Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.

I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.

That is not true there has always been atheists. People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.

A bold assertion that you will certainly not bother to demonstrate.

I have and so have others

 

[Youwerecreated]

Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?

I have faith that air exists. I can't see it, but I believe that it exists and is keeping me alive.
I know there is a breeze today. The leaves are moving.
I can't see the wind, but I have faith it is there. I can see it's effect.

If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

What is your evidence for macro-evolution ?

What is your evidence that there is no designer ?

What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

you're going straight to hell! blasphemer!

Now if you only understood what hell really is.

like you do!!!! again you miss the point.....there is no hell just as there is no heaven.

Look up a few terms and you see there definitely is a hell but it's not what you think it is.

Start with the terms sheol and hades.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is NO DEBATE about evolution.

Congratulations!! You just received the Loki "Stick your head in the stand" and "If I don't look at it maybe it won't see me" awards. You obviously didn't miss the bus, but caught a ride on the short bus and missed the science. If you want to choose to believe in fairytales that is fine. But don't come on here pretending to be interested in the truth.

Please don't talk to me about me about fairytales or truth when you believe in the bible.

Do you have evidence as to why the bible should be shunned ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Really? You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means, and that means my statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant? You are deeply retarded.

Wow, predictable is your middle name. Obviously you missed this little statement from the post before your totally predictable response... too funny. Now who is the mental midget?

UltimateReality said, "Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase..."

I love that term for him

 

[whitehall]

Let it go bigots. The origin of the world isn't as important as what? Giving America's freaking treasure away because some crackpot scientists said we were responsible for bad weather in Africa.

 

[LOki]

I have faith that air exists. I can't see it, but I believe that it exists and is keeping me alive.
I know there is a breeze today. The leaves are moving.
I can't see the wind, but I have faith it is there. I can see it's effect.

If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

That life is a natural process that is reliant upon the interactions of observable/testable/verifiable natural processes for its maintenance and propagation.

What is your evidence for macro-evolution ?

Evidence such as the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria, ring species, and the fossil record.

What is your evidence that there is no designer ?

The absence of evidence that there is a designer.

What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?

Without asserting absolute congruency, the common elements they share in metabolic biochemical and reproductive processes.

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

What do you mean by "validate these questions"?

 

[Woyzeck]

I have faith that air exists. I can't see it, but I believe that it exists and is keeping me alive.
I know there is a breeze today. The leaves are moving.
I can't see the wind, but I have faith it is there. I can see it's effect.

If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.

What is your evidence for macro-evolution ?

Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?

What is your evidence that there is no designer ?

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?

To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

That life is a natural process that is reliant upon the interactions of observable/testable/verifiable natural processes for its maintenance and propagation.

Evidence such as the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria, ring species, and the fossil record.

The absence of evidence that there is a designer.

What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?

Without asserting absolute congruency, the common elements they share in metabolic biochemical and reproductive processes.

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

What do you mean by "validate these questions"?

sorry those are just faulty conclusions because they come from faulty presuppositions.

You really don't want to use the fossil record as evidence for gradualism trust me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?

To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.

Similarity does not prove different groups of organisms are related.

I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?

To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.

 

[Woyzeck]

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.

You asked about abiogenesis, the start of life, not spontaneous generation.

Similarity does not prove different groups of organisms are related.

Why doesn't it?

I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.

Your evidence to disprove evolution is a concept derived from the theory of evolution?

 

[Woyzeck]

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.

Which you have zero evidence for. As I said before, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.



Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.

You asked about abiogenesis, the start of life, not spontaneous generation.

Similarity does not prove different groups of organisms are related.

Why doesn't it?

I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.

Your evidence to disprove evolution is a concept derived from the theory of evolution?

From a biological stance we are similar because we are made up of similar substances but our genes carry vastly different genetic information. Your side is reaching by assuming we are related because we are made up of similar substances. That also is circular reasoning that your side complains about creationist that we use circular reasoning.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.



Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.

Which you have zero evidence for. As I said before, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was started because the cambrian organisms appeared suddenly not gradually,that fits with the creation model. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one in the same.

 

[LOki]

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

That life is a natural process that is reliant upon the interactions of observable/testable/verifiable natural processes for its maintenance and propagation.

Evidence such as the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria, ring species, and the fossil record.

The absence of evidence that there is a designer.

Without asserting absolute congruency, the common elements they share in metabolic biochemical and reproductive processes.

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

What do you mean by "validate these questions"?

sorry those are just faulty conclusions because they come from faulty presuppositions.

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify my "faulty presuppositions."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."

You really don't want to use the fossil record as evidence for gradualism trust me.

You didn't ask me about gradualism, did you? I believe the actual issue was macro-evolution, yes?

Douche.

 

[LOki]

Similarity does not prove different groups of organisms are related.

You didn't ask for proof, you disingenuous retard, you asked for evidence.

I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.

No one is disputing the existence or role of genetic drift, you retard.

 

[Woyzeck]

Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.

You asked about abiogenesis, the start of life, not spontaneous generation.



Why doesn't it?

I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.

Your evidence to disprove evolution is a concept derived from the theory of evolution?

From a biological stance we are similar because we are made up of similar substances but our genes carry vastly different genetic information. Your side is reaching by assuming we are related because we are made up of similar substances. That also is circular reasoning that your side complains about creationist that we use circular reasoning.

Our genes are not similar, only our 'substances' are. Whatever that is meant to mean. But our DNA is 98% identical to that of a chimps and other monkeys.

So I really don't get your point. You can say we're not related all you want, but genetic similarities exist, even if you want to ignore it.

 

[Woyzeck]

You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.

Which you have zero evidence for. As I said before, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was started because the cambrian organisms appeared suddenly not gradually,that fits with the creation model. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one in the same.

And the evidence for your god assertion quoted above is...?

 

[LOki]

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was started because the cambrian organisms appeared suddenly not gradually,that fits with the creation model. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one in the same.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution, and in no way invalidates gradualism ... at least according to those who proposed punctuated equilibrium.