Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Charles Darwin has probably contributed more complete stupidity to the world of science than any other one man.

Sometimes the comments thread reveals SO MUCH.   I will be posting in this color.   I will let the anonymous commenter to remain in black.    

I get so many comments along this line, I wanted to make sure those who read these posts but never look at the comments thread could see the paucity of evidence that anonymous Darwinists actually bring to the table.   I must say, if you were starving and Darwinism was your food source, you would be better off with stone soup!  After years hearing from Darwinists and seeing the pathetic substitutes for evidence presented by them, I have come to a conclusion:

Charles Darwin has probably contributed more complete stupidity to the world of science than any other one man. 

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The God Particle? There is still no free lunch in...

So much verbiage, so little sense.

You do not care for logic and reason?   You do not like observational science?   We have kept a good measurement of the Earth's magnetic field and this tells us the Earth is young.   We have observed the Solar System more closely by various space missions and the findings have shown us a young set of planets and moons which could not have possibly formed from a cloud of space dust and are quite young.   We have studied life and proved it cannot come from non-life.  Further study tells us that life is designed and packed full of information by a coding system far more advanced than any we use.  We have found that carbon-14 dating merely proves that all fossils are less than 50,000 years old and almost all of them must have been preserved by the violent actions of the Noahic Flood.   If you wish to talk about the "Big Bang", your equations are missing 96% of the matter and energy needed, you have no first cause, cannot identify what the  initial "singularity" could have been or where it could have come from, nor can you give an account of how such a mythical explosion could have created a Universe full of logical laws and processes and information.   You cannot explain how stars form, because we have found that new stars can only form from the remains of dead ones.  You cannot explain the formation of moons and planets because accretion from dust clouds has been falsified completely.  

The fundamental logic problem remains unaddressed: no answer is not synonymous with asserting nobody or nothing did something, so you can't make that leap of logic here. Scientists don't yet know how something occurred, so they're claiming nothing did it, so I'll make fun of that here. It's not an intelligent line of reasoning, Radar.


Of course it is!   You have no cause, no purpose, no means, no method, no evidence, no reason to believe such tripe other than the desire to avoid the First Cause.   

Scientists for the vast majority of human history have agreed that the Universe was caused and that God caused it.  This was sensible and fit the evidence.   Occam's Razor.  But around the time Hutton began promoting Uniformitarian geology (1795), there was a general unease among the elites who did not want to be beholden to a God.   Thus we eventually got a Darwin to promote evolution and during the 20th Century here in the USA it began to gain widespread acceptance.   Unfortunately Darwinism is unsupported by observation, it is in opposition to the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Thermodynamics, among other problems.   

21st Century Darwinists still have no evidence for a Big Bang, it continues to exist as a myth for religious reasons.   A Universe and an Earth and all life and all physical processes and laws created by a Supernatural God fits all the evidence.   Creationists do not have to resort to fudge factors and bizzare fairy tales.   Just try looking at the various stories spun by people like Guth and Hawking from a logical place and they are made up of nothing squared.   Some of the myths are so hilarious!!   Nothing split in half into matter and anti-matter and energy and anti-energy?   WHAT?  Better go back and investigate what nothing is.   Yes, if you subtract one from zero you get minus one.  But that is a manipulation of existing numbers.   If there is not yet a Universe, there are no numbers and there is not even a such a thing as "nothing" because that word must go hand in hand with something.   No Universe, no something OR nothing.   There is less than nothing.  There are no concepts, no time, no power or energy without a material existence.  

The creep of worldviews was evident even at the end of the 19th Century.  I have a geology textbook dated 1895 that asserts that all sedimentary layers were formed by aqueous actions and yet at the same time assigned them to various geological ages.   Uniformitarianism had convinced the writers to accept long ages of Earth while still recognizing that the sedimentary layers had been formed catastrophically by water.   Science was puzzling itself by the insertion of long ages and naturalistic materialism at that time.

So naturally these Darwinist scientists could not tolerate the idea of God as Creator and began to try to propose a natural explanation for existence.  They proposed an eternal Universe but the LOT falsified that one.  They tried a sequence of expanding and contracting Universes until they did the math and realized that the Universe could not collect enough gravity in one area to pull in the still-expanding (apparently) sum of existence and bring it together in order to explode and expand again.   These simplistic concepts of course ignore any concept of design, even though the Universe displays design from macro to micro everywhere we look.  
 
None of your alleged falsifications of the theory of evolution or an old Earth hold water. They've actually all been ripped to pieces on your own blog. Some don't even pass the laugh test.


That is an unsupported and ridiculous statement.   I present reams of material with all sorts of references to books, journals and articles by scientists and you expect people to buy that statement from you, whoever you are?   Nobody has ripped my assertions concerning the age of the Earth to pieces.  You cannot even give one example, can you?  Like most anonymous commenters, you really have nothing to say other than to blather on about how wrong I am and how right you are.   As a guy named William said, "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!"   I will mention that again later.

You do know what the theory of evolution is, right? And that it has nothing to do with abiogenesis? Maybe not.


Well, I am being logical.  If life evolved then it evolved from what, exactly?   If you say God made a simple organism and evolution took over, then I will ask you why you accept God made life but refuse to believe His account that specifies that all kinds of creatures were made at the beginning.  On the other hand, if you eliminate God, then you have to account for life evolving from non-life.  Which do you choose?  You cannot have it both ways.

Abiogenesis is a ridiculous word representing a ridiculous concept.   There is absolutely no evidence that life can form from non-life.   Pasteur proved this to the entire scientific world and all agreed back around the time Darwin was preparing his first book.   Charles Darwin has probably contributed more complete stupidity to the world of science than any other one man.  His preposterous ideas are more ludicrous than those of L.Ron Hubbard, who at least had the decency to identify himself as a science fiction writer at one point in his life.   Darwin's concept of evolution is the biggest waste of time ever foisted upon humanity.   Billions of dollars, billions of man-hours wasted on trying to prove it or find evidence to support it that should have gone into curing disease or building more efficient sources of energy.   Meanwhile his philosophies gave convenient excuses for massacres under ruthless tyrants like Stalin and Hitler or more subtle deaths and sterilizations promoted by Eugenics.


Human population on Earth is not consistent in any way with a starting point 4000 years ago. We would not be standing on each other's heads if population size was simply stable for a long time, which is what one would expect in many cases. If what you're alleging were true, we would be drowning in all kinds of animals. (You may have heard of the bunny blunder - it's been mentioned on your blog more than once - never thought to look into it?)


Yes, the so-called bunny blunder is what we like to call bovine excrement.   Population genetics tells us that the population of Earth has been following the standard sigmoidal curve for many centuries and there is no reason to doubt that it will continue to do so.  We can follow the curve back to a beginning of the population about 4,000 some-odd years ago.  I am applying scientific principles here, well-established population growth patterns that humans just happen to fit into neatly.   There is no "bunny blunder" with the human race, there is just a large population of Darwinists who prefer myth to logic and fairy tales to history.  The real bunny blunder is that evolution is equivalent to the Easter Bunny in terms of factual support.   The likely existence of the Easter Bunny is on par with the likelihood of Darwinist evolution actually happening.

What happens is devolution.   Populations of organisms begin losing genetic material and accumulating mutations.  Some varieties go extinct and apparently even entire kinds!   God in His wisdom created several kinds of organisms to fill the same ecological niche.  If all the cattle are gone, we still have sheep and goats.  Should sharks die off, we still have killer whales.   Natural selection is part of the speciation process, which is integral to a created population of organisms being able to adjust to changes in climate or predators or whatever ecological changes are presented.   The gene pool of organisms was created with a vast amount of possible configurations and not only does natural selection simply choose from traits that were pre-existent in organisms, there are shortcuts built into the reproductive process to hasten certain changes to help organisms avoid extinction.   Rapid speciation has been observed and noted on this blog previously, another bullet in the Flood gun so to speak.   But it is pre-existing genetic materials produced within the DNA code that allow for variation within kinds, not mutations.   Mutations are mistakes and DNA even has mutation-removal processes built in to eliminate them, because mutations are broken code, not a means to build new things.  Evolution is exactly backwards. 
 
And so on.


Indeed!  I have many times pointed out that the Earth has historically had a reducing atmosphere according to the rocks we study, which means that the "building blocks of life" could never have formed and survived even if Darwinists could figure out a way they might be formed in the first place, which they cannot.  Life needs oxygen to survive but could not develop in oxygen-rich atmospheres.   No matter, the chirality problem, the coding problem and numerous other problems preclude life from forming on Earth naturally anyway.   I have pointed out that DNA is a sophisticated coding system far beyond human ability to replicate fully or utilize the way the cell uses it.  We are finding that the cell is a remarkably sophisticated and efficient biological mega-factory in miniature that is far more advanced than we are.  Science is learning FROM organisms about design and efficiency.   But you want to ignore such things for religious reasons.

You keep repeating the same talking points and when they're refuted, you run away. But you don't learn. You don't listen or understand the points made. If you do believe that your assertions are true, then surely there must be a way to address the counter-arguments intelligently instead of turning a blind eye to them.


Run away?  That is a joke! I am still waiting for any so-called refutations to appear.  I have asked and pleaded and begged Darwinists to answer basic questions that are fundamental to the existence of life and information and, well, existence!   They do not give me answers.   For instance, this comment of yours is totally devoid of any arguments or refutations and that is probably because you do not have them.

If Big Bang theology is not "nothing exploded into everything" I welcome a better description.   It is the most honest description of lackluster and content-free so-called science I can imagine.   


The fact that creationists can't do this is why they're rightly ignored by the scientific community, and why you have to concoct conspiracy theories to explain the lack of acceptance of your dogma. 


No, it is a common thing in the history of humanity that religious dumbbells stand in the way of truth and the furtherance of man's knowledge.   I have often referred to the matter of geocentricism.   It was actually Christian/Theistic scientists who promoted a heliocentric Solar System and it was not the Christians who fought the idea, it was the "scholars" of the day who did not wish to revise their views about the Solar System or anything else.   Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Brahe - they were all believers in God who promoted a systematic study of the stars and Solar System.   These men led the charge to toss Aristotlean thought aside and eventually paved the way to acceptance of a heliocentic Solar System.   We all know that this is true, now.  But back then it was a long struggle.

Now the long struggle for science to overcome scientism and the temporary disease of Darwinism must be cured for the world of science to advance properly.   Intelligent Design movement scientists have kicked a lot of good ideas and practical applications of reasoned science down the road.  Creation scientists have also made many great discoveries and in fact most disciplines within science were begun by a Christian or at least a Theist.   Christian men trusted in a Logical God and therefore invested time in discovering how things worked, believing that processes could be understood and perhaps harnessed or controlled for the good of mankind.   

Darwinism, in the end leads to despair.  If the world is a random accident of blind chance, who is to say it will be here in another second or last for another thousand years?   If there is no reason or purpose to existence, why do we live?   If there is no particular value in life, what value is there to yours?  As to your neighbor's life, to his belongings, is there no moral imperative to stop you from taking them?   

Shakespeare had Macbeth utter these words in act five of The Scottish Play:


To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, 
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day 
To the last syllable of recorded time, 
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools 
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! 
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player 
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage 
And then is heard no more: it is a tale 
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, 
Signifying nothing. 

Solomon, having tried all the pleasures of the world because of his position of great power and wealth, wrote these words in chapter one of Ecclesiastes:

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
    vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3 What does man gain by all the toil
    at which he toils under the sun?
4 A generation goes, and a generation comes,
    but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
    and hastens to the place where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
    and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
    and on its circuits the wind returns.
7 All streams run to the sea,
    but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
    there they flow again.
8 All things are full of weariness;
    a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
    nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 What has been is what will be,
    and what has been done is what will be done,
    and there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there a thing of which it is said,
    “See, this is new”?
It has been already
    in the ages before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things,
    nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
    among those who come after.


You who read these words, you need to understand this one point!   If your entire focus is on things "under the sun" you will have a life that does not amount to anything meaningful.   You may choose to believe Macbeth's utterance of melancholy despair and see life as brief and worthless.   You may ascribe the existence of all things to random chance and worship at the alter of self-indulgence and thoughtlessly accept Darwinism and Socialism and any other -ism without pause, being self-centered and otherwise uncaring.   

Wisdom is in understanding what is important in life.  Seek truth and love and meaning while you live, find God and invest in people rather than things.  Teach your children and your children's children to love God and follow Him and care about others.  This is wisdom and fulfillment.   I only write this blog to help people, to give them a choice other than Darwinist Mythology and hopefully point them to Christ and Truth.

Ecclesiastes 12


1 Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, “I have no pleasure in them”; 
2 before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars are darkened and the clouds return after the rain, 
3 in the day when the keepers of the house tremble, and the strong men are bent, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those who look through the windows are dimmed, 
4 and the doors on the street are shut—when the sound of the grinding is low, and one rises up at the sound of a bird, and all the daughters of song are brought low— 
5 they are afraid also of what is high, and terrors are in the way; the almond tree blossoms, the grasshopper drags itself along, and desire fails, because man is going to his eternal home, and the mourners go about the streets— 
6 before the silver cord is snapped, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern, 
7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. 
8 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher; all is vanity.

Fear God and Keep His Commandments

9 Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. 
10 The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth.

11 The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. 
12 My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. 
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.


Consider the gauntlet flung down.  WHAT evidence for a natural First Cause do you have?

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Consider the gauntlet flung down. WHAT evidence for a natural First Cause do you have?"

Flung right back at you. How do we know there is a First Cause, natural or otherwise?

radar said...

Well, when someone challenges you then you are expected to give an answer first.

You do not have an answer, right? You realize you are deflecting the question because you have no evidence? Everyone see that? Okay, good.

Now I will answer you despite your failure.

We know there is a First Cause because the Universe obeys the Laws of Thermodynamics. It is running downhill. Nothing is being created or destroyed in the natural world. You could say energy is converting to entropy, or that heat is converting to cold, or order into disorder. This is as relentless a process as we have seen.

Because nothing is being created or destroyed in the material world, and because the Universe is "running down" we know it is running down from a starting point.

The Bible (far and away the most well-documented book in the history of mankind) states that a Supernatural God created the Universe and everything in it. While Darwinists want to put the Bible into a a glass case as "religion" they need to reconsider, for Atheism and Humanism are also religious beliefs. Naturalism is a religious belief. Perhaps you prefer "worldview?"

In any event, you cannot bring the writings of Darwin into the discussion and keep the Bible out. You cannot bring in your philosophy and preclude that of others.

The Bible is not just a book of history, but it contains history and we find that the history of the Bible gets supported by archaeological findings in the Holy Land and surrounding areas.

We also find that all cultures have versions of the creation and flood and most have a dispersal story as well. Virtually all cultures built ziggurats and pyramids and mounds, a probably result of the influence of the Tower of Babel. Some cultures have warped stories that sound like Jabberwocky but some are still quite similar to the Biblical accounts.

In any case, the Bible account fits the evidence, provides God as First Cause. God had means, motive and opportunity to create a Universe and He asserts that He did do so. Should it surprise us that a Creator God would communicate with us? It would be likely rather than unlikely if He was a God of love. If God was an uncaring Supreme Being randomly creating myriad universes like an elephant using a trunk-held brush to splash paint on material canvases to delight elitists, then perhaps we would have no message or explanation for life.

But we do. Now, how about you stepping up and giving us your first cause from natural sources?

Anonymous said...

"You do not have an answer, right? You realize you are deflecting the question because you have no evidence? Everyone see that? Okay, good."

Nonsense.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"
"Is there any evidence at all that I ever beat my wife?"
"You do not have an answer, right? You realize you are deflecting the question? Everyone see that? Okay, good."

Your grasp on basic logic has always been tenuous, Radar. Before you can insist that a question must be answered, you have to be able to establish the fundamentals it is based on.

It appears that you can't do this, and you are now deflecting. Thanks for playing.

radar said...

"When did you stop beating your wife?"
"Is there any evidence at all that I ever beat my wife?"
"You do not have an answer, right? You realize you are deflecting the question? Everyone see that? Okay, good."



The comment above illustrates how many people get cranked out of the school systems without the ability to logically reason.

Your lame response is an insult to the readers and me. We know there is a Universe. So give us a first cause for it, as a naturalist, or admit that you don't have one.

Darwinists proclaim that they can explain it via a Big Bang.

Is there any evidence at all that any natural force or process could begin a Universe? No. You are not being accused of beating your wife. You are the people who say you can explain the Universe having begun.

So let's make this simple. You can deny that natural forces began the Universe, which makes sense as we have no evidence that they could.

You can claim that they did it but you have no evidence to back it up. That also would be an honest answer.

In both cases, I would then ask you why you abandoned the position science took for granted for so many hundreds of years, a position that does have evidence to support it, creation by Supernatural Being?
Is it scientific to toss away what is agreed upon without new evidence?

The teleological argument remains valid.

The Law of Biogenesis is being ignored despite no evidence that it has been overturned or even challenged. In fact, the more we learn about organisms, the cell and DNA the more apparent it becomes that design is a fact.

The Laws of Thermodynamics are ignored when they do not fit the Darwinist view of evolution. Another unscientific and unsupported act on the part of Darwinists.

I have a wealth of evidence for a God-created Universe. The Bible asserts it. The composition of stars and planets and moons confirms it. The design of organisms practically screams it. Everything was designed with spectacular variety and beauty and functionality. It is falling apart as time goes by. This is what one would expect of a Universe begun supernaturally and then allowed to run naturally with little or no outside interference.

William Paley's watch required both a watchmaker and someone to both wind and set the watch. The Universe was created, set and wound up. It is ticking away, designed, and we are expected to see the design and beauty and variety and understand that there is a God.

Meanwhile you talk about beating an imaginary wife? Pathetic. Step up or go away.

Anonymous said...

"So give us a first cause for it, as a naturalist, or admit that you don't have one."

You assume that there must have been a first cause, but that in itself is speculative. We don't know what, in our understanding of time, happened before a certain point in time. The best we can conclude from the observations we can make is what amounts to the Big Bang. The Big Bang lines up with our observations.

We don't know what could have happened before the BB. It could have been the God you worship, it could have been something else. It could have been something that fundamentally altered what we know as the laws of nature today. Before the BB, they could have been completely different. What we do know in all of these cases is that it is beyond our comprehension - even in your God example.

"Meanwhile you talk about beating an imaginary wife? Pathetic. Step up or go away."

If you really didn't understand it, that was to point out the utter lack of logic in your reply. In both your demand for a first cause and the demand to explain when a person first stopped beating his wife, the connecting point is that the fundamentals have not been established. You have not established that there must have been a first cause, and the imaginary questioner in the example had not established that the person questioned had in fact beaten his wife.

In the meantime, thank you for conceding that Creation Scientists have not managed to calibrate existing data to line up with their young Earth dreams.

Anonymous said...

"In both cases, I would then ask you why you abandoned the position science took for granted for so many hundreds of years, a position that does have evidence to support it, creation by Supernatural Being? Is it scientific to toss away what is agreed upon without new evidence?"

Classic. You realize that this blows YEC out of the water, right?

Anonymous said...

"The Law of Biogenesis is being ignored despite no evidence that it has been overturned or even challenged. In fact, the more we learn about organisms, the cell and DNA the more apparent it becomes that design is a fact."

There is no reason to ignore the Law of Biogenesis for the theory of evolution to be valid. The Law of Biogenesis was only ever tested at the level of complex life, and as such is self-evident and irrelevant to abiogenesis at the molecular level, where an alleged impossibility of abiogenesis has never been tested or proven.

"The Laws of Thermodynamics are ignored when they do not fit the Darwinist view of evolution. Another unscientific and unsupported act on the part of Darwinists."

The Laws of Thermodynamics are not ignored and don't need to be ignored for the theory of evolution to be valid. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that violates the the LOT. Not unless you want to claim that, say, reproduction with variation violates the LOT. If so, please explain how you think this is the case.

Anonymous said...

Anon: "The fundamental logic problem remains unaddressed: no answer is not synonymous with asserting nobody or nothing did something, so you can't make that leap of logic here. Scientists don't yet know how something occurred, so they're claiming nothing did it, so I'll make fun of that here. It's not an intelligent line of reasoning, Radar."

Radar: "Of course it is! You have no cause, no purpose, no means, no method, no evidence, no reason to believe such tripe other than the desire to avoid the First Cause."

Trying to change the subject again, eh?

No answer is not synonymous with asserting nobody or nothing did something. Clear as day. A six-year-old would get that. But not you.

radar said...

"No answer is not synonymous with asserting nobody or nothing did something. Clear as day. A six-year-old would get that. But not you.
1:57 AM "

No answer is synonymous with ignorance. If you wish to be proud of ignorance, go for it. But science is about finding answers, not casting them aside.

There are two main points you are missing:

1) We had an answer for the First Cause, God. There was no evidence that came along to falsify that answer. It fits the evidence. Clearly Darwinists abandoned God for religious reasons, as they have no scientific ones.

2) We do have a finite Universe, so when Darwinists claim to have an answer, I ask them to give me a first cause for a singularity and the power to make it explode and all the rest of the mythology and then they say, "I don't know?" That is science? Duh is an answer? I would not care to depend on Duh as a fundamental building block of a worldview.

I would not expect a six year old to have a naturalistic first cause for the Universe. But if adults cannot come up with one, they should admit that the only answer that fits the evidence is the Creator God. Because you not only do not have an answer, you have no hope of obtaining one!

Leticia said...

Radar, again another impressive post.

Darwin had it all wrong and I believe and hope he truly did change his theory.

I believe in divine creation and I support everything you said.

WELL DONE!! You most certainly do your research.

Anonymous said...

"No answer is synonymous with ignorance. If you wish to be proud of ignorance, go for it."

It's nothing to do with pride. On the other hand, there is no shame in not knowing something and being aware of that. And in this case it is true, we don't know if the Universe had a beginning, and if it had a beginning, we don't know exactly how it began. That's a fact.

"But science is about finding answers, not casting them aside."

Yes, but science goes about finding answers in a specific, scientific way. Mere speculation isn't good enough.

"1) We had an answer for the First Cause, God."

It was never a scientific answer, only a speculative, mythological one, one of many unscientific creation myths that man devised.

"There was no evidence that came along to falsify that answer."

There was no evidence in favor of it, so there is nothing to falsify. The lack of scientific evidence for God is sufficient to make one doubt the existence of God.

"It fits the evidence."

A young Earth is falsified by numerous dating methods. Creation instead of evolution is falsified by many things, including the sequential nature of the fossil record.

"Clearly Darwinists abandoned God for religious reasons, as they have no scientific ones."

There are plenty of scientific reasons.

"2) We do have a finite Universe,"

Speculative. We don't know this for sure.

"so when Darwinists claim to have an answer, I ask them to give me a first cause for a singularity and the power to make it explode and all the rest of the mythology and then they say, "I don't know?" That is science? Duh is an answer?"

Actually it is. Science doesn't say we know all things right now. Science has to be specific about what we know and don't know. And if there is not enough evidence to know something for sure, it would be unscientific to claim an answer.

"I would not care to depend on Duh as a fundamental building block of a worldview."

Yet you depend on a speculative supernatural deity as the fundamental building block of your worldview.

"I would not expect a six year old to have a naturalistic first cause for the Universe."

I would expect a six year old to understand that no answer doesn't mean an assertion that nothing did something, as you keep falsely claiming.

"But if adults cannot come up with one, they should admit that the only answer that fits the evidence is the Creator God."

But it doesn't even fit the evidence, so it certainly can't be the default option that you claim.

"Because you not only do not have an answer, you have no hope of obtaining one!"

You don't have a scientific answer either, so don't pat yourself on the back just yet.

radar said...

Yes, creation science does have an scientific answer for the Universe and life and all material existence. Science is a branch of study that came naturally from philosophy. What we see as modern science was "built" by men who understood that God made everything because it was the conclusion that thinking men made based on observation and historical evidence.

The Law of Biogenesis was also established with best evidence available after years of testing and re-testing.

No scientific evidence has been uncovered to falsify either God as the First Cause or the Law of Biogenesis. Therefore the men and women who have cast aside these previously established best explanations have done so for religious/philosophical reasons.

Nobody has falsified God. We can see that the Universe is finite and had a beginning and is heading for an ending. If you claim that "new information" caused us to abandon God, that is simply not true. We seem to observe a Universe that is expanding (Bible confirms this) and that the Earth is in a very unusually great place within our galaxy and the Universe to be able to observe what is out there while being protected from most of the dangers. I could go on, but the bottom line is that God as Creator does not require fudge factors and gives an identity to the miracle of existence.

Same with the LOB. No one discovered life forming from non-life. Desperate Darwnists seeking ways for life to come from non-life have just proven to all by testing that the components cannot form in the wild or exist long enough to somehow come together and form a living organism. In fact, science really cannot even identify "life" separate from an organism, any more than they can explain the force of gravity.

Darwinists spend billions of dollars and man-hours basically trying to find a way out of the dilemma of being created by God. Darwin became an Atheopath like his grandfather and others like him have pushed Darwinism with stories and pretty pictures and false claims.

I know Darwinists have destroyed evidence, made up evidence, tried to promote fraudulent evidence and have a habit of finding a couple of bone fragments and hiring an artist to make an impressive rendering of a mythical beast to con the public. How many times will John Q Public swallow Nebraska Man or Lucy or Pakicetus or the Haeckel Embryo chart whole? You guys depend on the public being self-focused and easily misled. Darwinism = all sizzle, no steak.

radar said...

So from the "answers" that commenters have NOT provided, that not one of you have a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the Universe. It is not eternal, so it needed to be created somehow. If you cannot come up with one, it proves that you had no reason to abandon creation by God and therefore you are driven by religion and not science. This makes Darwinism anti-science. That is why we call it Scientism.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, creation science does have an scientific answer for the Universe and life and all material existence."

Okay, where is it?

"So from the "answers" that commenters have NOT provided, that not one of you have a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the Universe. It is not eternal, so it needed to be created somehow."

You're assuming facts not in evidence. We don't know if the universe is eternal or not, and there your logic falls apart.