Creationists: Explain how life was created.

[Brightmoon]

I'm [somewhat] familiar with how species FORM.

In fact, as I understand it, a new species of bacteria FORMS every nine hours; and a new species of fruit fly every twenty-four.

Or something like that.

But that's not what you want, is it?

I’m assuming that you’re joking because you’re not that ignorant. So please stop it’s not funny

 

[Colter]

To say that life evolved still does NOT explain its origins.


"To say that mind “emerged” from matter explains nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon. The concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness are not inherent in either physics or chemistry. A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness.

Science may be physical, but the mind of the truth-discerning scientist is at once supermaterial. Matter knows not truth, neither can it love mercy nor delight in spiritual realities. Moral convictions based on spiritual enlightenment and rooted in human experience are just as real and certain as mathematical deductions based on physical observations, but on another and higher level.

If men were only machines, they would react more or less uniformly to a material universe. Individuality, much less personality, would be nonexistent.

The fact of the absolute mechanism of Paradise at the center of the universe of universes, in the presence of the unqualified volition of the Second Source and Center, makes forever certain that determiners are not the exclusive law of the cosmos. Materialism is there, but it is not exclusive; mechanism is there, but it is not unqualified; determinism is there, but it is not alone."

 

[AV1611VET]

I’m assuming that you’re joking because you’re not that ignorant. So please stop it’s not funny

Now who's the ignorant one?

There's a difference between formed and created.

And when I discuss creationism with someone -- (which is my forte) -- I won't let them use that term, or the conversation is over.

Do you know the difference between formed and created?

And if you do -- (which apparently you do not) -- do you know the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia?

Quit accusing us of being ignorant, when you're more ignorant than we are on the subject.

 

[Brightmoon]

To say that life evolved still does NOT explain its origins.


"To say that mind “emerged” from matter explains nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon. The concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness are not inherent in either physics or chemistry. A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness.

Science may be physical, but the mind of the truth-discerning scientist is at once supermaterial. Matter knows not truth, neither can it love mercy nor delight in spiritual realities. Moral convictions based on spiritual enlightenment and rooted in human experience are just as real and certain as mathematical deductions based on physical observations, but on another and higher level.

If men were only machines, they would react more or less uniformly to a material universe. Individuality, much less personality, would be nonexistent.

The fact of the absolute mechanism of Paradise at the center of the universe of universes, in the presence of the unqualified volition of the Second Source and Center, makes forever certain that determiners are not the exclusive law of the cosmos. Materialism is there, but it is not exclusive; mechanism is there, but it is not unqualified; determinism is there, but it is not alone."

. Life on this planet evolved from chemicals. I always thought that the big miracle was the fact that we are able to even think of a god concept

 

[AV1611VET]

. Life on this planet evolved from chemicals.

How does that answer the OP?

 

[mmksparbud]

So? I'm looking for an explanation as to how it works.

Simple, ask God, it's His breath.

 

[pitabread]

Or something like that.

But that's not what you want, is it?

I'm asking creationists that if they reject evolution as an explanation for the origin of species, to otherwise explain how they were created. In the case of believing that they were created from scratch, I'm asking for that explanation.

 

[pitabread]

Simple, ask God, it's His breath.

I'm asking you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. Life on this planet evolved from chemicals. I always thought that the big miracle was the fact that we are able to even think of a god concept

What chemicals? Oh, you mean from the creation......

How does that work exactly, evolved from chemicals??????

Doesn't only life evolve?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm asking creationists that if they reject evolution as an explanation for the origin of species, to otherwise explain how they were created. In the case of believing that they were created from scratch, I'm asking for that explanation.

You have been told once or twice already.

God formed them out of the dust of the earth and gave them life, which is why your origins never happens today, can't be replicated. It's why those same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up dust are alive in one thing and not in another.

Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of species, it takes what already exists and alters it, not creates something new from scratch. Please do not try to imply evolution explains the origin of species, as it does not in the slightest. In fact, evolutionists always content that origins is a separate issue from evolution....

 

[pitabread]

God formed them out of the dust of the earth and gave them life, which is why your origins never happens today, can't be replicated.

I'm asking for an explanation of this. What is the process by which life forms are created from dust and "given life"? What is involved in that process?

Present some details.

Please do not try to imply evolution explains the origin of species, as it does not in the slightest.

The point of this thread is for creationists to bring an alternative explanation to the table. But it's been like pulling teeth with you guys.

This is your time to shine! Don't let us down.

 

[mmksparbud]

I'm asking you.

You already got my answer--- several times.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm asking for an explanation of this. What is the process by which life forms are created from dust and "given life"? What is involved in that process?

Present some details.


The point of this thread is for creationists to bring an alternative explanation to the table. But it's been like pulling teeth with you guys.

This is your time to shine! Don't let us down.

I'd say the details are about as sketchy as yours.... Somehow inorganic molecules became organic molecules which somehow became alive...... They then somehow developed complicated systems to work together that require those systems to be complete before they can even work.....

Don't be mad because our knowledge of how life was formed from inorganic molecules is just as sketchy as is yours..... Don't be mad because you require a miracle to make inorganic matter alive, but wan't to reject ours.....

The difference is that we accept the evidence that life was fully formed from the very beginning......

If you reject that assertion please provide evidence of life not fully formed in it's then present form......

 

[pitabread]

I'd say the details are about as sketchy as yours.... Somehow inorganic molecules became organic molecules which somehow became alive...... They then somehow developed complicated systems to work together that require those systems to be complete before they can even work.....

Don't be mad because our knowledge of how life was formed from inorganic molecules is just as sketchy as is yours..... Don't be mad because you require a miracle to make inorganic matter alive, but wan't to reject ours.....

Biological evolution as an explanation for the origin of species is quite well supported. I'm trying to see if creationists have anything equivalent to bring to the table, but so far you guys are letting me down.

Even if you want to make this an origin of life debate, I can point you to scientific research into abiogenesis far more detailed than anything presented in this thread so far.

But that's not the point: the point is for creationists to present their explanations in this thread.

The difference is that we accept the evidence that life was fully formed from the very beginning......

If you reject that assertion please provide evidence of life not fully formed in it's then present form......

This isn't how the burden of proof works. I'm asking you to support an explanation for the creation of fully-formed species.

Like I said, this is your time to shine. Bring something to the table.

No deflection, no shifting the burden of proof, no cop-outs. Just put your best explanation forward.

 

[pitabread]

You already got my answer--- several times.

I had hoped for better.

 

[mmksparbud]

I had hoped for better.

It's not our problem you won't accept it. We're quite satisfied with our answer--God's breath is life. Deal with it.

 

[pitabread]

It's not our problem you won't accept it. We're quite satisfied with our answer--God's breath is life. Deal with it.

The lack of concern is puzzling. Creationists are the ones' who continually argue against biological evolution as an explanation for the origin of species, but you clearly have nothing to replace it with.

Doesn't that concern you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Biological evolution as an explanation for the origin of species is quite well supported.

Quite well supported? It's all supposition. Just who are you trying to convince, yourself????

Was it RNA based or DNA based to start? Well, which theory do you propose is the correct one?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here's the real state of your theory of origins.....


The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life
(except for all the others)

 

[pitabread]

Quite well supported? It's all supposition. Just who are you trying to convince, yourself????

Was it RNA based or DNA based to start? Well, which theory do you propose is the correct one?????

I fully appreciate you're stuck in science-denial. That's fine; that's not what I'm asking though.

This is a thread for creationists to support their explanation for the origin of species. I'm asking you to support your idea of origins; namely that organisms were created fully-formed. Explain that process.

If you're going to continue to deflect and shift the burden-of-proof, then just exit the thread. There's no point in discussing things further if you don't have anything to bring to the table.