Proof of Creationism made by NASA

[BilliardsBall]

Stop playing games.

My perpetual motion machine is a semi-closed system that receives outside energy (it's plugged into a powerpoint). See how bad that argument is. It's either closed or open. If it's getting outside energy, then it's open. Don't try and trick anyone into thinking it's closed.



So? The process required does not violate any known science.

Huh? Earth is semi-closed, it has an atmosphere. Are you saying Earth is a wholly open system? I don't think that's a scientific defintion.

Abiogenesis doesn't violate any laws? Perhaps you can explain it to me--I mean, how it occurred, so we can end the debates? Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? Earth is semi-closed, it has an atmosphere. Are you saying Earth is a wholly open system? I don't think that's a scientific defintion.

Abiogenesis doesn't violate any laws? Perhaps you can explain it to me--I mean, how it occurred, so we can end the debates? Thanks.

What laws of thermodynamics do you think that it violates? It is your claim, it would be your burden of proof.

 

[Tiberius]

Huh? Earth is semi-closed, it has an atmosphere. Are you saying Earth is a wholly open system? I don't think that's a scientific defintion.

Abiogenesis doesn't violate any laws? Perhaps you can explain it to me--I mean, how it occurred, so we can end the debates? Thanks.

I'm pointing out that we are getting a whole bunch of energy from a little thing called THE SUN. As such, the entropy on Earth can DECREASE, while the combined entropy of the sun and Earth together still increases.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What laws of thermodynamics do you think that it violates? It is your claim, it would be your burden of proof.

Not sure what your answer has to do with what I wrote:

"Huh? Earth is semi-closed, it has an atmosphere. Are you saying Earth is a wholly open system? I don't think that's a scientific defintion.

Abiogenesis doesn't violate any laws? Perhaps you can explain it to me--I mean, how it occurred, so we can end the debates? Thanks."

I didn't say "abiogenesis violates thermodynamics". But perhaps you can explain to me abiogenesis--exactly how it worked. Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm pointing out that we are getting a whole bunch of energy from a little thing called THE SUN. As such, the entropy on Earth can DECREASE, while the combined entropy of the sun and Earth together still increases.

Agreed, I'm grateful for the sun's energy. We all are.

Are you claiming abiogenesis was because . . . the sun's energy did what, exactly?

Thanks.

 

[Jainarayan]

James Webb powerful telescope have disproven 13.7-billion-year history after Big Bang. The only alternative to billion years is 6000 years of Universe history, which Dr. Kent Hovind has talked about.
The Kent's idea is what Universe is 6000 years old. More in:
Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia

Look the party at Kent's friends:

It was Physics' Community who has introduced Big Bang and Darwinism. Now we found that it was a lie. Not Creationism is lie, but Scientific Community has lied. Because it has ignored Genesis of the Bible.

Why do Creationists care so much? Why do they try so hard to prove Creationism right and physics wrong? Why do they care about the literalness of Genesis? Are they trying to prove God exists? If Genesis is not literal does that mean God doesn’t exist, and their whole belief system comes crashing down? Whom are they trying to prove it to, me, themselves or others? Is their faith so weak or lacking they need proof?

 

[questfortruth]

Why do Creationists care so much? Why do they try so hard to prove Creationism right and physics wrong? Why do they care about the literalness of Genesis? Are they trying to prove God exists? If Genesis is not literal does that mean God doesn’t exist, and their whole belief system comes crashing down? Whom are they trying to prove it to, me, themselves or others? Is their faith so weak or lacking they need proof?

do not be scared of us, let us live and we let you live.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Molecules and compounds are not life

Correct. They are the building blocks of life.
You know... those complex molecules of which folks like you used to say that they are "too complex" to form naturally.

--the simplest life is more complex than say, New York City, with all of its people, animals, structures, communications, etc.

That's obviously false, since any animal or human or plant is more complex then "the simplest lifeform".

Also, and it seems I am just stating the obvious here but apparently it's necessary, the "simplest lifeform" that we know TODAY, is the result of some 4 billion years of evolution.

First life was vastly simpler then "the simplest" life we know TODAY.

But hey, don't let intellectual honesty get in the way of your assanine "arguments".

 

[Jainarayan]

do not be scared of us, let us live and we let you live.

That’s not true, nor what you want. You want to force creationism on schools and the population at large. Science doesn’t mount campaigns to try to destroy creationism. Science doesn’t even try to counter it. I don’t know what kind of Orthodox Christian you are but when I was Orthodox Christian, creationism v. evolution was not even an issue. How we got here is of no importance. That we are here to give glory to God is what’s important. So don’t even try to backstroke. It’s not even close to being a good try.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Correct. They are the building blocks of life.
You know... those complex molecules of which folks like you used to say that they are "too complex" to form naturally.



That's obviously false, since any animal or human or plant is more complex then "the simplest lifeform".

Also, and it seems I am just stating the obvious here but apparently it's necessary, the "simplest lifeform" that we know TODAY, is the result of some 4 billion years of evolution.

First life was vastly simpler then "the simplest" life we know TODAY.

But hey, don't let intellectual honesty get in the way of your assanine "arguments".

You are misrepresenting my position. Molecules and compounds exist in nature. Single-celled animals are vastly complex, one reason both abiogenesis and creation are faith-based claims.

First life is immensely complex, so much so that I've seen secular scientist who claim even simple life isn't possible, given billions of years, to arise naturally. If we saw a building, would you be given to think it arose when the sun shone on the ocean with vulcanism, even for millions of years of time?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Molecules and ompounds exist in nature.

Not only do they exist. They form quite spontaneously through various natural chemical processes.

Single-celled animals are vastly complex, one reason both abiogenesis and creation are faith-based claims.

You started this post by saying that I'm "misrepresenting your position".
But then you write this and confirm that I was actually VERY ACCURATELY representing your position.

You completely ignore the fact that the "simple life" you observe today is the result of 4 billion years of evolution. You think that first life was like the simplest life that we know of TODAY.

That is just not true. Nore is it what abiogenesis researchers say or look for.
It's a blatant strawman.

First life is immensely complex

Ow? That's quite a claim.
Please provide evidence for it. It will require you to produce a specimen of "first life" so that you can show how complex it was.


Good luck with that.

, so much so that I've seen secular scientist who claim even simple life isn't possible, given billions of years, to arise naturally

I bet they were talking about the simplest life we know of TODAY.
No sane scientist worthy of the name would ignore 4 billion years of evolution.
But go ahead... produce citations of these so-called "scientists" saying those things.

I won't hold my breath.

If we saw a building, would you be given to think it arose when the sun shone on the ocean with vulcanism, even for millions of years of time?

On to the next strawman PRATT already?
The only thing missing now is the "tornado on a junk yard producing a boeing 747"

 

[Tiberius]

Agreed, I'm grateful for the sun's energy. We all are.

Are you claiming abiogenesis was because . . . the sun's energy did what, exactly?

Thanks.

You misunderstand me.

Creationists often claim that abiogenesis is impossible because it would violate the whole "entropy always increases" rule.

My point is that since the Earth gets a whole lot of energy from the sun, then abiogenesis can happen and there is a local DECREASE of entropy on earth, yet the rule is not broken because when we include the source of energy - the Sun - the total entropy of the Sun/Earth combined system still increases.

 

[Tiberius]

First life is immensely complex, so much so that I've seen secular scientist who claim even simple life isn't possible, given billions of years, to arise naturally.

Please, quote one of these secular scientists making such a claim.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not only do they exist. They form quite spontaneously through various natural chemical processes.



You started this post by saying that I'm "misrepresenting your position".
But then you write this and confirm that I was actually VERY ACCURATELY representing your position.

You completely ignore the fact that the "simple life" you observe today is the result of 4 billion years of evolution. You think that first life was like the simplest life that we know of TODAY.

That is just not true. Nore is it what abiogenesis researchers say or look for.
It's a blatant strawman.



Ow? That's quite a claim.
Please provide evidence for it. It will require you to produce a specimen of "first life" so that you can show how complex it was.


Good luck with that.



I bet they were talking about the simplest life we know of TODAY.
No sane scientist worthy of the name would ignore 4 billion years of evolution.
But go ahead... produce citations of these so-called "scientists" saying those things.

I won't hold my breath.



On to the next strawman PRATT already?
The only thing missing now is the "tornado on a junk yard producing a boeing 747"

If what you say is true, please explain to me how abiogenesis worked--I will then recommend you to the Nobel committee for that prize.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You misunderstand me.

Creationists often claim that abiogenesis is impossible because it would violate the whole "entropy always increases" rule.

My point is that since the Earth gets a whole lot of energy from the sun, then abiogenesis can happen and there is a local DECREASE of entropy on earth, yet the rule is not broken because when we include the source of energy - the Sun - the total entropy of the Sun/Earth combined system still increases.

Abiogenesis disobeys other principles, not just entropy.

If I told you the Sun shone on bricks in a pool of water, and then lightning struck the water, and then there was a nearby active volcano, then millions of years later a skyscraper was formed without a designer, you would find that so implausible you might even use the word "impossible".

Or perhaps you would explain abiogenesis here so I can send you to the Nobel committe for your prize.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please, quote one of these secular scientists making such a claim.

Why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If what you say is true, please explain to me how abiogenesis worked--I will then recommend you to the Nobel committee for that prize.

Hilarious how you completely ignored everything I said and then turned around to ask me about things I never claimed to know.

Also hilarious how you completely ignored my request for citations of those mysterious unknown "secular scientists" you supposedly were quoting.

If you can't be bothered to post an intellectually honest reply, then don't bother posting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Abiogenesis disobeys other principles, not just entropy.

"not JUST entropy".
So you are claiming it violates entropy?

Do you realize that you are responding to a post in which it is explained on how it doesn't violate it at all?



And off course, no mention of those "other" principles it supposedly would violate.
And I'll bet money that you won't be mentioning them either.

If I told you the Sun shone on bricks in a pool of water, and then lightning struck the water, and then there was a nearby active volcano, then millions of years later a skyscraper was formed without a designer, you would find that so implausible you might even use the word "impossible".

Yes. I would also point out the immensely intellectually dishonest strawman and false equivalence.

But you don't care, do you?

Or perhaps you would explain abiogenesis here so I can send you to the Nobel committe for your prize.

Alternatively, you could also read up on the research. Something you clearly have never done.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why?

Because when you make claims like that, you will be asked to meet your burden of proof.
But you can't, can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If what you say is true, please explain to me how abiogenesis worked--I will then recommend you to the Nobel committee for that prize.

Not possible. Not that it is impossible to explain abiogenesis. If you cannot understand the simpler fact of evolution there is no way that you are going to understand the more complex problem of abiogenesis.