptiles, and reptiles only have on middle ear bone, then perhaps we can find fossils that give the step-wise evolution of the IC mammalian middle ear. Guess what? That's exactly what we find. In a series of fossils we can see two of the reptilian lower jaw bones evolve into functional parts of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

The most frustrating thing about evolution is that it is frankly a lot less substantial then what it is put forward as. Evolutionists tend to have a sort of god complex when it comes to it, as if to suppose any other perspective is inferior.

The most frustrating thing about discussing things with creationists is that they think empty assertions count as evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've passed on your challenge, although I still think a formal debate would be more beneficial, provided a "Magistrate" could force participants to keep to the rules.

I would be fine with that. Preferrably a panel of judges that have representatives from those involved.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Creation-believing scientists have issued a challenge to debate science with evolution-believing scientists:-

A challenge
To these high priests of evolution, we say, “We are ready, so why do you keep avoiding CMI? Keep the ad hominem out of it; our science against yours. If your case is so strong, engage us in open and frank debate.”
http://creation.com/teaching-creati...=infobytes&utm_content=gb&utm_campaign=emails

Who among you that are so sure evolution is a fact will take up their offer? Even better, ask an independent person or persons to film it so we can all witness the outcome. Let it be broadcast on national TV for all to see. Now's your chance to lay your cards on the table.

We already had the debate. Creationists lost. Now they just want attention. Sorry, but scientists are busy doing science, while creationists are doing, well, whatever it is creationists do.

 

[florida2]

But apparently, only when stars already exist. It doesn't explain how the first stars were formed.

You got a citation for that?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Fossils literally sit in stone. If you think hundreds of thousands of geologists have had it all wrong for 200 years now, then I think you are going to need more than some vague assertions.

You claimed that we find modern organisms right at the beginning of the fossil record. Can you show us a single modern mammal in the Pre-Cambrian?

The evolution of the mammalian middle ear shows just that. If you remove any of the 3 middle ear bones the structure stops working.

Since evolution proposes that mammals evolved from reptiles, and reptiles only have on middle ear bone, then perhaps we can find fossils that give the step-wise evolution of the IC mammalian middle ear. Guess what? That's exactly what we find. In a series of fossils we can see two of the reptilian lower jaw bones evolve into functional parts of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear.

The most frustrating thing about discussing things with creationists is that they think empty assertions count as evidence.

I've seen that example many of times, presumably because there's not much else to work with on the subject of irreducible complexity in the evolutionist's corner.

The mechanisms of a human sperm cell are extraordinarily irreducible.
And speaking of the matter of humans, humans themselves are a gargantuan problem for evolution, more specifically our brains and how we evolved so rapidly from our former species.
It's almost as if the modern human was simply ~created~, you see.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've seen that example many of times, presumably because there's not much else to work with on the subject of irreducible complexity in the evolutionist's corner.

If you've seen the example, why did you say it doesn't exist?

The mechanisms of a human sperm cell are extraordinarily irreducible.

So what? As you have already seen, IC isn't a problem for evolution.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

So what? As you have already seen, IC isn't a problem for evolution.

There is nothing in what you've presented to show that irreducible complexity isn't a problem. You showed an example of a something that just happened to have a method it's formation.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is nothing in what you've presented to show that irreducible complexity isn't a problem.

I just showed you a step-wise evolutionary pathway that evolution used to produce the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear. Evolution can produce IC systems.