Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

I see it as questionable, and inaccurate. I do not worship at the foot of the science altar. I believe that when we obtain knowledge correctly and accurately, it reflects the works of God. I believe when we guess and estimate, and those guesses and estimations show us something that is contrary to God's word, that our guesses and estimations are incorrect.

The *science* of years ago led the scientists of the day to conclude that the earth was flat. That is contradictory to the bible, and has since been proven wrong. I believe we are likewise incorrect in many of the assumptions we make today, based upon current understanding and application of knowledge. Well, I'm not incorrect, because I don't make those assumptions..but you know what I mean.

Wouldn't it be more along the lines of when we guess and estimate, and those guesses and estimations show us something in line with god's word, they are correct, but when they show us something contrary, they are incorrect? You seem to be saying that not only is science wrong if it contradicts god's word, but that the methods used to reach those incorrect conclusions was different.

All evidence is inferred through the persons thought pattern,if you believe everything evolved that is how you are gonna interpret evidence.

If you believe something is very old that is how you interpret evidence.

Perfect example and I hate it when I keep repeating myself, but the cambrian explosion was a problem for darwinist so they had to create the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Instead of saying wait this evidence contradicts our theory we believed for so long they create a new theory to stay on the path they want to be on.

You say it's the scientific method but it is only circular reasoning which I don't have a problem with. But it is a belief system not real science.

 

[Dragon]

Mans dating methods are unreliable has been proven many times but believe as you wish.

No, that has not been "proven many times."

All you are doing here is saying "I'm going to believe what I choose to believe and ignore all evidence to the contrary."

 

[LOki]

Wrong again oh brilliant one.

Demonstrate.

How many times must I answer this question ....

Once.

...look through the thread I answered it.

Then link to it.

 

[LOki]

Well would you like to explain how life came in to existence from lifeless matter ?

Why don't you explain this?

I know you reject the scientific hypothesis, so why not trot out your explanation of ow life came in to existence from lifeless matter?

Would you like to move this discussion to genetics and mutations and then we can see who really knows what he is talking about.

I don't know about Jake, but I'd like to see that happen.

Life creates life,can you refute this ?

Non-sequitur much?

 

[LOki]

God created it.

Really, it's not that difficult.

Really? Your God is the sufficient cause of His own life?

Explain it then.

 

[LOki]

According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.

Deliberate misrepresentation. A lie, in fact.

Closest genetic relationship does NOT mean "ancestor." If you were actually a legitimate microbiologist, you would know this.

But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?

Strawman.

Why is the chimps DNA closer in similarity to an ape then a human ?

Chimps ARE apes, retard.

You see similarity proves nothing,...

Your fatuous book of fairy tales is less helpful.

...but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.

I'm not entirely sure anyone but you has ever suggested that Adam did not belong to the species homo sapiens. Interesting.

 

[LOki]

Lets keep it simple,if there is no creator how did life begin ?

The evidence suggests some series of successive organic chemical reactions.

Does the evidence confirm life creates life ?

The evidence doesn't contradict this assertion.

Is there any evidence that supports life began naturally ?

Yes. And there's no evidence it began unnaturally.

You seem to keep mocking the thought of creation so if you avoid this question it seems your view is based off of faith.

Speaking only for myself, I'm going to continue to mock you for asserting your fairy tale as valid in verifiable evidence and valid logic for as long as you present it so.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mans dating methods are unreliable has been proven many times but believe as you wish.

No, that has not been "proven many times."

All you are doing here is saying "I'm going to believe what I choose to believe and ignore all evidence to the contrary."

There has been rocks tested that came up with a different ages each time. There has been things tested with the known age tested that came up much older then it was known to be.

I guess they don't put tests in youir textbooks that would cause the average person to question the theory that they're being taught.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Demonstrate.

How many times must I answer this question ....

Once.

...look through the thread I answered it.

Then link to it.

Don't waste my time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why don't you explain this?

I know you reject the scientific hypothesis, so why not trot out your explanation of ow life came in to existence from lifeless matter?

I don't know about Jake, but I'd like to see that happen.

Life creates life,can you refute this ?

Non-sequitur much?

God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.

They could have not just of happened by chance to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.

Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life has been around .That is not rational thinking.

 

[Youwerecreated]

God created it.

Really, it's not that difficult.

Really? Your God is the sufficient cause of His own life?

Explain it then.

He has no beginning and no end,hard to rationalize that, but I have no reason to doubt the scriptures.

Surely a being responsible for the universe and everything in it is worthy of my worship.

 

[Youwerecreated]

According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.

Deliberate misrepresentation. A lie, in fact.

Closest genetic relationship does NOT mean "ancestor." If you were actually a legitimate microbiologist, you would know this.

But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?

Strawman.

Chimps ARE apes, retard.

You see similarity proves nothing,...

Your fatuous book of fairy tales is less helpful.

...but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.

I'm not entirely sure anyone but you has ever suggested that Adam did not belong to the species homo sapiens. Interesting.

Look the chimp is our closest realtive that has been around longer then humans that would make the chimp our ancestor. You have a real problem saying that hybrid humans and chimps interbred when we our DNA are incompatible. To believe otherwise is the lie.

I am a realist when it comes to science,I have to be able to observe and prove it to myself to accept it as belief.

Just like for me the bible has passed with flying colors. There is no reason to reject not to mention all the evidence that confirms the early writings.

Problems for your theory.

1. No mechsnism to how life could come from non-living matter.

2. The faulty dating methods.

3. The fossil record shows no gradualism.

4. The fossil record shows fossils in the wrong strata.

5. Your side teaches it takes millions of years for things to fossilze not even close to true.

6. They teach it took millions of years for layers of strata to form not true either. It's been demonstrated that strata can for in a short time span.

7. They have no mechanism has to how evolution can occur,mutations are a dead end road.

8. The cambrian explosion contradicts gradualism and the evolutionists theory.

9. Eldrege and gould saw the problem the cambrian explosion caused for the theory and came up with punctuated equilibrium. Now I would like to know how all this compleity of life forms just spontaneously showed up ? please explain. Sounds like creation to me.

10. planets seem to be where they were meant to be. What would to life and this planet without the sun or moon ?

These are just a few of the problems with your beliefs and the best explanation to these problems for a rational thinker is God the creator,not by chance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lets keep it simple,if there is no creator how did life begin ?

The evidence suggests some series of successive organic chemical reactions.

Does the evidence confirm life creates life ?

The evidence doesn't contradict this assertion.

Is there any evidence that supports life began naturally ?

Yes. And there's no evidence it began unnaturally.

You seem to keep mocking the thought of creation so if you avoid this question it seems your view is based off of faith.

Speaking only for myself, I'm going to continue to mock you for asserting your fairy tale as valid in verifiable evidence and valid logic for as long as you present it so.

Your mocking shows ignorance.

Only living organisms can produce life there is overwhelming evidence of this.

No there is no evidence a chemical reaction could cause life.

As far as humans go you need a male and female,sperm and egg to create life.

 

[Dragon]

Look the chimp is our closest realtive that has been around longer then humans that would make the chimp our ancestor.

False. To translate this into simple human terms for you, suppose that your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. are all dead. You have no brothers or sisters, but you do have a cousin. That cousin is your closest relative, but he/she is NOT an ancestor. Your ancestors are all dead.

That's a good analogy to the state of affairs for our species. Our ancestor species are all extinct. The chimpanzee is our closest living relative, but it is a cousin, not an ancestor.

Problems for your theory.

1. No mechsnism to how life could come from non-living matter.

Irrelevant to evolution, which is not concerned with the origin of life.

2. The faulty dating methods.

You have not shown the dating methods to be "faulty."

3. The fossil record shows no gradualism.

False. It does show gradualism.

4. The fossil record shows fossils in the wrong strata.

This is not a problem. Given geological activity, it is to be expected from time to time; however, there is no evidence along these lines that would call evolution into question.

5. Your side teaches it takes millions of years for things to fossilze

False.

6. They teach it took millions of years for layers of strata to form

False.

7. They have no mechanism has to how evolution can occur

False.

mutations are a dead end road.

False.

8. The cambrian explosion contradicts gradualism

False.

10. planets seem to be where they were meant to be. What would to life and this planet without the sun or moon ?

Irrelevant.

These are just a few of the problems with your beliefs

None of these are problems, and most of them are false statements by you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look the chimp is our closest realtive that has been around longer then humans that would make the chimp our ancestor.

False. To translate this into simple human terms for you, suppose that your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. are all dead. You have no brothers or sisters, but you do have a cousin. That cousin is your closest relative, but he/she is NOT an ancestor. Your ancestors are all dead.

That's a good analogy to the state of affairs for our species. Our ancestor species are all extinct. The chimpanzee is our closest living relative, but it is a cousin, not an ancestor.

Problems for your theory.

1. No mechsnism to how life could come from non-living matter.

Irrelevant to evolution, which is not concerned with the origin of life.



You have not shown the dating methods to be "faulty."



False. It does show gradualism.



This is not a problem. Given geological activity, it is to be expected from time to time; however, there is no evidence along these lines that would call evolution into question.



False.



False.



False.



False.



False.

10. planets seem to be where they were meant to be. What would to life and this planet without the sun or moon ?

Irrelevant.

These are just a few of the problems with your beliefs

None of these are problems, and most of them are false statements by you.

Have you not read the artricles claiming human divergence from the chimp ?

No It's not if you believe life happened through a natural process and that natural process is evolution.

Google problems with dating methods you will find many problems with the dating methods.

No The fossil record does not show gradualism if it did there would be no need for the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Yes there would there is evidence of strata forming rapidly and fossils are found in the wrong strata. Tha most certainly is a problem for evolutionist.

The way the planets are aligined is irrelavant to life on this planet

Ok how long does your side say it takes for fossils to form ? I will concede millions of years. That was an exaggeration on my part.

And I don't know what all you said false to because you didn't quote me.

Do you understand gradualism ? Explain how life could have exploded in the cambrian ?

 

[LOki]

How many times must I answer this question ....

Once.

...look through the thread I answered it.

Then link to it.

Don't waste my time.

And there you have it. An admission that looking for even one instance where you demonstrated that the beliefs I hold are faith is a waste of time--coming from you, it is proof that no such instance exists.

 

[LOki]

Life creates life,can you refute this ?

Non-sequitur much?

God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.

What God? Valid, verifiable evidence please.

They could have not just of happened by chance to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.

It literally appears that you are wrong.

Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life has been around .That is not rational thinking.

Only the superstitious deny the verifiable evidence, and instead embrace logical fallacy and the denial of reality to rationalize validity for the existence of their imaginary friend(s).

 

[Dragon]

Have you not read the artricles claiming human divergence from the chimp ?

Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, all such arguments are irrelevant.

No It's not if you believe life happened through a natural process and that natural process is evolution.

But that isn't true. Evolution describes how life changed and diversified AFTER it already existed. It has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Google problems with dating methods you will find many problems with the dating methods.

Trivial ones, perhaps. Limitations on the precision of the methods, and also the fact that the most commonly-used one (carbon-14 dating) is only useful for organic matter or fossils, but nothing that would invalidate the dating methods.

No The fossil record does not show gradualism if it did there would be no need for the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

This is untrue. Punctuated equilibrium is only the idea that evolution does not proceed at a constant speed and that there are times when it accelerates rapidly, coinciding with mass extinction events. Evolution continues during the slow times and may be observed in the fossil record.

Yes there would there is evidence of strata forming rapidly and fossils are found in the wrong strata. Tha most certainly is a problem for evolutionist.

Incorrect. That strata may form rapidly, as in a major depository event such as a volcanic eruption and mudslide, doesn't change the fact that we may reliably date the deposits over most of the world. This is no problem at all.

The way the planets are aligined is irrelavant to life on this planet

It's irrelevant to the theory of evolution. That's part and parcel of evolution not being concerned with the origin of life. Obviously the placement of the earth in its orbit is important to the existence of life, and that's one planet at least -- if the earth were much closer to or further away from the sun it would have no liquid water, which is a prerequisite for life as we know it. However, again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so even that is completely irrelevant here.

Ok how long does your side say it takes for fossils to form ? I will concede millions of years. That was an exaggeration on my part.

A few decades, given the right conditions. We saw fossilization after the Mount St. Helens eruption, for example.

And I don't know what all you said false to because you didn't quote me.

Yes, I did. Look again.

 

[LOki]

God created it.

Really, it's not that difficult.

Really? Your God is the sufficient cause of His own life?

Explain it then.

He has no beginning and no end,hard to rationalize that, ...

That's clearly a rationalization.

... but I have no reason to doubt the scriptures.

A denial of every error of fact they contain.

Surely a being responsible for the universe and everything in it is worthy of my worship.

You can make all sorts of claims about your imaginary friend, but none of those claims make Him any less imaginary, or objectively worthy of worship.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Non-sequitur much?

God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.

What God? Valid, verifiable evidence please.

They could have not just of happened by chance to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.

It literally appears that you are wrong.

Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life has been around .That is not rational thinking.

Only the superstitious deny the verifiable evidence, and instead embrace logical fallacy and the denial of reality to rationalize validity for the existence of their imaginary friend(s).

My view of creation is built on faith and rational thought.

You let me know when life can spontaneously generate itself through a natural process.