Creationists

[LOki]

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

What God? Valid, verifiable evidence please.

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.

This is a self contradictory statement. Faith is entirely irrational. It's arguably anti-rational.

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

When the conditions are right for it.

Now you explain to me how life magicked itself into your Creator.

 

[LOki]

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

That's clearly a rationalization.

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.

Only according to people who deny the possibility of a creator.

Nonsense. I don't deny the possibility of a creator.

 

[Dragon]

Doctrinaire theists and self-described atheists represent a symbiosis that latch onto each other in a self-perpetuating fixation on dogmatic ideas of God. It's like a game. I once tried to participate in a religious-discussion forum dominated by these two groups of individuals. I attempted to introduce other religious or spiritual ideas into the discussion (as I consider both of those positions to be nonsensical and narrow-minded), but it was made clear to me that nobody on that site was interested in pursuing anything other than the verbal dance between religious believers and atheists.

This thread is about evolution and creationism, which has only the most tangential relationship to ideas of God -- all on the creationist side, too. Evolution has nothing to do with that subject. It stands on its own merits according to empirical evidence, which is extremely strong in its favor. But there is no conflict between evolution and belief in God, or even belief in a divine creator, although there is such a conflict between evolution and a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

 

[koshergrl]

Doctrinaire theists and self-described atheists represent a symbiosis that latch onto each other in a self-perpetuating fixation on dogmatic ideas of God. It's like a game. I once tried to participate in a religious-discussion forum dominated by these two groups of individuals. I attempted to introduce other religious or spiritual ideas into the discussion (as I consider both of those positions to be nonsensical and narrow-minded), but it was made clear to me that nobody on that site was interested in pursuing anything other than the verbal dance between religious believers and atheists.

This thread is about evolution and creationism, which has only the most tangential relationship to ideas of God -- all on the creationist side, too. Evolution has nothing to do with that subject. It stands on its own merits according to empirical evidence, which is extremely strong in its favor. But there is no conflict between evolution and belief in God, or even belief in a divine creator, although there is such a conflict between evolution and a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

Tell me, did you use "The Mists of Avalon" as your handbook while trying to enlighten the dumb people?

So why would you join a discussion group manned by people you look down on and think are ignorant of "the truth"?

I think we have here a typical anti-Christian, pseudo intellectual whacko who spends a lot of time reading novels and fantasizing about how brilliant he is in comparison to the the rest of the world.

The problem is, you don't have superior understanding, you aren't all that smart (as your inability to understand the written word demonstrates) and you can't form a workable argument to save your life. As I've already pointed out, all you have is long-winded posturing and logical fallacy. The gaps in your understanding and education are matched only by your compulsive pontificating and self satisfied brand of arrogance.

You aren't that special, in other words. Your ridiculous posts are laughable, despite the stilted and painful language you use to try to make yourself look like you actually know what you are talking about (you don't). Just come out and say it instead of hiding behind a mask of pretend knowledge...you don't like Christians and you think you're smarter than they are.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What God? Valid, verifiable evidence please.

It literally appears that you are wrong.

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.

This is a self contradictory statement. Faith is entirely irrational. It's arguably anti-rational.

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

When the conditions are right for it.

Now you explain to me how life magicked itself into your Creator.

I can't answer that or how he has always existed,that is something you might want to ask him when you meet him.


Bible and science provide faith and truth.

Not lies and propaganda.

I'll see you in the other thread.

 

[LOki]

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

This is a self contradictory statement. Faith is entirely irrational. It's arguably anti-rational.

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

When the conditions are right for it.

Now you explain to me how life magicked itself into your Creator.

I can't answer that or how he has always existed,that is something you might want to ask him when you meet him.


Bible and science provide faith and truth.

Not lies and propaganda.

I'll see you in the other thread.

I accept your intellectual surrender.

 

[Dragon]

[snip personal attacks and empty rhetoric devoid of cognitive content]

Nothing there at all, KG. When you have something real to say, and are not simply working out your personal obsession with me, let me know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

That is merely your opinion, for which you can offer no convincing scientific evidence, much less any that says God did not do it by evolution.

Don't let your dogma get in the way of your faith, please.

No, I have not observed any evidence that shows macroevolution is possible I have seen more evidence against the belief,not faith but science.

Practice what you preach.

You have fail on your arguments in this thread. Your stubborness has become immoral and a thorn to those who would believe. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps.

No, that would be much further back. H. erectus is probably the immediate ancestor of modern humanity on the hominid line.

Yeah i never said that was our common ancestor, YWC is lying like always.

I said that was one of human's ancestors, he's the one who keeps trying to make it seem like science says chimps and humans are closer in every way than what science actually says.

 

[Dragon]

I said that was one of human's ancestors, he's the one who keeps trying to make it seem like science says chimps and humans are closer in every way than what science actually says.

I know. It's a pretty standard straw-man tactic. It's possible to prove that humans aren't descended from chimpanzees, so if he can claim that evolution theory claims humans ARE descended from chimpanzees, he thinks he can disprove evolution.

Only trouble with that, of course, is that evolution theory DOESN'T claim humans descend from chimps. But as recognizing that would blow his whole argument, and he is desperate to maintain that argument, he dare not hear the truth.

YWC's problem isn't faith, as Loki would say. It's a lack of faith, a belief in God so frail and fragile that it is dependent on counter-scientific claims of fact. Creationists remind me of the children's hymn:

Jesus loves me, this I know
'Cause the Bible tells me so

To which my reaction has always been that if you need the Bible to tell you that, you aren't in tune with the divine love at all, and your faith is a weak, desperate thing. Which I believe describes creationists to a T.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is a self contradictory statement. Faith is entirely irrational. It's arguably anti-rational.

When the conditions are right for it.

Now you explain to me how life magicked itself into your Creator.

I can't answer that or how he has always existed,that is something you might want to ask him when you meet him.


Bible and science provide faith and truth.

Not lies and propaganda.

I'll see you in the other thread.

I accept your intellectual surrender.

Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is merely your opinion, for which you can offer no convincing scientific evidence, much less any that says God did not do it by evolution.

Don't let your dogma get in the way of your faith, please.

No, I have not observed any evidence that shows macroevolution is possible I have seen more evidence against the belief,not faith but science.

Practice what you preach.

You have fail on your arguments in this thread. Your stubborness has become immoral and a thorn to those who would believe. Physician, heal thyself.

What does macroevolution have to do with creating medicine ?

What is your strongest argument for macroevolution ?

 

[Dragon]

What is your strongest argument for macroevolution ?

The fossil record, of course, which shows that the species of plant and animal now alive did not exist millions of years ago, and that living things have changed over the generations. This requires, as an explanation, either evolution or an ongoing creation ex nihilo. As we have observed evolution taking place, and have not observed creation ex nihilo, evolution is the preferred explanation.

In any case, the mere fact that life has changed over the generations conclusively disproves a one-time creation such as that described in Genesis.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is your strongest argument for macroevolution ?

The fossil record, of course, which shows that the species of plant and animal now alive did not exist millions of years ago, and that living things have changed over the generations. This requires, as an explanation, either evolution or an ongoing creation ex nihilo. As we have observed evolution taking place, and have not observed creation ex nihilo, evolution is the preferred explanation.

In any case, the mere fact that life has changed over the generations conclusively disproves a one-time creation such as that described in Genesis.

Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.

A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.

The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What is your strongest argument for macroevolution ?

The fossil record, of course, which shows that the species of plant and animal now alive did not exist millions of years ago, and that living things have changed over the generations. This requires, as an explanation, either evolution or an ongoing creation ex nihilo. As we have observed evolution taking place, and have not observed creation ex nihilo, evolution is the preferred explanation.

In any case, the mere fact that life has changed over the generations conclusively disproves a one-time creation such as that described in Genesis.

Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.

A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.

The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.

"deformed humans"

Now that's a new one.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps.

No, that would be much further back. H. erectus is probably the immediate ancestor of modern humanity on the hominid line.

Yeah i never said that was our common ancestor, YWC is lying like always.

I said that was one of human's ancestors, he's the one who keeps trying to make it seem like science says chimps and humans are closer in every way than what science actually says.

No that is your side claiming chimps are our cousins some saying we diverged from the chimp.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fossil record, of course, which shows that the species of plant and animal now alive did not exist millions of years ago, and that living things have changed over the generations. This requires, as an explanation, either evolution or an ongoing creation ex nihilo. As we have observed evolution taking place, and have not observed creation ex nihilo, evolution is the preferred explanation.

In any case, the mere fact that life has changed over the generations conclusively disproves a one-time creation such as that described in Genesis.

Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.

A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.

The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.

"deformed humans"

Now that's a new one.

Yes neanderthals look like deformed humans.

 

[Dragon]

Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.

No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.

A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.

Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.

The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.

This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fossil record, of course, which shows that the species of plant and animal now alive did not exist millions of years ago, and that living things have changed over the generations. This requires, as an explanation, either evolution or an ongoing creation ex nihilo. As we have observed evolution taking place, and have not observed creation ex nihilo, evolution is the preferred explanation.

In any case, the mere fact that life has changed over the generations conclusively disproves a one-time creation such as that described in Genesis.

Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.

A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.

The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.

"deformed humans"

Now that's a new one.

Look drock, if we shared a common ancestor with a chimp how did we share them ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.

No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.

A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.

Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.

The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.

This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?

If we shared a common ancestor with a chimp how did we share this common ancestor ?