Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

erroneous ASSumption.

Prove otherwise.

asked and answered

Nope.

 

[daws101]

How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.

of course there would be discussion.
even among belivers there's a constant dialog about how and why god does what it does.

But you see we have no way to explain how creation happened period.

Yeah and I guess you are right there would be plenty to speak about but if your presuppositions were more accurate we would be getting better explanations as to why or how.

it's been explained successfully, you are unwilling or unable to accept the answers.
BTW no one's presuppositions are less accurate then yours.

 

[Montrovant]

I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.

I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.

I reject Any science that rejects design.

You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are experiencing entropy.

Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.

Science is about trying to explain the natural, observable world. The cuckoo is for your apparent desire to mix the supernatural and science. It is not that you believe in the supernatural, it is that you pretend the supernatural is explained through science.

If God exists which I have no doubt he does,was supernatural powers used to create ? If supernatural forces were used to create how do you think science could ever come up with accurate explanations of the evidence when they rule out supernatural forces being behind the design we see ?

There may be any number of things which can never be explained scientifically. There may be a god that created everything. That shouldn't mean that science should encompass the unobservable or that god should be an answer to questions which scientists are attempting to answer. Unless god can be defined far more accurately, that beings existence is simply outside the realm of scientific inquiry. It is not a matter of ruling out god, it is being unable to prove or test or observe or even define god.

I have no doubt that many scientists of various fields believe in god(s). I have no doubt that many scientists believe some sort of god(s) created the universe. Many no doubt believe in various forms of the supernatural, religious or otherwise. None of that explains how a study of the natural world can incorporate the supernatural. Unless the supernatural is able to be explained in such a way it is no longer 'super', the two simply don't mix.

Let me give this caveat : all that I have said is what I believe science is supposed to be. We are all only human, scientists or otherwise, so certainly there are going to be times when people attempt to use supernatural explanations as scientific answers even if they shouldn't.

 

[FurthurBB]

I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.

I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.

I reject Any science that rejects design.

You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are experiencing entropy.

Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.

Why do you keep posting this lie? Do you think god needs you to lie for him/it/her/them?

How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.

Because we have witnessed macroevolution. As you have been told at least 10 times.

 

[FurthurBB]

I accept evolution but not macro-evolution.

The point is the guy was such an atheist even though he knows that not one DNA molecule could have come in to existence on it's own still did not want to believe in that designer of that and many DNA molecules.

It just goes to show atheist will believe anything so they don't have to believe in the creator. What a tool, he can believe on one hand there is no way it happened naturally and then turn and defend abogenesis. What credibility do some scientists possess ?

Another lie! Do you think lying is moral if it makes people believe your nonsense?

If he says the probability of a DNA molecule being formed in a natural means is pretty much impossible then defend abiogenesis that is a contradiction.

So you think because someone because someone has a different view then you have is a liar ?

I think you are a liar because you have already been told that Crick not only believed in every tenet of evolution, but also believed in abiogenesis. Also, you have been told that the quote cannot be traced back to Crick and has been attributed to at least 4 other people. Even if he did say it, which he may have, he thought that abiogenesis would have been a rare event and after it happened the life would have been spread around on meteors or other space debris instead of popping up different places.

 

[FurthurBB]

I don't find much in your posts to respond to.

But you just admitted that natural selection is a thinking process and it is not,eliminates the weak. Thank God for that or we would all die from harmful mutations since they do cause more harm then good. I ask you to prove otherwise,I know because I saw the efffects of mutations up close.

But that is just more evidence of design because without natural selection bad genes would spread through the whole population and we would all be deformed or dead. Why is this so hard for you people to grasp ?

But not just natural selection do we have eliminating bad genes but we have a mechanism that works to correct these errors.Then if that don't work nature eliminates them through natural selection. So God gave us a back up plan.

It's funny you guys think that these mechanisms only work to eliminate harmful mutations.

Mutations can and do mess with the information just like the noise on your radio or T.V. Mutations mess with the signal get it ?

Are you one of those people who lie every time you open your mouth even if it is against your best interest? Maybe it is pathological and you believe your lies.

I don't lie,I give my opinions. Must you continue to try and insult me with your posts ?

Doesn't it make you look like a small person ?

What I am supposed to say when someone continuously lies like you do? You are not giving opinions when you say that macroevolution has never been witnessed when it has. You are obviously not giving your opinion when you misrepresent what other people just said to you. Is it an insult to call a someone a thief when they just absconded with your purse? Is it an insult to call someone a murderer when you just witnessed them murdering someone? I think not.

 

[FurthurBB]

well said!
to me the massive amount of crap ywc posts just proves the saying: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

Refute what was said or you are simply speaking from your rectum.

no need. your massive steaming piles refute themselves.

The sad thing is You does not even realize it because they obviously do not understand. People who understand a subject can put things in their own words with a link to the original source.

 

[cbirch2]

Well I have several different discovery channels,and I have watched shows that cover the universe and shows that show secularlist archaeologist digging for biblical ruins To verify .there is a lot evidence from bible that hey have confirmed then you know of.

King david has been confirmed and the walls of Jericho just to name a few.

"I have watched shows that cover the universe"

That must be why you say things like "a spinning rock exploded", and cant understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the significance of particle physics at the moment of the big bang. If you dont understand the 12 fermions, the 4 bosons that carry force, and the higgs boson as well, then you cant have an actual understanding of the big bang.

And you totally ignored the fact that you think god gives people leprosy, once again.

Are you trying to duck the questions I'm asking ? By trying to change the subject. And I did show you according to the scriptures God did punish with the disease of leprosy. Don't you kind of find it funny that your side says they can track it back only so far and it just happens to be in agreement with the bible.

You proved something?

I remember you reading a bunch of bible verses and showing it off as proof.

God has never given anyone leprosy. 6000 years ago idiot goat-herders thought god was punishing them because they didnt understand that they had come in contact with a bacteria. they contracted leprosy just like anyone does today.

Prove to me that god has infected someone with leprosy. And remember that the bible is not proof of the bible. If the bible says that god gave someone leprosy, that matters to me about as much as JK Rowling saying voldemort gave harry potter his scar.

 

[cbirch2]

You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ? So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?

And you are wrong. Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ? The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact until proven otherwise.

You don't see something wrong with that ? That is disengenious at the highest degree. When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.

Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.

Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.

And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?

Hmmm??

I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.

There is nothing other than secular science. Science is by definition secular. If your definition of "real science" is science that is biased towards one faith, then your a fucking idiot.

 

[cbirch2]

I am still waiting for someone to provide a code or language or some form of communication with empirical evidence that it cane in to existence naturally absent of intelligence ? How bout mutations being the same thing as noise to a electronic signal and the questions I asked.

What the fuck!

IM POINTING YOU TO DNA YOU GOD DAMN MORON.

Nucleotides form naturally therefore the code for DNA forms naturally because nucleotides are the code for DNA.

Game set match now shut the fuck up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

of course there would be discussion.
even among belivers there's a constant dialog about how and why god does what it does.

But you see we have no way to explain how creation happened period.

Yeah and I guess you are right there would be plenty to speak about but if your presuppositions were more accurate we would be getting better explanations as to why or how.

it's been explained successfully, you are unwilling or unable to accept the answers.
BTW no one's presuppositions are less accurate then yours.

Try it again,you can do it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science is about trying to explain the natural, observable world. The cuckoo is for your apparent desire to mix the supernatural and science. It is not that you believe in the supernatural, it is that you pretend the supernatural is explained through science.

If God exists which I have no doubt he does,was supernatural powers used to create ? If supernatural forces were used to create how do you think science could ever come up with accurate explanations of the evidence when they rule out supernatural forces being behind the design we see ?

There may be any number of things which can never be explained scientifically. There may be a god that created everything. That shouldn't mean that science should encompass the unobservable or that god should be an answer to questions which scientists are attempting to answer. Unless god can be defined far more accurately, that beings existence is simply outside the realm of scientific inquiry. It is not a matter of ruling out god, it is being unable to prove or test or observe or even define god.

I have no doubt that many scientists of various fields believe in god(s). I have no doubt that many scientists believe some sort of god(s) created the universe. Many no doubt believe in various forms of the supernatural, religious or otherwise. None of that explains how a study of the natural world can incorporate the supernatural. Unless the supernatural is able to be explained in such a way it is no longer 'super', the two simply don't mix.

Let me give this caveat : all that I have said is what I believe science is supposed to be. We are all only human, scientists or otherwise, so certainly there are going to be times when people attempt to use supernatural explanations as scientific answers even if they shouldn't.

Think about it,if your presuppositions are based on a natural process it will affect how you ;look at the evidence because you are trying to show it happened in a natural way without someone doing it through super natural power.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do you keep posting this lie? Do you think god needs you to lie for him/it/her/them?

How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.

Because we have witnessed macroevolution. As you have been told at least 10 times.

There is no real scientist that will say they saw macro-evolution occurr. They have saw micro-adaptations but never macro-evolution. If you are speaking of Douglas Theobald his evidence of macro-evolution has been thouroughly refuted.

When you make a comment like this you are going agains't the science community we can not see macro-evolution in our lifetime because it takes too long.

Bacteria that Theobald said evolved was nothing more then adapting bacterium they were still bacterium.

That is not macro-evolution that is micro-adaptations.

Sorry to disappoint you but it was not macro-evolution that was observed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another lie! Do you think lying is moral if it makes people believe your nonsense?

If he says the probability of a DNA molecule being formed in a natural means is pretty much impossible then defend abiogenesis that is a contradiction.

So you think because someone because someone has a different view then you have is a liar ?

I think you are a liar because you have already been told that Crick not only believed in every tenet of evolution, but also believed in abiogenesis. Also, you have been told that the quote cannot be traced back to Crick and has been attributed to at least 4 other people. Even if he did say it, which he may have, he thought that abiogenesis would have been a rare event and after it happened the life would have been spread around on meteors or other space debris instead of popping up different places.

Look in case you don't understand Crick said it would be virtually impossible for one DNA molecule to form on it's own let alone all DNA molecules needed for life but instead of believe in a designer he chose to remain ignorant and defend Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis has never been observed so you are taking that theory on faith. Everything you have just said can't be tested and confirmed through the scientific method. Until you can show amino acids forming naturally,a DNA molecule can form naturally and the genetic code in a natural enviornment that lacks oxygen it could not even be possible. I am sure you are aware of the problem of oxygen being in the enviornment ,atleast I hope so.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you one of those people who lie every time you open your mouth even if it is against your best interest? Maybe it is pathological and you believe your lies.

I don't lie,I give my opinions. Must you continue to try and insult me with your posts ?

Doesn't it make you look like a small person ?

What I am supposed to say when someone continuously lies like you do? You are not giving opinions when you say that macroevolution has never been witnessed when it has. You are obviously not giving your opinion when you misrepresent what other people just said to you. Is it an insult to call a someone a thief when they just absconded with your purse? Is it an insult to call someone a murderer when you just witnessed them murdering someone? I think not.

You say I am a liar because I don't support your theory, not because you can refute or answer the questions put to you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Refute what was said or you are simply speaking from your rectum.

no need. your massive steaming piles refute themselves.

The sad thing is You does not even realize it because they obviously do not understand. People who understand a subject can put things in their own words with a link to the original source.

Yeah he dodges like you do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"I have watched shows that cover the universe"

That must be why you say things like "a spinning rock exploded", and cant understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the significance of particle physics at the moment of the big bang. If you dont understand the 12 fermions, the 4 bosons that carry force, and the higgs boson as well, then you cant have an actual understanding of the big bang.

And you totally ignored the fact that you think god gives people leprosy, once again.

Are you trying to duck the questions I'm asking ? By trying to change the subject. And I did show you according to the scriptures God did punish with the disease of leprosy. Don't you kind of find it funny that your side says they can track it back only so far and it just happens to be in agreement with the bible.

You proved something?

I remember you reading a bunch of bible verses and showing it off as proof.

God has never given anyone leprosy. 6000 years ago idiot goat-herders thought god was punishing them because they didnt understand that they had come in contact with a bacteria. they contracted leprosy just like anyone does today.

Prove to me that god has infected someone with leprosy. And remember that the bible is not proof of the bible. If the bible says that god gave someone leprosy, that matters to me about as much as JK Rowling saying voldemort gave harry potter his scar.

Well according to your side they support what those supposedly ignorant goat herders wrote.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.

Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.

And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?

Hmmm??

I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.

There is nothing other than secular science. Science is by definition secular. If your definition of "real science" is science that is biased towards one faith, then your a fucking idiot.

Only to the Ideologues. You forget all the creationist that were first in the sciences ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am still waiting for someone to provide a code or language or some form of communication with empirical evidence that it cane in to existence naturally absent of intelligence ? How bout mutations being the same thing as noise to a electronic signal and the questions I asked.

What the fuck!

IM POINTING YOU TO DNA YOU GOD DAMN MORON.

Nucleotides form naturally therefore the code for DNA forms naturally because nucleotides are the code for DNA.

Game set match now shut the fuck up.

I am headed to church but when I get time I will refute this nonsense you said here.

 

[cbirch2]

Are you trying to duck the questions I'm asking ? By trying to change the subject. And I did show you according to the scriptures God did punish with the disease of leprosy. Don't you kind of find it funny that your side says they can track it back only so far and it just happens to be in agreement with the bible.

You proved something?

I remember you reading a bunch of bible verses and showing it off as proof.

God has never given anyone leprosy. 6000 years ago idiot goat-herders thought god was punishing them because they didnt understand that they had come in contact with a bacteria. they contracted leprosy just like anyone does today.

Prove to me that god has infected someone with leprosy. And remember that the bible is not proof of the bible. If the bible says that god gave someone leprosy, that matters to me about as much as JK Rowling saying voldemort gave harry potter his scar.

Well according to your side they support what those supposedly ignorant goat herders wrote.

So since you totally avoided the question i assume your going to stop saying god gave people leprosy?