Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

YWC's cosmology gets pwn't.

What is your point ?

Take and lite a cigarette put it in a glass bottle put a lid on it what happens to the cigarette ? Camp fire how do you get it going ? by fanning it. The sun does need many chemicals or it would go out.

What lit the sun ?

Like I said, "You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry; ... no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics."

BRAVO, retard!

Your Bible chemistry and Bible physics are surely proving to be a great intellectual asset.

Really ? because there are a lot of unanswered questions by the theories of men.

How old is a person that uses the term retard again ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your probably one of those people that are against vaccines as well, arent you?

This is not theory. We can perform nuclear fusion in a lab you fucking moron. Its just gravity, which is very much described by equations, and the charges of particles, which is also very much described by equations.

Your basically doubting all of physics here. Gravity and matter must act differently far away...



Well probably because we cant observe things for billions of years.

Either a nebula that is massive enough will collapse in on itself and undergo fusion, or gravity and nuclear physic are both wrong. There is no other options. We can perform nuclear fusion in a laboratory. Gravity is one of the best measured forces.

So which one is it? Do nebulas form stars, or are gravity and physics 100% wrong?



No, we do not claim that. See this is where you misunderstanding of oxygen and atoms and chemistry and even the conservation of energy/mass and what constitutes a single element....

Oxygen remained trapped in minerals exactly like iron, and was unable to react with organic particles, because it was already bound to those minerals. Your statement just makes no sense to anyone that understands it. In the early earth most oxygen is already bound to inorganic minerals like iron. Its not in the atmosphere to react with organic molecules.

And i would probably say evolution is exactly in line with this theory.

Early organisms were anaerobic prokaryotes, they didnt need oxygen. All eukaryote evolves from them, and retain chemical processes like glycolysis from those days.

You first used that very argument nitwit for abiogenesis you are a liar or have a very short memory.

What are you talking about?

Without linking to a creationist website, explain how thats wrong.

Your argument is that oxygen would react with organic molecules like amino acids and so they couldnt form. How could that happen in any significant amount if most of the oxygen is already bound to other molecules?

Oxygen would prevent the building blocks of life forming on their own. And your side knows this problem. That is why miller and urey hypothesized very little to no oxygen on the planet when life spontaneously formed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

One more thing I would like to point out there is a problem with their theory because they used electricity in their experiment simulating lightning. If there was no atmosphere already in place there would have been no lightning.

This whole test that gets ignored was done through intelligence. It did not happen on it's own and it was done through assuming what the earth was like 4 or 5 billion years ago with no evidence to prove the conditions of earth at that time.

Why can't you see the flaws ?

 

[Montrovant]

Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space. Because there is gravity all through space and this gravity pulls everything towards itself,how can there be oxygen here on earth but none in space ? Gravity is what formed our atmoshere just think if the gravity around the sun formed an atmosphere,we would have been screwed.

You can't see the design ? This planet has an atmoshere that benefits this planet for life. Without this atmosphere there would be no life. It's rediculous to say at one time there was no oxygen on this planet so life could start through abiogenesis. Because gravity was needed for life as well and gravity would pull the oxygen as well as everything else to form the atmosphere.

What all this points to is design and creation not evolution. Life was created spontaneously with the atmosphere in place and oxygen. There may not be oxygen in space,and the sun is just the product of fusion but isn't that just a little coincedental to have a sun,for light,energy,heat,and have an atmosphere to protect us from radiation of the sun ?

My God there is so much evidence for design you would have to be Ideologue to say there was no creator. The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.

Your inability to separate varying ideas is ridiculous. The big bang does not = abiogenesis does not = evolution.

Also, you too often seem to try and apply 'common sense' reasoning to science. For example, asking 'what lit the sun?' is fairly silly, especially in the context you did it. You seem to think of it as you would a fire you can personally start, rather than the giant ball of fusion it is supposed to be. This is a common theme with you in this discussion; you attempt to look at everything through a lens of 'how would I do this?' or 'how could this happen based on mankind's current abilities?'. Reality is not defined or limited by mankind's current abilities, or your own.

As far as the 'coincidences' that allow life to survive here, you again seem to ignore things. Maybe if our solar system were the entirety of the universe, I could see your argument about how incredible the coincidences allowing life are. If the universe is as vast and as old as current science would tell us, however, it is far less surprising to think of the conditions arising. We are talking about a universe believed to be billions of years old, and a universe so incredibly vast and filled with so many stars and planets that it's hard to grasp, except in the abstract. Even if you don't believe the universe is that old or that large, can you not see how, if someone does believe it is that old and vast, their views on our own world would be different?

Creationism is not science
Science is not infallible.

 

[cbirch2]

Here are the 15 evidences so you do not have to look for them.

4th Day Alliance | Creationism, Creation Science, and Creation Astronomy | 15 Evidences for the Age of the Universe

Short Period Comets

Quick astronomy lesson. The solar system is not as static as you think it is. Beyond the orbit of neptune there is an entire collection of objects, similar to a second asteroid belt. Thats why pluto isnt considered a planet anymore. Most comets are just random chunks of ice and other substances that have been ejected from the oort cloud and the kuiper belt.

Saturns Rings

Like most things, this argument is based on a total simplification of the world and a lack of understanding. There's a lot of ways that rings can be created and a lot of factors that effect their dissipation. How do you know a moon didnt cross the Roche Limit within the last 100 million years?

Supernovas

The only claim on this page is that we only have 7,000 years of star remnants in our galaxy.

The only source for the claim is

(Keith Davies, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), pp. 175–184.)

So....ok....

Speedy star changes

Do you know anything about the evolution of stars, or about Sakurai’s Object?

A star is a cloud of hydrogen atoms fusing together to create helium and energy (remember that picture above!?). Eventually it will run out of hydrogen, because all of it will have been fused into helium. At this point, it will become a white dwarf, as fusion stops, it cools down, and gravity begins to collapse it. It will be a chunk of helium collapsing just like the original chunk of hydrogen. Eventually, as gravity collapses is, the helium will begin to undergo fusion and form elements like carbon and oxygen, similar to the original fusion of the star.

Thats all that happened with Sakurai’s Object. It was a white dwarf star that ran out of its original fuel and eventually began fusing helium.

Extrasolar planets

Basically the argument here seems to be that since every solar systems isnt like ours, ours is special. No. Instead we find a wide variation in the type of solar systems, because it depends on the original state of the early solar system.

Besides, this article just seems very outdated. For a long time, we could only find large planets (which are usually gas giants) orbiting close to their stars because of the technique used to locate exoplanets; we saw when they passed by their star. So for the first few years, we could only see planets that orbited their sun within a year or two and were big enough and close enough to block some of the stars light.

Now we have better telescopes and methods, and we have over 700 confirmed planets even a few thousand more pending confirmation. A lot of them are earth-like and orbit in the same position as earth.

Lunar recession

This is one of those situtions where creationists just flat out lie. The entire assumption relies on lunar recession being faster in the past than it is now, which is just bullshit. Most evidence would indicate the opposite.

Knowledge

Crater creep

I cant even take this one seriously. I would argue that craters in space are pretty static in the absence of all forces except gravity.

Moons Heat

Knowledge

Planets heat

I see there is no citation next to "radioactivity cannot heat up the planet".

even if there was, its still just a massive simplification of how things actually work.

Solar wind

Understand that it isnt particles from the sun that eject other particles from the solar system, it is light itself. Photons have momentum...

Knowledge

Enceladus

Total simplification, once more. The extrapolation used by these "young earth scientists" calculate that Enceladus would have ejected 1/6 of its mass in a few decades at the current rate.

So that right there should probably indicate that their extrapolation is wrong.

Small comets

"Therefore, small comets would have placed much more water on Earth than is here today. Obviously, this did not happen, so oceans look young."

No math for that, no stats, just the statement.

What if early earth had very little water until it was bombarded by massive amounts of comets?

Possible...But rather, i think the reason that they dont show any math to prove conclusion is because they didnt use any math to arrive at it.

Connected galaxies

I think its interesting that creationists argument is based on the fact that redshift is derived from velocity. But on to the rebuttal...

I cant even find a coherent argument in this page. Its like the author of that page thinks that gravitationally attracted galaxies should have the same redshift. This is just...wrong...

If two galaxies are gravitationally attracted to eachother to the extend that they are going to fully merge, the direction of their velocity would be opposite eachother. Hence one would appear more blue while the other would appear more red.

In other words, your evidence against an old universe actually fits it very well.

Galaxies are unstable

They are? Any citation??

Come on...

Galaxy glusters

Ok first, id just like to point out your simplification of events again. Just because galaxies are moving fast, doesnt mean the galaxy clusters should have dissipated.

But second, do you get the concept of dark matter? Its not just something we think should exist so we say it does

"However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass” does not exist."

O yea? Really? For sure? No doubt?

We can measure the gravity distorting the light. Were not pretending its there, we see its gravitational effects. Fact. Those are real maps of dark matter.

 

[LOki]

Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space.

There sure is. It's as big a problem as suggesting that what's happening on and in the sun is an oxidation reaction.

Those are problems that Bible "scientists" have yet to work out; their failure to do so in any meaningful and verifiable way is the reason why Bible "scientists" can't get or keep jobs where an understanding of reality is necessary.

Because there is gravity all through space and this gravity pulls everything towards itself,how can there be oxygen here on earth but none in space ?

No one says there's NONE in space, The Earth is in space, and there's oxygen on Earth. Creationists are ALL retarded in their inability to parse reality from their superstitious fairy tales.

There is however, very little oxygen (or any other matter) in the space between celestial bodies; the reason there's so little matter in open space is that it has been collecting (over the course of billions of years) and concentrating through the very phenomenon of gravity you pretend to understand.

Gravity is what formed our atmoshere just think if the gravity around the sun formed an atmosphere,we would have been screwed.

Well, I guess we're screwed then, because there's an atmosphere around the sun. It's not 20% O2, but it's there none-the-less.

Obviously a fact of reality overlooked in your geo-centric Bible astronomy class.

You can't see the design ?

You can't see that your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER?

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

This planet has an atmoshere that benefits this planet for life.

NOT in contention.

Without this atmosphere there would be no life.

Not out life, as we're currently configured, but "no life"? You need to demonstrate that.

It's rediculous to say at one time there was no oxygen on this planet so life could start through abiogenesis.

That's what valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence suggests, and that suggestion is NOT NEARLY AS RIDICULOUS as the assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, for which there is no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

The assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours is what's ridiculous.

Because gravity was needed for life as well and gravity would pull the oxygen as well as everything else to form the atmosphere.

This is just superstitious nonsense. Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

What all this points to is design and creation not evolution.

Nope. Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

Life was created spontaneously with the atmosphere in place and oxygen.

The verifiable evidence and valid logic disagrees with this assertion.

What's up with that?

There may not be oxygen in space,and the sun is just the product of fusion but isn't that just a little coincedental to have a sun,for light,energy,heat,and have an atmosphere to protect us from radiation of the sun ?

NO.

Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

My God there is so much evidence for design you would have to be Ideologue to say there was no creator.

Nope. Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

Nor a "Creator."

Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a logical fallacy.

YOU are wrong.

The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

 

[LOki]

What is your point ?

Take and lite a cigarette put it in a glass bottle put a lid on it what happens to the cigarette ? Camp fire how do you get it going ? by fanning it. The sun does need many chemicals or it would go out.

What lit the sun ?

Like I said, "You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry; ... no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics."

BRAVO, retard!

Your Bible chemistry and Bible physics are surely proving to be a great intellectual asset.

Really ? because there are a lot of unanswered questions by the theories of men.

And the people who are NOT superstitious retards don't propose (or accept) an imaginary friend, or super-leprechauns as valid "answers" to questions about reality

How old is a person that uses the term retard again ?

Anyone old enough to understand that your superstition has no superior claim as an explanation for ANYTHING than other superstitions.

 

[daws101]

The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]

The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]



is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space.

There sure is. It's as big a problem as suggesting that what's happening on and in the sun is an oxidation reaction.

Those are problems that Bible "scientists" have yet to work out; their failure to do so in any meaningful and verifiable way is the reason why Bible "scientists" can't get or keep jobs where an understanding of reality is necessary.

Because there is gravity all through space and this gravity pulls everything towards itself,how can there be oxygen here on earth but none in space ?

No one says there's NONE in space, The Earth is in space, and there's oxygen on Earth. Creationists are ALL retarded in their inability to parse reality from their superstitious fairy tales.

There is however, very little oxygen (or any other matter) in the space between celestial bodies; the reason there's so little matter in open space is that it has been collecting (over the course of billions of years) and concentrating through the very phenomenon of gravity you pretend to understand.

Well, I guess we're screwed then, because there's an atmosphere around the sun. It's not 20% O2, but it's there none-the-less.

Obviously a fact of reality overlooked in your geo-centric Bible astronomy class.

You can't see that your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER?

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

NOT in contention.

Not out life, as we're currently configured, but "no life"? You need to demonstrate that.

That's what valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence suggests, and that suggestion is NOT NEARLY AS RIDICULOUS as the assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, for which there is no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

The assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours is what's ridiculous.

This is just superstitious nonsense. Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

Nope. Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

The verifiable evidence and valid logic disagrees with this assertion.

What's up with that?

NO.

Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

My God there is so much evidence for design you would have to be Ideologue to say there was no creator.

Nope. Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

Nor a "Creator."

Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a logical fallacy.

YOU are wrong.

The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

You need a demonstration life can't exist without the sun ? without gravity ? and without an atmosphere that holds oxygen and carbondioxide in which is important for plant and animal life ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Like I said, "You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry; ... no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics."

BRAVO, retard!

Your Bible chemistry and Bible physics are surely proving to be a great intellectual asset.

Really ? because there are a lot of unanswered questions by the theories of men.

And the people who are NOT superstitious retards don't propose (or accept) an imaginary friend, or super-leprechauns as valid "answers" to questions about reality

How old is a person that uses the term retard again ?

Anyone old enough to understand that your superstition has no superior claim as an explanation for ANYTHING than other superstitions.

If anything that term applies to you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]

The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]



is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?

There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space.

There sure is. It's as big a problem as suggesting that what's happening on and in the sun is an oxidation reaction.

Those are problems that Bible "scientists" have yet to work out; their failure to do so in any meaningful and verifiable way is the reason why Bible "scientists" can't get or keep jobs where an understanding of reality is necessary.

Because there is gravity all through space and this gravity pulls everything towards itself,how can there be oxygen here on earth but none in space ?

No one says there's NONE in space, The Earth is in space, and there's oxygen on Earth. Creationists are ALL retarded in their inability to parse reality from their superstitious fairy tales.

There is however, very little oxygen (or any other matter) in the space between celestial bodies; the reason there's so little matter in open space is that it has been collecting (over the course of billions of years) and concentrating through the very phenomenon of gravity you pretend to understand.

Well, I guess we're screwed then, because there's an atmosphere around the sun. It's not 20% O2, but it's there none-the-less.

Obviously a fact of reality overlooked in your geo-centric Bible astronomy class.

You can't see that your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER?

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

NOT in contention.

Not out life, as we're currently configured, but "no life"? You need to demonstrate that.

That's what valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence suggests, and that suggestion is NOT NEARLY AS RIDICULOUS as the assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, for which there is no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

The assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours is what's ridiculous.

This is just superstitious nonsense. Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

Nope. Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

The verifiable evidence and valid logic disagrees with this assertion.

What's up with that?

NO.

Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

My God there is so much evidence for design you would have to be Ideologue to say there was no creator.

Nope. Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

Nor a "Creator."

Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a logical fallacy.

YOU are wrong.

The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

No theory but creation makes any sense when measured against the evidence.

 

[Montrovant]

The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]

The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]



is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?

There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.

On so many levels,

 

[LOki]

If anything that term applies to you.

You're simply unqualified to make that judgment.

Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space.

There sure is. It's as big a problem as suggesting that what's happening on and in the sun is an oxidation reaction.

Those are problems that Bible "scientists" have yet to work out; their failure to do so in any meaningful and verifiable way is the reason why Bible "scientists" can't get or keep jobs where an understanding of reality is necessary.

No one says there's NONE in space, The Earth is in space, and there's oxygen on Earth. Creationists are ALL retarded in their inability to parse reality from their superstitious fairy tales.

There is however, very little oxygen (or any other matter) in the space between celestial bodies; the reason there's so little matter in open space is that it has been collecting (over the course of billions of years) and concentrating through the very phenomenon of gravity you pretend to understand.

Well, I guess we're screwed then, because there's an atmosphere around the sun. It's not 20% O2, but it's there none-the-less.

Obviously a fact of reality overlooked in your geo-centric Bible astronomy class.

You can't see that your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER?

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

NOT in contention.

Not out life, as we're currently configured, but "no life"? You need to demonstrate that.

That's what valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence suggests, and that suggestion is NOT NEARLY AS RIDICULOUS as the assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, for which there is no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

The assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours is what's ridiculous.

This is just superstitious nonsense. Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

Nope. Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

The verifiable evidence and valid logic disagrees with this assertion.

What's up with that?

NO.

Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

Nope. Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

Nor a "Creator."

Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a logical fallacy.

YOU are wrong.

The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

No theory but creation makes any sense when measured against the evidence.

Your creation myth is as senseless as every other creation myth when measured against the evidence ... and it's senseless for the exact came reasons.

Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

Nor a "Creator."

Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a logical fallacy.

YOU are wrong.

 

[daws101]

Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space.

There sure is. It's as big a problem as suggesting that what's happening on and in the sun is an oxidation reaction.

Those are problems that Bible "scientists" have yet to work out; their failure to do so in any meaningful and verifiable way is the reason why Bible "scientists" can't get or keep jobs where an understanding of reality is necessary.

No one says there's NONE in space, The Earth is in space, and there's oxygen on Earth. Creationists are ALL retarded in their inability to parse reality from their superstitious fairy tales.

There is however, very little oxygen (or any other matter) in the space between celestial bodies; the reason there's so little matter in open space is that it has been collecting (over the course of billions of years) and concentrating through the very phenomenon of gravity you pretend to understand.

Well, I guess we're screwed then, because there's an atmosphere around the sun. It's not 20% O2, but it's there none-the-less.

Obviously a fact of reality overlooked in your geo-centric Bible astronomy class.

You can't see that your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER?

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

NOT in contention.

Not out life, as we're currently configured, but "no life"? You need to demonstrate that.

That's what valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence suggests, and that suggestion is NOT NEARLY AS RIDICULOUS as the assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, for which there is no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

The assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours is what's ridiculous.

This is just superstitious nonsense. Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

Nope. Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

The verifiable evidence and valid logic disagrees with this assertion.

What's up with that?

NO.

Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

Nope. Your perception of "design" is ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

Nor a "Creator."

Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a logical fallacy.

YOU are wrong.

The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.

You need a demonstration life can't exist without the sun ? without gravity ? and without an atmosphere that holds oxygen and carbondioxide in which is important for plant and animal life ?

Thermal Vents

One current theory is that life originated deep beneath the surface of the ocean at deep sea hydrothermal vents. These hydrothermal vents were first discovered in 1979. Soon after, scientists made an exciting discovery. These vents release hot gaseous substances from the center of the earth at temperatures in excess of 572oF. Previously scientists were sure that life could not exist, deep beneath the surface of the ocean. After the discovery of hydrothermal vents, they found ecosystems thriving in the depths of the ocean. These ecosystems contained various types of fish, worms, crabs, bacteria and other organisms which had found a way to survive in a cold, hostile environment without energy input from sunlight. Because life had been found to exist where it previously was thought unable to, many scientists began to ask questions as to whether or not this was where life may have originated on the earth.


On the molecular level, the chances of life originating at deep sea thermal vents is not likely. It is known that organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures, and are destroyed as quickly as they are produced. It has been estimated that life could not have arisen in the ocean unless the temperature was less than 25oC, or 77oF.


Supporters of this theory claim that the organic molecules at the thermal vents are not formed in 300oC temperatures, but rather in a gradient formed between the hydrothermal vent water, and the extremely cold water, 4oC (39.2oF), which surrounds the vent at the bottom of the ocean.

The temperatures at this gradient would be suitable for organic chemistry to occur. Debates still remain, however, as to the gradient's effectiveness in producing organic compounds.


Extra Terrestrial Sources


Panspermia
In the early twentieth century, a Swedish chemist named Svente Arrhenius developed a theory called panspermia. Arrhenius' theory accounted for life's origins by simply stating that life did not originate on the Earth, but originated elsewhere in the universe. He believed that cellular life reached the Earth hiding inside a meteor which hit the Earth long ago. Newly uncovered evidence suggests that this might be possible, since an organism inside a meteor (Picture of impactor) would be safe from the high levels of radiation in space, and would be kept at a relatively low temperature. The odds of an organism surving inside a meteor for thousands of years, however, are not high. It is even less likely that organisms would be able to withstand the high energy impacts of bolides into the Earth or other planetary objects. Most scientists today do not look at this hypothesis as a very likely origin of life on the earth. However, it is considered possible, at least for now, and so is still a candidate for life's origin on earth.


Frozen Ocean
Three billion years ago, the Sun which lights our solar system was thirty percent less luminous than it is today. Mant people believe that if the Earth's atmosphere was the same then as it is today, the oceans would be frozen. But recently, Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has proposed that the oceans would not completely freeze. Instead, he calculates that only the top 300 meters of the ocean would freeze over.





You might think that icy cold water trapped under hundreds of meters of ice would not be beneficial to life beginning, but in fact it is advantageous in many aspects. One advantage is that the layer of ice would provide a protective shield by preventing ultra-violet light, which enters the earth's atmosphere and destroys organic compounds, from reaching the developing molecules. Another advantage is that it would provide safety from the devestating effects of impact frustration. ( Definition Box -Impact frustration is a theory which says that life may potentially have arisen many times, but was wiped out due to severe bolide impacts) The water beneath the ice would be cold, allowing for organic molecules to survive over much longer periods of time. These organic molecules could have been provided by the hydrothermal vents still prevalent on the ocean floor today. With a sufficient supply of organic molecules safe from ultra-violet radiation and bolide impact frustration, many believe that this was the environment allowing life to get a foothold on a hostile earth.


With a barrier between the atmosphere and the ocean, the debate concerning the composition of the atmosphere becomes much less significant. All of the components needed for organic syntheses such as the Strecker synthesis would be provided and kept stable, while the bottom of the ocean would provide a place for organics to gather and react. Following this reasoning, the atmospheric composition may only be important after life came out of the water, when life had already begun.



http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/sites.html

 

[daws101]

The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]

The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]



is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?

There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.

there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.
__________________

 

[daws101]

Really ? because there are a lot of unanswered questions by the theories of men.

And the people who are NOT superstitious retards don't propose (or accept) an imaginary friend, or super-leprechauns as valid "answers" to questions about reality

How old is a person that uses the term retard again ?

Anyone old enough to understand that your superstition has no superior claim as an explanation for ANYTHING than other superstitions.

If anything that term applies to you.

clever for an 8th grader not a grandfather, unless the grandfather never got past 8th grade.

When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[17] or its underlying scientific theories[18] or its methodology.[19] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[7] Two offshoots of creationism—creation science and intelligent design—have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[20] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[21][22][23][24]

 

[daws101]

Creationism: A Valid Case? | Socyberty

 

[Youwerecreated]

And the people who are NOT superstitious retards don't propose (or accept) an imaginary friend, or super-leprechauns as valid "answers" to questions about reality

Anyone old enough to understand that your superstition has no superior claim as an explanation for ANYTHING than other superstitions.

If anything that term applies to you.

clever for an 8th grader not a grandfather, unless the grandfather never got past 8th grade.

When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[17] or its underlying scientific theories[18] or its methodology.[19] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[7] Two offshoots of creationism—creation science and intelligent design—have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[20] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[21][22][23][24]

Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions. Their egos won't let them admit they were wrong. So the game continues but a day will come that they will be brought to their knees. You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ? I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]

The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]



is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?

There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.

there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.
__________________

The bible says ten times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind and after billions of observations, what do we see ? Kinds bringing forth offspring after their own kind. So do kinds bring forth after their own kind ?