Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?

Yet it remains entirely verifiable as real by evidence and valid logic in a way that the reality of your Creator persistently resists being verified. Why do you suppose that is?

They reconstruct creatures they have very little fossils for.

You construct our Creator from even less. Upon what basis can you honestly demand He is not even more imaginary?

Your application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.

It has the foundation of your imaginary friend entirely whupped though.

It's not as big a problem for evolution, as the reliance creationists have on logical fallacy to propose their assertions regarding "creation." And your repeated application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this repeated claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

But evidence that they have differentiated through the accumulation of adaptive traits is evidence of macro-evolution.

Debunking evolution.


Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit!
Tyrannosaurus Sue
The prehistoric giant stands again
—Holly Hartman


After 65 million years, Sue is back on her feet.
SUE IS A SENSATION. It's not just that she's 42 feet long and 65 million years old. She's the world's most complete, best preserved, and largest Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. More than 10,000 visitors went to her May 17, 2000, debut at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History.

Many brought their cameras—and a few brought violins. The Chicago Chamber Musicians performed a new piece, written especially for the opening, caled “Tyrannosaurus Sue: A Cretaceous Concerto.” (T. rex lived during the Cretaceous period, not the Jurassic period, as many believe.)

Rest in Pieces
Sue's Stats
Weight: 14,000 pounds
Length: 42 feet
Height: 13 feet at hip
Age: 65 million years
Head: 5 feet long
Teeth: 58
Brain capacity: 4 cups
Home: South Dakota
Found: Aug. 12, 1990
Sold: Oct. 4, 1997
Cost: $8.4 million

Amazingly, more than 200 of Sue's bones were preserved. The skeleton includes the most complete T. rex tail ever found, as well as one of only two T. rex arms ever found. Sue's skull contains the longest (and scariest) T. rex tooth yet known—it's a foot long.

One amazing discovery in Sue's skeleton is that she has a wishbone, or furcula, such as you would find in most bird skeletons. This is the first wishbone found on a T. rex. It supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, either directly or from a common ancestor.

Even though Sue's bones are more than 65 million years old, they are so well-preserved that you can see marks where muscles and tendons once lay.

Tyrannosaurus Sue — FactMonster.com

I never said there were no full body fossils they are few.

those few disprove your creation story (I say story, as a theory has to have some basis in fact)
if the bible is acurate why was the t rex and all other pre biblical creation story life left out?

They were not left out. Did you expect them to use terms of today to explain them ?


Dinosaurs in the Bible

 

[Youwerecreated]

Drock is a propagandist. He doesn't acknowledge fact when it doesn't fit in with his ideology, and will continue to spout lies in the face of fact.

That's the way Nazis work, too.

You're so right,drock will not believe until God shows up on his door step unfortunately.

You see how they act when I provide comments from educated people on his side of the argument. Atleast some of these educated in the theory are honest about it.

Every science link you've ever tried to use against me I've highlighted parts of the article that are repeating what I've already said to you.

Now your Bible blogs often go against me, but they never use science. Like that silly one you reposted with 100 things the Bible blogger twists into agreeing with science, you still post it even though it's been debunked a dozen times.

You're right, I need the tiniest shred of scientific evidence of a god(s). I have no moral issue with believing in god(s), but i take science seriously unlike you. I won't take stories written by ignorant, uneducated people thousands of years ago as something to base my life on until science agrees with those ignorant, uneducated people.

Of couirse they will make comments that you agree with they are evolutionist but they admit to the problems why is that hard for you to grasp ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base this?

The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.

By your very own criteria then, the same objectively applies to the Eddas. That being the case, upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator?

I refuse to keep repeating myself.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You're so right,drock will not believe until God shows up on his door step unfortunately.

You see how they act when I provide comments from educated people on his side of the argument. Atleast some of these educated in the theory are honest about it.

Every science link you've ever tried to use against me I've highlighted parts of the article that are repeating what I've already said to you.

Now your Bible blogs often go against me, but they never use science. Like that silly one you reposted with 100 things the Bible blogger twists into agreeing with science, you still post it even though it's been debunked a dozen times.

You're right, I need the tiniest shred of scientific evidence of a god(s). I have no moral issue with believing in god(s), but i take science seriously unlike you. I won't take stories written by ignorant, uneducated people thousands of years ago as something to base my life on until science agrees with those ignorant, uneducated people.

Of couirse they will make comments that you agree with they are evolutionist but they admit to the problems why is that hard for you to grasp ?

They don't make comments I agree with, they present facts that I don't deny and you do.

What problems? That the minority of fossils survive over time? That the Bible doesn't agree with it? That's the big problem?

 

[daws101]

No,YAHWEH.

Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base this?

The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.

wrong !your own belief precludes that. if the bible were accurate then there would be no theories.
hard core creationists insist that everything contained in it is fact,with no exceptions .
YOU'VE JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF!

 

[daws101]

i never said there were no full body fossils They are few.

those few disprove your creation story (i say story, as a theory has to have some basis in fact)
if the bible is acurate why was the t rex and all other pre biblical creation story life left out?

they were not left out. Did you expect them to use terms of today to explain them ?


dinosaurs in the bible

lol!

 

[FurthurBB]

Really google how many species that have gone extinct that have ever existed.
,
How many new species can you point to and prove it hasn't existed all along ?

Good grief! Okay, let us back up a bit because you are so lost this is getting us no where. I am not talking about species of organisms, I am talking about a reducing environment. There are reactive chemical species swirling around. Sometimes your lack of understanding is astonishing Reducing atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Make your questions clear and precise. We were speaking of species when you put your two cents in.

I posted an article the other day,it was from someone from your side of the argument that said 99.9% of all species have gone extinct. Do you people agree on anything ?

Wow! #13 that I have seen where you reply to a post with something that has nothing to do with the post at all. Reducing environments and reactive species are terms that you learn early in a biology degree, though since I am sure you never got one, I am not surprised to find your knowledge nonexistent as usual.

 

[FurthurBB]

Provide this macro-evolution that is not just an adaptation ?

I helped my daughter's class do the Dodd experiment, they just finished it last year. With isolation and a different food source middle school students can witness speciation at work. The funny thing is it is easy and always works, it does not always take the same amount of generations though. Evidence for speciation at the bottom of the page

Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution.

That is no different then what happens with dogs and horses.

They are still Iguanas.

It's no different then what darwin saw with the galapagos finches. They will die out and what they were will return.

That is something your side ignores. The finches when drought was present the short beak was dying out,but what when the drought was over ? that's right the short beaked finch made a strong come back.

Look, you do not know what you are talking about, you make up invalid definitions for words and try to disprove them on that basis, which is called lying. You either can't read or refuse to read anything but nonsense. You get almost everything you say wrong. the experiment was not about iguanas, it was about fruit flies and how you can with a little isolation and a different food source, get two groups that will no longer mate with the other which is the beginning of speciation and can be witnessed by everyone. That, not whatever nonsense you make up in your head, is macroevolution. The finch thing is also wrong because it was about more than beaks, it was about the finches not being able to breed with the original population anymore, which was actually not even known in Darwin's time.

 

[LOki]

The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.

By your very own criteria then, the same objectively applies to the Eddas. That being the case, upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator?

I refuse to keep repeating myself.

You refuse honestly answer, because you would then have to admit that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator.

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:

• El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
• Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
• Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
• Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
• Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
• Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
• The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
• Viracocha in Inca mythology;
• Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
• Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
• Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
• Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
• Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
• Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
• Rod in Slavic mythology;
• Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Māori mythology

I'm going to predict right now that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith.

 

[koshergrl]

apply invalid rationalizing?

SERIOUSLY?

Dude..it's "apply invalid rationale" if you're really committed to mouthing such an atrocity.

 

[Woyzeck]

No,YAHWEH.

Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base this?

The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.

Mostly fact? Judging by some of the 'facts' it presents, I'd say no.

 

[LOki]

The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?

Yet it remains entirely verifiable as real by evidence and valid logic in a way that the reality of your Creator persistently resists being verified. Why do you suppose that is?

You construct our Creator from even less. Upon what basis can you honestly demand He is not even more imaginary?

Your application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.

It has the foundation of your imaginary friend entirely whupped though.

It's not as big a problem for evolution, as the reliance creationists have on logical fallacy to propose their assertions regarding "creation." And your repeated application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this repeated claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

But evidence that they have differentiated through the accumulation of adaptive traits is evidence of macro-evolution.

Debunking evolution.


Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

Debunking evolution? What a laugh!

Did you write that yourself? Because it's exactly wrong in every single way we've been proving you wrong; and wrong for the exact same misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, errors of fact, and logically fallacious reasoning we've been pointing out you've been applying all along.

Why don't you get a little intellectual integrity and level up?

 

[LOki]

Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base this?

The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.

Mostly fact? Judging by some of the 'facts' it presents, I'd say no.

Seriously.

 

[LOki]

apply invalid rationalizing?

SERIOUSLY?

Yes. Seriously. I'll say it again, RATIONALIZING.

Dude..it's "apply invalid rationale" if you're really committed to mouthing such an atrocity.

As usual, you're absolutely wrong. "Rationalizing" is the correct term, and I am using it correctly.

And considering the dishonest cut of your jib, I wouldn't put it past you to bring your lame and invalid correction as a contrived attempt to equate the statements of invalid reasoning (rationalizations) you and YWC apply as being valid reasons (rationales) for your beliefs.

 

[koshergrl]

Idiot...you don't apply rationalIZING, you moron. You APPLY rationALE.

Rationalizing is the act of being rational. You don't apply an act.

 

[koshergrl]

In other words, you don't APPLY a VERB.

Interestingly, I can't even find the word "rationalizing" in the dictionary.

Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Woyzeck]

I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.

22.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.

23.
Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that “he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body,” and that those who commit homosexual sin would “receive in themselves” the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.

24.
Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.

This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument

Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.

Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.

25.
Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.

I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.

26.
The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.

27.
The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.

28.
Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.

29.
The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.

Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?

30.
Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.

31.
The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis

This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.

32.
Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the “fountains of the great deep were broken up.” This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.

33.
Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often – “By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen” (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.

34.
Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.

35.
God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an “intricate unity” in the womb.

It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.

36.
DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139 – “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”

That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).

To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.

37.
God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.

Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.

38.
Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.

39.
Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along – there are healing compounds found in plants.

Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.

These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.

 

[LOki]

Idiot...you don't apply rationalIZING, you moron. You APPLY rationALE.

Rationalizing is the act of being rational. You don't apply an act.

I understand that you teach children; the parents should be arrested for inflicting you on their children.

Open a dictionary, retard. Read the entry. Accept that English is not your first language.

And while you're at it, look up future active participle.

 

[LOki]

In other words, you don't APPLY a VERB.

Interestingly, I can't even find the word "rationalizing" in the dictionary.

Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

What we have here folks, is an unambiguous example of the stolid denial of verifiable reality that characterizes faith. You see, here our little cupcake holds a baseless preconception about reality, and with the absolute, unassailable, arrogant, and sanctimonious certainty of faith, she refuses to acknowledge that she actually found "rationalizing" in a dictionary; she linked to it, ignored her incorrect notion of the term's primary meaning, and then declared it wasn't to be found.

ra·tio·nal·ize verb
\ˈrash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈra-shə-nə-ˌlīz\

ra·tio·nal·ized | ra·tio·nal·iz·ing

Definition of RATIONALIZE

transitive verb

1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as

a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>

b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>​

The lesson to be learned here, is that those who apply faith are correct only by accident; and even when unambiguously wrong, they will deny verifiable reality--the strength of that denial being the strength of their faith.