Questions Creationists Can't or Won't Answer

Here is a challenge to creationists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.Could provide us with the evidence that life can not originate from non-life via purely natural processes?(HINT: there isn’t any:http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/chaos_02.htm )How can a process that violates no laws of nature and seems to be directly be suggested by modern thermodynamics be proven catagorically not to have happened? (Appeals to incredulity are not considered evidence.)Is there any direct scientific evidence whatsoever for the mechanisms by which a the Judeo-Christian God spontaneously produced all matter and life?Can any description of supernatural creation as suggested in the Bible ever offer anything in the way of direct empirical scientific evidence, and not simply appeals to incredulity?If abiogenesis and evolution are the same, can creationists explain how one (evolution), which is overwhelmingly supported by direct empirical observations of the branching transitional sequence of life recorded in paleontology does not automatically and directly imply the other (abiogenesis)?How do we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that a complex being with absolute power which is not evidenced by any known phenomena produced all natural phenomena?How do we objectively test the hypothesis that this same being, presumably required because all ordered complex things require a creator, does not lead to an was not itself created then in an endless succession of increasingly complex creators?How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that one particular proposed invisible magical creator out of the multitude proposed by the host of religious across the globe happens to be the "correct" creator?Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that any of these invisible beings exist at all?Bottom line, the creation theory of abiogenesis is nothing more than a fairy tale. It's supported almost exclusively by appeals to incredulity, and can even come remotely close to proving that there is no chemical process by which life can emerge.

"Could provide us with the evidence that life can not originate from non-life via purely natural processes?(HINT: there isn’t any:http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/chaos_02.htm )"
--I wouldn't argue against the possibility of abiogenesis."How can a process that violates no laws of nature and seems to be directly be suggested by modern thermodynamics be proven catagorically not to have happened? (Appeals to incredulity are not considered evidence.)"
--First tell me what specific you are referring to. And if you are referring to the ToE, than I would have to say that if it "violates no laws of nature" than that still means nothing. It violates no law of nature that many things happen, this makes no comment on whether it has happened or not. And your thoughts on a direct correlation in proof of the ToE and the Thermodynamics makes no sense to me."Is there any direct scientific evidence whatsoever for the mechanisms by which a the Judeo-Christian God spontaneously produced all matter and life?"
--Nope, there isn't of course any 'direct' evidence that there ever was a Big Bang. And there also isn't evidence that in itself may be an attribution of a specific God?"Can any description of supernatural creation as suggested in the Bible ever offer anything in the way of direct empirical scientific evidence, and not simply appeals to incredulity?
--In theory, there should be no such evidence."If abiogenesis and evolution are the same"
--Their not."How do we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that a complex being with absolute power which is not evidenced by any known phenomena produced all natural phenomena?"
--I know of none."How do we objectively test the hypothesis that this same being, presumably required because all ordered complex things require a creator, does not lead to an was not itself created then in an endless succession of increasingly complex creators?"
--When someone develops a a test for examining the super-natural. (see above)."How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that one particular proposed invisible magical creator out of the multitude proposed by the host of religious across the globe happens to be the "correct" creator?"
--I would think you could just use reasonability and overview documents claimed to be inspired by that God and test for feasability."Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that any of these invisible beings exist at all?"
--Knowing no direct evidence either way accept (as I know) the difficulty of having No creator in the initial cause of existence."Bottom line, the creation theory of abiogenesis is nothing more than a fairy tale."
--Actually its a story."It's supported almost exclusively by appeals to incredulity, and can even come remotely close to proving that there is no chemical process by which life can emerge."
--?------------------

TrueCreation, I believe you've just proven you're not really a creationist.David

"TrueCreation, I believe you've just proven you're not really a creationist. "
--Nope, sorry, I'm a Creationist, and a Young Earth Creationist at that. If you have a 'why, then how' question, go ahead.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TrueCreation, I believe you've just proven you're not really a creationist. "
--Nope, sorry, I'm a Creationist, and a Young Earth Creationist at that. If you have a 'why, then how' question, go ahead.

---

No, because the title of the thread is "Questions creationists won't/can't answer." You answered them. Therefore...I wasn't very clear on it being a joke, sorry!David[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-11-2002]

"How can a process that violates no laws of nature and seems to be directly be suggested by modern thermodynamics be proven catagorically not to have happened? (Appeals to incredulity are not considered evidence.)"
--First tell me what specific you are referring to. And if you are referring to the ToE, than I would have to say that if it "violates no laws of nature" than that still means nothing. It violates no law of nature that many things happen, this makes no comment on whether it has happened or not. And your thoughts on a direct correlation in proof of the ToE and the Thermodynamics makes no sense to me.Self organizing systems tend to occur in thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium. I believe that would be the smoking gun. We have a process, we have nothing which prevents it from happening, we have a history of life on the planet that narrows timewise the further back we go. It is quite reasonable to fill in the blanks."Is there any direct scientific evidence whatsoever for the mechanisms by which a the Judeo-Christian God spontaneously produced all matter and life?"
--Nope, there isn't of course any 'direct' evidence that there ever was a Big Bang.Both the cosmic background radiation and the cosmic redshift are considered direct evidence of the Big Bang.--And there also isn't evidence that in itself may be an attribution of a specific God?That doesn't make sense. Absence of evidence for a thing can never be evidence for a thing."Can any description of supernatural creation as suggested in the Bible ever offer anything in the way of direct empirical scientific evidence, and not simply appeals to incredulity?
--In theory, there should be no such evidence.You're right.. there should be no evidence. But why then do we find evidence of "natural" processes?"If abiogenesis and evolution are the same"
--Their not."How do we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that a complex being with absolute power which is not evidenced by any known phenomena produced all natural phenomena?"
--I know of none."How do we objectively test the hypothesis that this same being, presumably required because all ordered complex things require a creator, does not lead to an was not itself created then in an endless succession of increasingly complex creators?"
--When someone develops a a test for examining the super-natural. (see above)."How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that one particular proposed invisible magical creator out of the multitude proposed by the host of religious across the globe happens to be the "correct" creator?"
--I would think you could just use reasonability and overview documents claimed to be inspired by that God and test for feasability.There is no way to authenticate these documents, or anything that they say."Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that any of these invisible beings exist at all?"
--Knowing no direct evidence either way accept (as I know) the difficulty of having No creator in the initial cause of existence.There is no difficulty in the initial cause of existence that does not remain a difficulty even with a "creator" included. If you can have an uncaused cause, the universe can be uncaused, and if you can't.. God can't be uncaused."Bottom line, the creation theory of abiogenesis is nothing more than a fairy tale."
--Actually its a story.A fairy tale is light on the details, heavy on the moralism, and unworkable from a practical or scientific standpoint. I think the label is appropriate."It's supported almost exclusively by appeals to incredulity, and can even come remotely close to proving that there is no chemical process by which life can emerge."Sorry about the nature of the post. This is simply John Paul's nonsense written from a different point of view.[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 08-12-2002]

Rat:
This is simply John Paul's nonsense written from a different point of view.John Paul:
Nope. It's your own nonsense. True it's a ripoff of my post but that is the only relationship.------------------
John Paul

"Self organizing systems tend to occur in thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium. I believe that would be the smoking gun. We have a process, we have nothing which prevents it from happening, we have a history of life on the planet that narrows timewise the further back we go. It is quite reasonable to fill in the blanks."
--I still am not understanding what you mean fully. Though if I correctly interpret your comment; If you are commenting on Evolutionary developement as in common decent with modification of all known species than this isn't going to be answered with what you have given. Whether Evolution happens today is not the same inquiry as to whether it has happend through all Earth history on the scale the ToE presents."Both the cosmic background radiation and the cosmic redshift are considered direct evidence of the Big Bang."
--This isn't direct evidence in the sence that it is evidence that only has been predicted by the event which the Big Bang explains. This doesn't mean that it has happend but is supportive that the interpretation the Big Bang gives is a likely explanation."That doesn't make sense. Absence of evidence for a thing can never be evidence for a thing."
--I agree. Though that isn't what I tried to say. You made reference to a specific God that there may be evidence for. And I can't find a rock that says 'created by the Christian God' or anything of that nature."You're right.. there should be no evidence. But why then do we find evidence of "natural" processes? "
--I never said that the process of deposition(?) wasn't a natural process, just not your hypothesis on the topic."There is no way to authenticate these documents, or anything that they say."
--Not with absolute authenticity, but just as your cosmic background radiation suggest a single point of spacial origin, this would be suggestive of such."There is no difficulty in the initial cause of existence that does not remain a difficulty even with a "creator" included. If you can have an uncaused cause, the universe can be uncaused, and if you can't.."
--The universe did have a cause, a 13-14 Ga year old event (in theory of course. To say that it didn't is playing semantics. And there is a difficulty to come about the existance of time-space without a creator."God can't be uncaused."
--Cause and effect wouldn't apply to a creation of God if he is infinite."A fairy tale is light on the details, heavy on the moralism, and unworkable from a practical or scientific standpoint. I think the label is appropriate."
--Well then its analogous to saying that 'Evolution is a religion'. When in that statement, if Evolution is a religion, theres no problem with that, the statement is futile and doesn't bring it down from a scientific perspective. Synonymous is my scenario."Sorry about the nature of the post. This is simply John Paul's nonsense written from a different point of view."
--Don't confuse me with John Paul and I won't confuse you with arrogance.------------------

"Self organizing systems tend to occur in thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium. I believe that would be the smoking gun. We have a process, we have nothing which prevents it from happening, we have a history of life on the planet that narrows timewise the further back we go. It is quite reasonable to fill in the blanks."
--I still am not understanding what you mean fully. Though if I correctly interpret your comment; If you are commenting on Evolutionary developement as in common decent with modification of all known species than this isn't going to be answered with what you have given. Whether Evolution happens today is not the same inquiry as to whether it has happend through all Earth history on the scale the ToE presents.The fossil evidence argues that they are one in the same, as does the DNA evidence. As for origins, we have a process converging down to a single point of simplicity, and we know chemical polymers have a penchant for self-organizing. Again, it is not difficult to fill in the blank.. especially since there is no evidence for any alternatives."Both the cosmic background radiation and the cosmic redshift are considered direct evidence of the Big Bang."
--This isn't direct evidence in the sence that it is evidence that only has been predicted by the event which the Big Bang explains.The appearance of the background radiation has no other explanation. It is precisely the right temperature to be black body radiation which has undergone expansion for about 14-15 billion years. That is uncanny.Likewise, the redshift is a direct evidence because redshifts imply movement, and the movement is away from eachother, therefore we can postulate that the galaxies were closer together in the past, and at a single point at a given time by calculating the rate of expansion.These two bits of evidence also cross correlate with eachother. The black body radiation and the best estimates of the expansion match eachother. That is also uncanny, and is unlikely to be the result of coincidence.--This doesn't mean that it has happend but is supportive that the interpretation the Big Bang gives is a likely explanation.I think the evidence is quite explicit. Perhaps moreso than abiogenesis, though not as clear as the fossil record of evolution.l"That doesn't make sense. Absence of evidence for a thing can never be evidence for a thing."
--I agree. Though that isn't what I tried to say. You made reference to a specific God that there may be evidence for. And I can't find a rock that says 'created by the Christian God' or anything of that nature."You're right.. there should be no evidence. But why then do we find evidence of "natural" processes? "
--I never said that the process of deposition(?) wasn't a natural process, just not your hypothesis on the topic."There is no way to authenticate these documents, or anything that they say."
--Not with absolute authenticity, but just as your cosmic background radiation suggest a single point of spacial origin, this would be suggestive of such.I'm not saying it is impossible to authenticate any document. It is certainly possible to authentical many historical documents. However the Bible just doesn't happen to be among them. It refers to important historical events known to have occured, and locations known to have existed, yet the specifics of the Bible are very difficult to pin down.. especially the miraculous events."There is no difficulty in the initial cause of existence that does not remain a difficulty even with a "creator" included. If you can have an uncaused cause, the universe can be uncaused, and if you can't.."
--The universe did have a cause, a 13-14 Ga year old event (in theory of course. To say that it didn't is playing semantics.No it is not. The universe did not necessarily have a cause. We can not know for sure whether it had a cause or not. Causality may not be a part of the structure of whatever it is that the universe is a part of.As an example.. causality does not work the way we expect below a certain scale in quantum mechanics. Causality seems to be a property of large numbers of particles in our universe, and it doesn't seem to apply precisely to small numbers, or individual particles.--And there is a difficulty to come about the existance of time-space without a creator.None that doesn't exist with the creator as well."God can't be uncaused."
--Cause and effect wouldn't apply to a creation of God if he is infinite.Nor do they apply to the universe if it is infinite. Nor do they apply to the universe if it is a quantum fluctuation, etc. etc. There is no problem or solution to causality that is unique to a Creator. All problems that an uncaused universe has, a creator has, and all solutions to these problems are equally valid without a creator in the equation."A fairy tale is light on the details, heavy on the moralism, and unworkable from a practical or scientific standpoint. I think the label is appropriate."
--Well then its analogous to saying that 'Evolution is a religion'. When in that statement, if Evolution is a religion, theres no problem with that, the statement is futile and doesn't bring it down from a scientific perspective. Synonymous is my scenario.Conversely, a scientific theory is HEAVY on the details, has no moralism whatsoever, and tends to be highly practical and workable from a scientific and even engineering standpoint. Evolution is not a religion unless you want to water down the word 'religion' to mean practically anything that anyone believes whether it is science or not."Sorry about the nature of the post. This is simply John Paul's nonsense written from a different point of view."
--Don't confuse me with John Paul and I won't confuse you with arrogance.Go ahead and confuse me with whatever you'd like. I don't mind.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rationalist:
[B]Here is a challenge to creationists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.Could provide us with the evidence that life can not originate from non-life via purely natural processes?Yes, I can.(HINT: there isn’t any:http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/chaos_02.htm )How can a process that violates no laws of nature and seems to be directly be suggested by modern thermodynamics be proven catagorically not to have happened? (Appeals to incredulity are not considered evidence.)The laws of nature can not account for the spontaneous generation of life (i.e. abiogenesis). Abiogenesis also violates the 2nd Law of Thermo.Is there any direct scientific evidence whatsoever for the mechanisms by which a the Judeo-Christian God spontaneously produced all matter and life?Yes, there is. The mechanism is intelligence/know how.Can any description of supernatural creation as suggested in the Bible ever offer anything in the way of direct empirical scientific evidence, and not simply appeals to incredulity?Yes. The Bible predicts the neccessity of intelliegnce for the origin of life. This can be tested empirically. Scientists have ways of testing for intelligent cause, for example, the SETI project. Intelligent Cause is the imposition of boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chemistry. Thus we can test to see if the origin of life can be explained by natural causes and processes or intelligent causes and processes.Rationalist continue's: "If abiogenesis and evolution are the same, can creationists explain how one (evolution), which is overwhelmingly supported by direct empirical observations of the branching transitional sequence of life recorded in paleontology does not automatically and directly imply the other (abiogenesis)?"You have been badly misinformed. The fossil record does not support evolution at all.[Deletions]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bart007:

​

You have been badly misinformed. The fossil record does not support evolution at all.

---

I see. I wonder who it is again that has been badly misinformed?Tell us all, bart, what does the fossil record indicate? Clearly, you have some scientific insights that we all can benefit from.

This is an interesting assertion:

quote:

---

The laws of nature can not account for the spontaneous generation of life (i.e. abiogenesis). Abiogenesis also violates the 2nd Law of Thermo.

---

Care to discuss this in a bit more detail?Just for fun, read this article: Life as a Manifestation of the 2d Law of Thermodynamics. The article talks about how the 2d Law is actually the cause of abiogenesis. Now I don't necessarily buy off on it, but it sure is an interesting theoretical approach which seems to directly contradict your assertion. Feel free to comment (preferably without quote mining or cribbing creationist websites like you did on the other thread.)