Creationists

[typicalusguy]

To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.

Talk about faith-based lunacy...

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fact that humanity cannot yet create or manipulate something is no argument for a designer or god. In fact, if anything, it is an argument against it; the only intelligent design we have observable evidence of is from terrestrial life, and for the most part humanity.

ID and creationism proponents seem to like to say things along the lines of, 'we don't find this in nature, so it must be intelligently designed'. They fail to mention, of course, that the very thing they are almost always discussing IS, in fact, found in nature!

Life may be a product of design. I still have seen no evidence of scientific process being used to determine this.

The real problem is that life is not easily "created". In fact, right now it has proven impossible to duplicate. Every thing alive on the planet today got its life spark from the distant, distant past. It was passed through thousands of generations. Yet, Evolutionary theory would have us believe it occurs easily, even randomly, yet no evidence exists. That is the real fallacy of Darwinism isn't it, to behave as if the mystery has been solved and that the theory is fact. It hasn't and its not.

I was unaware that evolutionary theory claimed the creation of life is easy. In fact, I don't think evolutionary theory concerns itself with the creation of life at all, rather it is about what happens once life has already arisen.

Further, even if you want to claim abiogenesis as part of evolution, I have not seen it described as easy. Random, yes, but not easy. And once again, the fact that humanity has not recreated the events that may have occurred to begin life is no argument against the possibility. The things humanity has not done FAR outweigh the things we have.

The term random when used with any genesis I find hilarious. Not meaning to be rude but it is funny once you consider all the parameters when discussing origins.

 

[Youwerecreated]

To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.

Talk about faith-based lunacy...

Nail meet hammer.

 

[UltimateReality]

That was a poorly executed sidestep. If you’re not prepared to address comments directed at your arguments, don’t raise a nonsense issue that you’re unprepared to defend.

Wow, aren't you the Strawman calling the Scarecrow stuffed.

 

[UltimateReality]

I understand that you, like others, tend to recoil at challenges to your belief in the supernatural but weak attempts at insults with slogans such as “Darwinists”, only further degrade credibility.

You are in total denial, aren't you?

 

[Hollie]

Wow, aren't you the Strawman calling the Scarecrow stuffed.

Responding, as you have a habit of doing, with nothing more than childish attempts at insults reflects poorly on you.

 

[Hollie]

To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.

Talk about faith-based lunacy...

That is s misunderstanding of the fact and theory of evolution.

Origin of Species accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Contrary to your false characterization that evo can "assemble machinery into an airliner," Natural Selection makes no such requirement and negates coincidence completely. Evolution instead proposes the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.

 

[UltimateReality]

It is important for believers (and especially the fundie / Bible thumping / The-gods-did-it-screaming variety) accept that the history of their beliefs have caused much of the damage the world has seen, and not the other way around.

This is the common canned response of folks who subscribe to your religious views and has been cut and pasted here ad nauseum. Please cite specific statistics to back up your claim. When quoting your statistics, please differentiate the offenders who were following their own agendas and the ones who were actually following the REAL teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. If you had actually studied the religions you quote unsubstantiated information on, you might understand that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have a common beginning. Abraham is the father of Isaac, who is the father of the Jewish religion. He is also the father of Ishmael, who is the father of the Arab nation, and the religion of Muhammad. What distinguishes Christianity from these three religions is the teachings of Christ. So Darwinists (folks who follow the teachings of the prophet Charles Darwin) like yourself, tend to have a totally misunderstanding of Christianity and the significance of the New Testament. This ignorance allows them to build up Strawmen that have no basis in the actual teachings of Christianity, so they can feel good about proving their made up tenants of a religion they are totally unfamiliar with wrong. Please leave and come back once you've educated yourself. Your tired, repetitive dribble has been cut and pasted here numerous times. Had you read the last 300 pages, you might realize you are adding nothing to the discussion. Also, several pages back is a video link to Stephen Meyer talking about what ID Theory is or isn't. Take an hour of your life and listen to that one or continue being ignorant... your choice. Finally, had you read the last several pages of this thread, you would have noted that, while I respect Youwerecreated's beliefs, I don't don's subscribe to the "young earth" Creationist viewpoint. This viewpoint is based in the Genealogy of Christ that is outlined in the Bible but there are opposing arguments, as in everything, for an explanation on why that does not lock the Bible into a 6,000 year old history.

 

[typicalusguy]

So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?

Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?

 

[UltimateReality]

To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.

Talk about faith-based lunacy...

That is s misunderstanding of the fact and theory of evolution.

Origin of Species accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Contrary to your false characterization that evo can "assemble machinery into an airliner," Natural Selection makes no such requirement and negates coincidence completely. Evolution instead proposes the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.

Wow, you really need to get out of the house more often. The whole theory of evolution rests on the pillar of "fitness" and the survivability of traits that contributed to fitness. However, scientist can't even come up with a testable definition for fitness. The make up neat stories about how longer beaks allowed finches to survive or the Giraffe's long neck allowed it to continue to eat when low hanging fruit was gone, but these are fairy tales, not backed by one shred of scientific evidence. Your whole theory is based on a lie and a sham. You obviously haven't done much reading in the last 2 years. Your regurgitated false facts I learned in high school before I graduated in 1984!!!!

 

[Hollie]

It is important for believers (and especially the fundie / Bible thumping / The-gods-did-it-screaming variety) accept that the history of their beliefs have caused much of the damage the world has seen, and not the other way around.

This is the common canned response of folks who subscribe to your religious views and has been cut and pasted here ad nauseum. Please cite specific statistics to back up your claim. When quoting your statistics, please differentiate the offenders who were following their own agendas and the ones who were actually following the REAL teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. If you had actually studied the religions you quote unsubstantiated information on, you might understand that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have a common beginning. Abraham is the father of Isaac, who is the father of the Jewish religion. He is also the father of Ishmael, who is the father of the Arab nation, and the religion of Muhammad. What distinguishes Christianity from these three religions is the teachings of Christ. So Darwinists (folks who follow the teachings of the prophet Charles Darwin) like yourself, tend to have a totally misunderstanding of Christianity and the significance of the New Testament. This ignorance allows them to build up Strawmen that have no basis in the actual teachings of Christianity, so they can feel good about proving their made up tenants of a religion they are totally unfamiliar with wrong. Please leave and come back once you've educated yourself. Your tired, repetitive dribble has been cut and pasted here numerous times. Had you read the last 300 pages, you might realize you are adding nothing to the discussion. Also, several pages back is a video link to Stephen Meyer talking about what ID Theory is or isn't. Take an hour of your life and listen to that one or continue being ignorant... your choice. Finally, had you read the last several pages of this thread, you would have noted that, while I respect Youwerecreated's beliefs, I don't don's subscribe to the "young earth" Creationist viewpoint. This viewpoint is based in the Genealogy of Christ that is outlined in the Bible but there are opposing arguments, as in everything, for an explanation on why that does not lock the Bible into a 6,000 year old history.

And what was it that you were scolded about, re: bible thumping

 

[UltimateReality]

The real problem is that life is not easily "created". In fact, right now it has proven impossible to duplicate. Every thing alive on the planet today got its life spark from the distant, distant past. It was passed through thousands of generations. Yet, Evolutionary theory would have us believe it occurs easily, even randomly, yet no evidence exists. That is the real fallacy of Darwinism isn't it, to behave as if the mystery has been solved and that the theory is fact. It hasn't and its not.

I'd suggest you avoid discussions involving science as you tend to stumble over your own comments with a lack of understanding some very basic principles of science.

Evidence supporting the fact of evolution is not in dispute within the scientific community. You tend to make bellicose statements which are invariably false.

Ha, ha, ha!!! I just fell off my chair laughing so hard. You are really brainwashed!!! Do you ever read any opposing material? Or just cut and paste your regurgitated party lines? You are showing a real penchant for lack of any thought of your own.

 

[konradv]

To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.

Talk about faith-based lunacy...

No it doesn't. While there are chemical laws which govern which atoms can combine and in what order, the are no such rules for 747s. That's an old comment with zero leverage as a scientific statement. I wonder about the actual, rather than the claimed, scientific acumen of those who thank you.

 

[UltimateReality]

How do you know without a shadow of a doubt it was bronchitis? Did you swab your lungs and grow the culture yourself? No my dear, I'm betting you $100 you took it on faith from your doctor. HA!

I didn't need blind faith in the supernatural to understand that trust in the modern science of medicine would cure disease.

Here's an experiment that will assist you in establishing the reality you are having problems coming to terms with:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

The sidestep caller sidesteps. HMMMM.

 

[Hollie]

To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.

Talk about faith-based lunacy...

That is s misunderstanding of the fact and theory of evolution.

Origin of Species accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Contrary to your false characterization that evo can "assemble machinery into an airliner," Natural Selection makes no such requirement and negates coincidence completely. Evolution instead proposes the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.

Wow, you really need to get out of the house more often. The whole theory of evolution rests on the pillar of "fitness" and the survivability of traits that contributed to fitness. However, scientist can't even come up with a testable definition for fitness. The make up neat stories about how longer beaks allowed finches to survive or the Giraffe's long neck allowed it to continue to eat when low hanging fruit was gone, but these are fairy tales, not backed by one shred of scientific evidence. Your whole theory is based on a lie and a sham. You obviously haven't done much reading in the last 2 years.
Your regurgitated false facts I learned in high school before I graduated in 1984!!!!

You're wholly deficient in your understanding of evolution and science. You should sit on the sidelines, read and make attempts to understand what is presented to you... then go out and thump people with your bibles.

 

[Hollie]

How do you know without a shadow of a doubt it was bronchitis? Did you swab your lungs and grow the culture yourself? No my dear, I'm betting you $100 you took it on faith from your doctor. HA!

I didn't need blind faith in the supernatural to understand that trust in the modern science of medicine would cure disease.

Here's an experiment that will assist you in establishing the reality you are having problems coming to terms with:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

The sidestep caller sidesteps. HMMMM.

You obviously missed the assignment you were directed to complete. Can't respond? That was anticipated.

 

[konradv]

So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?

Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

 

[UltimateReality]

...that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts.

Wrong!!! Please cite on modern day, substantiated example of natural selection in action. Please don't quote the moth example which has long since been debunked, or the pathetic finch fairytale. Please do not quote any postulations which include assumptive language like "may have", "might have" or "could have". What I'm asking for is REAL example where a TESTABLE definition of fitness resulted in a trait resulting in a species surviving. Testable perhaps would be a survey of the population without the trait and then later data showing the percentage of the population of the species with the new trait increased. It would also be nice if you could include the genomic backup for the mutation that resulted in the trait that resulted in higher fitness. Any mutations that result in disease or lesser fitness are unacceptable.

Hollie, here is your chance!!

 

[UltimateReality]

It is important for believers (and especially the fundie / Bible thumping / The-gods-did-it-screaming variety) accept that the history of their beliefs have caused much of the damage the world has seen, and not the other way around.

This is the common canned response of folks who subscribe to your religious views and has been cut and pasted here ad nauseum. Please cite specific statistics to back up your claim. When quoting your statistics, please differentiate the offenders who were following their own agendas and the ones who were actually following the REAL teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. If you had actually studied the religions you quote unsubstantiated information on, you might understand that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have a common beginning. Abraham is the father of Isaac, who is the father of the Jewish religion. He is also the father of Ishmael, who is the father of the Arab nation, and the religion of Muhammad. What distinguishes Christianity from these three religions is the teachings of Christ. So Darwinists (folks who follow the teachings of the prophet Charles Darwin) like yourself, tend to have a totally misunderstanding of Christianity and the significance of the New Testament. This ignorance allows them to build up Strawmen that have no basis in the actual teachings of Christianity, so they can feel good about proving their made up tenants of a religion they are totally unfamiliar with wrong. Please leave and come back once you've educated yourself. Your tired, repetitive dribble has been cut and pasted here numerous times. Had you read the last 300 pages, you might realize you are adding nothing to the discussion. Also, several pages back is a video link to Stephen Meyer talking about what ID Theory is or isn't. Take an hour of your life and listen to that one or continue being ignorant... your choice. Finally, had you read the last several pages of this thread, you would have noted that, while I respect Youwerecreated's beliefs, I don't don's subscribe to the "young earth" Creationist viewpoint. This viewpoint is based in the Genealogy of Christ that is outlined in the Bible but there are opposing arguments, as in everything, for an explanation on why that does not lock the Bible into a 6,000 year old history.

And what was it that you were scolded about, re: bible thumping

Sidestep. I'm still waiting for your statistics.

 

[UltimateReality]

That is s misunderstanding of the fact and theory of evolution.

Origin of Species accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Contrary to your false characterization that evo can "assemble machinery into an airliner," Natural Selection makes no such requirement and negates coincidence completely. Evolution instead proposes the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.

Wow, you really need to get out of the house more often. The whole theory of evolution rests on the pillar of "fitness" and the survivability of traits that contributed to fitness. However, scientist can't even come up with a testable definition for fitness. The make up neat stories about how longer beaks allowed finches to survive or the Giraffe's long neck allowed it to continue to eat when low hanging fruit was gone, but these are fairy tales, not backed by one shred of scientific evidence. Your whole theory is based on a lie and a sham. You obviously haven't done much reading in the last 2 years.
Your regurgitated false facts I learned in high school before I graduated in 1984!!!!

You're wholly deficient in your understanding of evolution and science. You should sit on the sidelines, read and make attempts to understand what is presented to you... then go out and thump people with your bibles.

My Bible is on my iPhone. Can I just hit people with it?

Okay Hollie, now I sincerely apologize for manipulating you and I will concede that play time is over. It is really easy to come on here and call out folks for "sidestepping" and name calling and put downs, but when pushed, even you have resorted to this behavior. I won't put you down any more but just keep in mind that old glass houses saying as you continue to post. You got that calling you a Darwinist was a ploy to make you realize that calling Christians Bible Thumpers is just as offensive. Also, calling ID Theorists Creationists is also just as offensive. Whether you want to believe it or not, proponents of the TOE regularly mix Material Mysticism with science.