If evolution doesn't explain creation, why do anti-Christians insist on inserting it

[Dr.Drock]

Lol here we go again, Allie displaying the stories going on in her head and her head alone.



Can you name the person who doesn't deny evolution who says evolution is proof creation didn't happen? Names? Examples of this happening?

What does that have to do with the question I posted?

Why do anti-Christians insist on inserting evolution into every discussion about creationism?

Is there a difference between a non-Christian and an anti-Christian?

In the minds of Allie/Koshergirl and YWC they have to be victims of everything, all the time, so anyone who doesn't share their views is anti-christian.

You could be a non-believer who says you love every word of the Bible and love all christians who have ever lived, and you'd still be anti-christian to them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, Allie....how old do YOU think the Earth is?

Do you realize there is actual evidence supporting a young earth ?

And all of it is also fully consistent with with the evidence of an old Earth. The problem superstitious YECs like Youwerecreated cannot surmount is that valid logic applied to ALL the verifiable evidence does not support any young Earth theory.

Let me show you why people on your side agree with my side. From the other thread.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

 

[Youwerecreated]

Into every single discussion about creation?

Do they think it explains creation? Do they believe it explains the existence of different species?

Great question allie. Especially since evolutionist usually avoid the origins question like a plague because they have no explanation for the origins of life question.

Since superstition doesn't count as an explanation for anything, neither do Christian Creationists.

So you think creationist are superstitious retards what do you think of the ones that are actually scientist who agree with creationist ?

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

 

[LOki]

Lol here we go again, Allie displaying the stories going on in her head and her head alone.



Can you name the person who doesn't deny evolution who says evolution is proof creation didn't happen? Names? Examples of this happening?

What does that have to do with the question I posted?

Why do anti-Christians insist on inserting evolution into every discussion about creationism?

Is there a difference between a non-Christian and an anti-Christian?

Not much for any Christian that still considers the first of Jesus' 10 Commandments (Exodus 20: 3-6) applicable to them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is it exactly that should be "taught"?

Teaching creationism in a science class would be beneficial.

Apply the scientific method to the whole thing and see how it holds up.

No different then the faith needed to accept a naturalist religion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, we don't think it explains creation. Creation is a fairy tale, evolution doesn't explain creation just like it doesn't explain Peter Pan.

First honest answer I have seen from your side since evolutionist usually avoid the origins question since they have no explanation for the question.

There are various explanations. None are certain. All are possible given the natural laws around them.

As understanding advances, more and more is understood. Lightning was a non-explainable in the very recent past. Viruses were only isolated as recently as the 50's.

Superstition is useful as a societal sharing of fear, but contributes nothing to understanding.

To prevent the spread of disease, is it better to wash your hands or to say "God bless you"?

Not claiming that there is no God. Just wondering what his spokespeople are smoking.

Really and anyone who believe them need to have their head examined but let's let a real scientist give his view on the issue.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

 

[Youwerecreated]

Chritianity and science are NOT at odss with each other.

That said there certainly are a LOT of my fellow Christians who are dumber than posts.

Yes they are if one really reads the words of the bible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Into every single discussion about creation?

Do they think it explains creation? Do they believe it explains the existence of different species?

Great question allie. Especially since evolutionist usually avoid the origins question like a plague because they have no explanation for the origins of life question.

Sure there are explanations. How can you come out and say something so foolish? Scientists have been putting forth origin theories for a long time. What you REALLY mean is, there's no explanation you'll accept, a TOTALLY different animal. IMO, you're being "intellectually dishonest".

No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.


Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here are the questions.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?


Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.

 

[Dr.Drock]

First honest answer I have seen from your side since evolutionist usually avoid the origins question since they have no explanation for the question.

There are various explanations. None are certain. All are possible given the natural laws around them.

As understanding advances, more and more is understood. Lightning was a non-explainable in the very recent past. Viruses were only isolated as recently as the 50's.

Superstition is useful as a societal sharing of fear, but contributes nothing to understanding.

To prevent the spread of disease, is it better to wash your hands or to say "God bless you"?

Not claiming that there is no God. Just wondering what his spokespeople are smoking.

Really and anyone who believe them need to have their head examined but let's let a real scientist give his view on the issue.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

This is the man you're siding with to prove christianity is truth?

Francis Crick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

 

[Youwerecreated]

There are various explanations. None are certain. All are possible given the natural laws around them.

As understanding advances, more and more is understood. Lightning was a non-explainable in the very recent past. Viruses were only isolated as recently as the 50's.

Superstition is useful as a societal sharing of fear, but contributes nothing to understanding.

To prevent the spread of disease, is it better to wash your hands or to say "God bless you"?

Not claiming that there is no God. Just wondering what his spokespeople are smoking.

Really and anyone who believe them need to have their head examined but let's let a real scientist give his view on the issue.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

This is the man you're siding with to prove christianity is truth?

Francis Crick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

Yeah he knows there is no way it could have evolved by chance but he was not rational enough to believe in God.

He probably believes in the alien theory.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Really and anyone who believe them need to have their head examined but let's let a real scientist give his view on the issue.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

This is the man you're siding with to prove christianity is truth?

Francis Crick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

Yeah he knows there is no way it could have evolved by chance but he was not rational enough to believe in God.

He probably believes in the alien theory.

Francis Crick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crick felt that it was important that evolution by natural selection be taught in schools and that it was regrettable that English schools had compulsory religious instruction.

In 1960, Crick accepted a fellowship at Churchill College, Cambridge, one factor being that the new college did not have a chapel. Sometime later a large donation was made to establish a chapel and the fellowship elected to accept it. Crick resigned his fellowship in protest.

Quotations on God, religion, superstition... Quotes of Crick, Crisp, Darrow, Dickinson, Einstein, Feiffer, Feuerbach, Gagarin, Gallileo

"One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist."
(Francis Crick / English scientist, Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, 1962 / 1916-2004)



YWC I find it odd in man such as yourself who thinks anyone who teaches scientific facts that go against the Bible is doing it at Satan's request, would use one of these "Satanic" scientists to try and help boost your own argument.


Another YWC headscratcher moment.

 

[pinqy]

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Nope, that was Dr. Fred Hoyle who did reject abiogenesis but instead believed aliens seeded life on the planet.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Nope, that was Dr. Fred Hoyle who did reject abiogenesis but instead believed aliens seeded life on the planet.

So he's quoting another "anti-christian" infidel heathen as reason for christianity being truth?

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoyle, a life-long atheist, anti-theist and Darwinist said that this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken."

 

[code1211]

First honest answer I have seen from your side since evolutionist usually avoid the origins question since they have no explanation for the question.

There are various explanations. None are certain. All are possible given the natural laws around them.

As understanding advances, more and more is understood. Lightning was a non-explainable in the very recent past. Viruses were only isolated as recently as the 50's.

Superstition is useful as a societal sharing of fear, but contributes nothing to understanding.

To prevent the spread of disease, is it better to wash your hands or to say "God bless you"?

Not claiming that there is no God. Just wondering what his spokespeople are smoking.

Really and anyone who believe them need to have their head examined but let's let a real scientist give his view on the issue.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

I hate to link to relatively long articles, but this one does a credible job in representing the process that may have occurred at the inception of life.

Like all things in nature, the advent of life is a particularly gradual thing and the exact moment of life vs. chemical reaction is a little fuzzy. It is only in retrospect that the term life might be applied.

The DNA that you claim needs to be present to have life present also is not the first step in the process. It is among the last. This author correctly points out that the randomness of the process occurs before the initial coupling of the required molecules, but the outcomes of those random couplings always produce the same result given the same random couplings.

The time it took for this to occur has been about 4.5 billion years. The process started when the air and water were both very Carbon rich and most of the life on this planet is carbon based. Go figure. That's a whole bunch of time with a whole bunch of interactions to allow a whole bunch or results and only one of them had to result in life.

Once life springs forth, it's a pretty relentless thing and it just keeps on keeping on.

Origins of Life: How Did Life Appear on Earth?

 

[konradv]

Do you realize there is actual evidence supporting a young earth ?

And all of it is also fully consistent with with the evidence of an old Earth. The problem superstitious YECs like Youwerecreated cannot surmount is that valid logic applied to ALL the verifiable evidence does not support any young Earth theory.

Let me show you why people on your side agree with my side. From the other thread.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

That doesn't make sense, because there's no logical scientific explanation for why a jumbo jet would assemble on its own, while there ARE chemical mechanisms that permit the assembly of a DNA molecule. The "random chance" problem may still cause concern, but the analogy is worthless.

 

[rdean]

You guys are so full of shit. Give it up. Theres a world that is passing you by and your missing it. But don't worry it isn't missing you.

too bad they will cause so much damage before they leave.

 

[FurthurBB]

Do you realize there is actual evidence supporting a young earth ?

And all of it is also fully consistent with with the evidence of an old Earth. The problem superstitious YECs like Youwerecreated cannot surmount is that valid logic applied to ALL the verifiable evidence does not support any young Earth theory.

Let me show you why people on your side agree with my side. From the other thread.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

He also fully believed in evolution, no matter what else he believed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And all of it is also fully consistent with with the evidence of an old Earth. The problem superstitious YECs like Youwerecreated cannot surmount is that valid logic applied to ALL the verifiable evidence does not support any young Earth theory.

Let me show you why people on your side agree with my side. From the other thread.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

That doesn't make sense, because there's no logical scientific explanation for why a jumbo jet would assemble on its own, while there ARE chemical mechanisms that permit the assembly of a DNA molecule. The "random chance" problem may still cause concern, but the analogy is worthless.

The point was it would not happen.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And all of it is also fully consistent with with the evidence of an old Earth. The problem superstitious YECs like Youwerecreated cannot surmount is that valid logic applied to ALL the verifiable evidence does not support any young Earth theory.

Let me show you why people on your side agree with my side. From the other thread.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

He also fully believed in evolution, no matter what else he believed.

So you don't believe the origins of life does not matter ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

And all of it is also fully consistent with with the evidence of an old Earth. The problem superstitious YECs like Youwerecreated cannot surmount is that valid logic applied to ALL the verifiable evidence does not support any young Earth theory.

Let me show you why people on your side agree with my side. From the other thread.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

He also fully believed in evolution, no matter what else he believed.

I believe in adaptations as well but not to the point of Macro-evolution.

I believe that every family was created by God and given the ability to limited change through adaptations.

But we also know by darwins finches that the ones being weeded out by natural selection when the drought was over made a strong return. That is not evolution that is merely adapting.