Because creation is based on science, science and creation are the same thing. The only conflict that the scientists have about this is their theories do not follow the evidence. Actually they ignore the evidence and run on assumptions.
The real facts that we have are
1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life

Everyone knows these facts to be correct, yet the scientists are against all 3.
Yet all 3 support creation.
So who really is going by the scientific evidence? And who really are not?
That is why the scientists can not prove the origins of life is 'abiogenesis' and only assume 'evolution' is anything but a scientists nightmare.
Now if you go strictly by evidence, you have to agree with this.

MrDunsapy wrote:Because creation is based on science

No it isn't, it's based upon mythology.

MrDunsapy wrote:science and creation are the same thing.

Bollocks. Do you have any empirical tests of creationist assertions to bring to the table? I await this eagerly.

MrDunsapy wrote:The only conflict that the scientists have about this is their theories do not follow the evidence.

BLATANT CREATIONIST LIE. Which I addressed in your other thread. Going to READ any of those scientific papers, are you?

MrDunsapy wrote:Actually they ignore the evidence and run on assumptions.

BLATANT CREATIONIST LIE. Which I addressed in that other thread which you've ignored.

MrDunsapy wrote:The real facts that we have are

Oh, going to present some actual FACTS for a change, are you?

MrDunsapy wrote:1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life

Ahem, I demonstrated why your above apologetics is bullshit in the other thread. Going to address that sometime, are you?

MrDunsapy wrote:Everyone knows these facts to be correct, yet the scientists are against all 3.

Poppycock. What scientists are "against" is the erection of fatuous apologetics, followed by pretending that said apologetics reflects reality. Which is all you're offering up here.

MrDunsapy wrote:Yet all 3 support creation.

Bollocks. Go and read the other thread you bailed out of, where I destroyed this nonsense.

MrDunsapy wrote:So who really is going by the scientific evidence? And who really are not?

Creationists have never accepted evidence, when that evidence sticks the middle finger to their precious mythology. Next?

MrDunsapy wrote:That is why the scientists can not prove the origins of life is 'abiogenesis'

Already dealt with your numerous instances of discoursive criminality on this issue, and others, in the other thread you've ignored.

MrDunsapy wrote:and only assume 'evolution' is anything but a scientists nightmare.

Pathetic drivel. Go and read those REAL SCIENTIFIC PAPERS I cited in the other thread, which make a mockery of your vacuous assertions.

MrDunsapy wrote:Now if you go strictly by evidence, you have to agree with this.

Bollocks. GO AND READ THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS CONTAINING THE REAL EVIDENCE, instead of serving made up shit as purportedly constituting "evidence".

Actually this is a creationist forum. No, 'evolutionists' allowed.
Only ones that want to use the science as evidence, are allowed here.

I posted this in other place and it was moved again.

Calilasseia
I noticed you didn't answer even one of my facts.

MrDunsapy wrote:Actually this is a creationist forum. No, 'evolutionists' allowed.
Only ones that want to use the science as evidence, are allowed here.

I posted this in other place and it was moved again.

Yeah. That's so we can avoid stepping in this shit if we choose.

We're arguing with an account called MrDunsapy?

Come on its easy.
1 life comes from life
Is there any scientific evidence this is not true?

MrDunsapy wrote:The real facts that we have are:

1 life comes from life

You're making the assertions, Prove it.

MrDunsapy wrote:2 a human comes from humans

Prove it.

MrDunsapy wrote:3 there is design in life

Prove it.

MrDunsapy wrote:Because creation is based on science, science and creation are the same thing. The only conflict that the scientists have about this is their theories do not follow the evidence. Actually they ignore the evidence and run on assumptions.
The real facts that we have are
1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life

Everyone knows these facts to be correct, yet the scientists are against all 3.
Yet all 3 support creation.
So who really is going by the scientific evidence? And who really are not?
That is why the scientists can not prove the origins of life is 'abiogenesis' and only assume 'evolution' is anything but a scientists nightmare.
Now if you go strictly by evidence, you have to agree with this.

Let's just look at these three "facts," then, and see if they support creationism.

1. Life comes from life.

Is the "creator" alive? What are the properties of the "creator" which conform to current definitions of life?

2. A human comes from humans.

I don't see how this supports creationism. In fact, it supports neither creationism nor evolution. Because it rules out the possibility of humans having come from a "creator" or from a precursor organism. The only thing "fact" #2 allows for is infinitely existent humanity. You'll need to rethink #2 a bit.

3. There is design in life.

Show me this design in life. Show me how it is more obviously design than anything else. All you can do with #3 is assert that something looks designed to you. That isn't useful at all. All I need do to refute it is to point out that it doesn't look designed to me.

This is one of the weakest arguments for creation I have ever seen. Please try harder.

You're making the assertions, Prove it.

This is a fact, there is no evidence that it did not, come from life. All the evidence we have says life come from live. Even the scientists have spent 150 years an billions of dollars , and they still can not say life could just happen. And actually do not have any good stories to how it could. This is like gravity, it is a fact, even though the scientists don't know everything about it. It is a fact and nothing in the future will change that. It even works for the Russians.

So where is the scientific answer that it is not a fact?

The bible says that the first human came from dust, the second from a bone. Hmmm....

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

MrDunsapy wrote:Because creation is based on science, science and creation are the same thing. The only conflict that the scientists have about this is their theories do not follow the evidence. Actually they ignore the evidence and run on assumptions.
The real facts that we have are
1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life

Everyone knows these facts to be correct, yet the scientists are against all 3.
Yet all 3 support creation.
So who really is going by the scientific evidence? And who really are not?
That is why the scientists can not prove the origins of life is 'abiogenesis' and only assume 'evolution' is anything but a scientists nightmare.
Now if you go strictly by evidence, you have to agree with this.

Let's just look at these three "facts," then, and see if they support creationism.

1. Life comes from life.

Is the "creator" alive? What are the properties of the "creator" which conform to current definitions of life?

2. A human comes from humans.

I don't see how this supports creationism. In fact, it supports neither creationism nor evolution. Because it rules out the possibility of humans having come from a "creator" or from a precursor organism. The only thing "fact" #2 allows for is infinitely existent humanity. You'll need to rethink #2 a bit.

3. There is design in life.

Show me this design in life. Show me how it is more obviously design than anything else. All you can do with #3 is assert that something looks designed to you. That isn't useful at all. All I need do to refute it is to point out that it doesn't look designed to me.

This is one of the weakest arguments for creation I have ever seen. Please try harder.

1 intelligence.
2 if all you have is humans, that all you will ever have. there is no monkey business.
3 the easiest way to show you that . Is to ask you to build a human robot. Will it take design?

Onyx8 wrote:The bible says that the first human came from dust, the second from a bone. Hmmm....

All came from life.

MrDunsapy wrote:
1 intelligence.

This is a naked, unsupported assertion.

2 if all you have is humans, that all you will ever have. there is no monkey business.

This is a naked, unsupported assertion.

3 the easiest way to show you that . Is to ask you to build a human robot. Will it take design?

This is not a valid answer to my question. Is this because you are unable to answer my question?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
1. Life comes from life.

Is the "creator" alive? What are the properties of the "creator" which conform to current definitions of life?

2. A human comes from humans.

I don't see how this supports creationism. In fact, it supports neither creationism nor evolution. Because it rules out the possibility of humans having come from a "creator" or from a precursor organism. The only thing "fact" #2 allows for is infinitely existent humanity. You'll need to rethink #2 a bit.

3. There is design in life.

Show me this design in life. Show me how it is more obviously design than anything else. All you can do with #3 is assert that something looks designed to you. That isn't useful at all. All I need do to refute it is to point out that it doesn't look designed to me.

Try again, please.

MrDunsapy wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:The bible says that the first human came from dust, the second from a bone. Hmmm....

All came from life.

But not from other humans.

There goes your no. 2.

This is a naked, unsupported assertion.

Machines come from intelligence. all life are biological machines.

But not from other humans.

There goes your no. 2.

# 2 is supported by #1. life comes from life. And life coming from life supports creation.

MrDunsapy wrote:

This is a naked, unsupported assertion.

Machines come from intelligence. all life are biological machines.

In what way are you saying that life is a machine? If I can show you a machine that was not produced by an intelligence, what will that mean for your argument? Which definition of "machine" are you using? Because there are some definitions of "machine" which do allow for undesigned machines.

You are not supporting any of your assertions. You are merely making more assertions. Is this because you understand you haven't a leg to stand on?

MrDunsapy wrote:

But not from other humans.

There goes your no. 2.

# 2 is supported by #1. life comes from life. And life coming from life supports creation.

No it isn't. #2 requires a HUMAN creator. Otherwise humans can't have come from it.