A Question for Creationists

[Doveaman]

Sure, as soon as you tell us where God came from.

God came from eternity.

"Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity." (Ps 93:2).

So far we know matter and energy came from God and that God came from eternity. We just need to figure out where eternity is.

 

[Doveaman]

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, evidence is lacking.

God is is not a natural being, so we would not expect to find natural evidence of Him other than the natural effects He generates, such as matter and energy.

We would expect to find natural evidence for a natural being as studied by scientists and explained in science. But a supernatural being would require supernatural evidence as studied by theologists and explained in theology.

Another issue arises even when you assume a creator initiated the big bang. Who created the creator and who created whoever created the creator and you go on and on with an infinite regression.

I don't see why that is necessary. We know that matter and energy are the effects of a cause. We call that cause "God".

Not knowing where the cause/God came from doesn't change the fact that there is a cause/God.

And even if a creator initiated the big bang (which is a leap) it does nothing to prove this creator is a personal God, such as the one described in the bible.

Science cannot prove it, but theology can. That's why believers are called theists and not scientists.

 

[bhsmte]

God is is not a natural being, so we would not expect to find natural evidence of Him other than the natural effects He generates, such as matter and energy.

We would expect to find natural evidence for a natural being as studied by scientists and explained in science. But a supernatural being would require supernatural evidence as studied by theologists and explained in theology.
I don't see why that is necessary. We know that matter and energy are the effects of a cause. We call that cause "God".

Not knowing where the cause/God came from doesn't change the fact that there is a cause/God.
Science cannot prove it, but theology can. That's why believers are called theists and not scientists.

Simply stating it is super natural and can not be detected is what believers have always explained things about the world and universe we didn't yet understand. 100 years ago, the super natural got credit for just about everything, but since that time, science has closed many of those gaps and I hate to tell you, the gaps will continue to close.

How exactly can theology prove anything?

You don't believe in the theology of other Gods correct, why not?

 

[Elendur]

How did you come to the conclusion that the universe came into being?

Because it still is coming into being.

Could you expand on that?

How is it that you think that it's still coming into being?
I don't perceive it that way.

 

[mzungu]

Duuh. That's the point. The mutation ALTERED the trait it would have gotten. Not only that the mutation DID NOT cause the person to become something other than what it parents were and it will only produce what it is and the mutation may or may not be passed on.

WOW! Talk about goal post shifting! The mutation created a new trait and that trait is called sickle celled anaemia. You claimed mutations do not create new traits, and I just proved you wrong. Any child born with this mutation that caused sickle celled anaemia had a better chance of survival and thus have children. Eventually most had this trait and thus became an inherited trait.

It was the initial mutation that created this trait that neither parents had.

 

[biggles53]

I don't see why that is necessary. We know that matter and energy are the effects of a cause. We call that cause "God".

Not knowing where the cause/God came from doesn't change the fact that there is a cause/s.

If you can argue logically that a god has no "cause", it can be just as logically argued that matter/energy has no cause.

It's called a Special Pleading fallacy when you assert that you have an exception to a universal principle...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Included in your "etc." is nothing at all.

You need to learn NOTHING in order to understand creationism.

You sure got that right.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually it does if you really think about it withe an open mind.

No, it doesn't. That I don't have an explanation in which I am confident does not mean that the deity explanation wins by default.

Nothing cannot become something on its own. It needs a Creator. The only possibiliy is that matter is eternal but hat seems very unlikely.

Why is that unlikely, but the notion of an eternal intelligent agent is not?

Randomness cannot account for teh order we see in the universe.

Who said anything about randomness?

Yes it does. It presents an omnipotent Creator. It really is the only logical eplanation.

It places a deity in a gap in our knowledge.

Well think about this. If you have no matter, no energy and no eternal God, what is left? Once you have something, you can't say it created it self out of nothing. God really is the only explanaion.

Does the same apply to God?

 

[CabVet]

God came from eternity.

"Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity." (Ps 93:2).

So far we know matter and energy came from God and that God came from eternity. We just need to figure out where eternity is.

Ok then, matter was always here, it is eternal. Easy, isn't it?

 

[frogman2x]

If you knew anything about the current state of evolutionary biology, you'd understand that no one expects evolutionary novelty to appear out of nothing.

There is not such thing as "evolutionary biology." Thre is only b iology and the basice of it refute what the ToE says.

New traits are expected to arise from the modification of existing ones.

Right, we call them mutations.

For example, the eyespots of some butterflies are generated by an old genetic circuit that usually functions to partition the developing wings of insects into different regions. Just like these genes normally mark out a sharp boundary between the front and back halves of a wing, they can mark out a sharply defined centre (focus) for an eyespot.

Okay but do they cause the butterfly to become something other than a butterfly?

There is some evidence that totally new protein-coding genes can originate from random stretches of DNA in between genes that accidentally become expressed and turn out to be useful. There was also a recent survey of proteins of different ages suggesting that new proteins often come from repetitive DNA. Pretty fascinating stuff, though it does require a bit of background to understand.

Help me undertand how it is a mechanism for evolution.

If you don't understand anything, ask. I'm sure there are people here who are able and willing to explain things.

I have been asking how the offspring can acquire a trait for which the parents did not have the gene for. So far no one has answered. Want to explain that to me?

Either you don't use the same definition of species we do, or you're really out of the loop on evolutionary biology.

I have been out of evolutionary loop for many years. Care to give me you definition of a species?

 

[frogman2x]

Yes, just as humans have been altered by evolution.

From whatg wer we altered and how did idt happen?

Our common ancestor with chimps was a primate, and we are still primates.

You have taken the usual evo rhetoric as the truth by faith alone. We are primates. Our DNA and the DNA of chimps will prove we were never related.

Our common ancestor with bears was a mammal, and we are still mammals.

WE are mammala but our DNA will veify that we were never in the bear line.

Our common ancestor with fish was a vertebrate, and we are still vertebrates. All evolution needs to do is alter what is already there, what Darwin called "descent with modification".

Each exsmple gits more absurd and of course you are just spouting the usual evo rhetoric and have not offered the first bit of evidence to prove what you say.

Darwin and you can call it anything you want, but th proof of the pudding is in the eating and you have left the sugar(the evidence) out.

Since you know it all about the evolutionary stuff, can you explain how the second life form acquired bones from a parent that did not have bones, did not need bones and did not have a gene for bones?

I will put on my prophecy hat and predict you will not answer that question.

 

[frogman2x]

Panthers

What mutation did that and how did it happen? What was panther before it was a panther?

Also, the Greenish Warblers, the Arctic Gulls, and the salamanders we've discussed at length as examples of Ring Species. Two other Ring Species that we haven't discussed are the Song Sparrow in Califurnia, and the Christmas Candle plant in the Carribean.

No ring speies became something other than what it was originally. The salamanders remaied salamanders, the warblers remaind warblers etc.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok then, matter was always here, it is eternal. Easy, isn't it?

To borrow from Sagan: "Why not save a step?" If the complexity of the universe demands an explanation, and that explanation must be a designer deity, then what of the complexity of the designer?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No ring speies became something other than what it was originally. The salamanders remaied salamanders, the warblers remaind warblers etc.

What were you expecting? Cats giving birth to dogs and crocodiles being born to kangaroos? That's not how evolution works.

 

[frogman2x]

Simply stating it is super natural and can not be detected is what believers have always explained things about the world and universe we didn't yet understand. 100 years ago, the super natural got credit for just about everything, but since that time, science has closed many of those gaps and I hate to tell you, the gaps will continue to close.

What gaps? Be specific.

How exactly can theology prove anything?<<

It can prove "after its kind" and so can you if you plant some corn. Not only will you get corn, you will get the exact same variey you planted. That has been understood for thousands of years.

You don't believe in the theology of other Gods correct, why not?

There can only be one Creator.

You don't believe in a God at all, why not?

 

[frogman2x]

Okay, so we know matter came from the Creator. We just need to figure out where the Creator came from.

Can you imagine absolute nothing? That is impossible or the universe would not exist. So for us to have something we must have an eternal Creator. If God was not eternal, nothing would be here. There would be nothing to create anything.

 

[frogman2x]

Good grief.....

Come on Charlie Brown, explain your self.

You come to a fork in the road. One path leads to Destination A, the other to Destination B.

The fork is the common ancestor. Plants are Destination A, we are B.

Can't make it simpler.....

Good grief.

 

[frogman2x]

The deity caused the BIG BANG. Now get use to it.

There was no BB.

 

[frogman2x]

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, evidence is lacking.

The evidence for the BB is lacking.

 

[CabVet]

The evidence for the BB is lacking.

Yet, the evidence for BB is orders of magnitude higher than that for the existence of a deity.