Origin of Creationism

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Oh come off it. Creationists deny the following sciences: Biology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropology. And I know that it's not a science, but they also deny History.

You forgot geology.

Quite right, so I did!

Science based on descriptive observational studies is nothing. For example in the Farminham study cohort of 30 years heart attack were high in coffee drinkers but that was only because smokers drank coffee. The shared DNA is like sharing colors on flags. After all no scientists said DNA is behind life or biology. You still have RNA and enzymes and many other things we barely scratched the surface off.you all start with premises never been confirmed. There is no relationship between chimp DNA and humans.you been just told so by hypothesists and you make premesis out of it illogically??
The DNA mutation rate been confirmed beyond hypothesis and you can use as premise. Not the fallous observation.
Check wiki MR CA and Y chromosomal Adam please

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Science based on descriptive observational studies is nothing. For example in the Farminham study cohort of 30 years heart attack were high in coffee drinkers but that was only because smokers drank coffee. The shared DNA is like sharing colors on flags. After all no scientists said DNA is behind life or biology. You still have RNA and enzymes and many other things we barely scratched the surface off.you all start with premises never been confirmed. There is no relationship between chimp DNA and humans.you been just told so by hypothesists and you make premesis out of it illogically??
The DNA mutation rate been confirmed beyond hypothesis and you can use as premise. Not the fallous observation.
Check wiki MR CA and Y chromosomal Adam please

Can I ask why you only trust the fragments of science that seem to support your position? And please don't state things that seem to gave originated with Answers in Genesis. Those clowns can't be trusted with anything scientific. They can't handle it.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Right if you can just not choke on your meal or have a siezure at the thought of looking at a creationist web site then please if it will not kill you or make you as crazy as me have a look at this, it may even teach you something you did not know.
www.icr.org...
Now assuming you actually read it, even if you had the reference the scientific journal's mentioned then please have another look at this which you and those like you love to laugh at.
www.6000years.org...

You know there has been one common repeating theme of today's science,.
If the data conforms (is a good little well behaved piece of predictable unargumentative analytical result) it is accepted with no further scrutiny.
But.
If the data does not conform it must be wrong so it has to be tested again and perhaps reinterpreted, hit with a hammer, chiselled, blown up with dynamite, sealed away and forgotten about or sunk in the deep water of the atlantic so that it no longer threatens the established anti religious agenda of certain body's and person's.

Sorry but it really us that blunt a fact.

Evolutionists are bum.they ignore evidence that ruin their fantacy they worked so hard on but only for themselves to believe in that fantacy of theirs that humans came from monkeys.human haters.

a reply to: adnanmuf

It's like you inhabit a parallel universe where everything is back to front.

a reply to: adnanmuf

No they have a point and it is what they believe, trading insult's help's no one and responding to bating will only give them what they want, better to walk away with dignity than act like a frothing bull to a rag, you are better than this statement, present your opinion, give your point and anything you will to add and if they then want to make themselves look like bullying school kid's then let them as the intelligent will weigh all sides and not based on insult's.
Remember you are better than to trade insult's or to be goaded out by idiot's with a trolling agenda.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Neither of you have offered up ANY evidence, yet you pat each other on the back and do a victory dance. Reminds me of Pigeon Chess:

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Right if you can just not choke on your meal or have a siezure at the thought of looking at a creationist web site then please if it will not kill you or make you as crazy as me have a look at this, it may even teach you something you did not know.
www.icr.org...
Now assuming you actually read it, even if you had the reference the scientific journal's mentioned then please have another look at this which you and those like you love to laugh at.
www.6000years.org...

You know there has been one common repeating theme of today's science,.
If the data conforms (is a good little well behaved piece of predictable unargumentative analytical result) it is accepted with no further scrutiny.
But.
If the data does not conform it must be wrong so it has to be tested again and perhaps reinterpreted, hit with a hammer, chiselled, blown up with dynamite, sealed away and forgotten about or sunk in the deep water of the atlantic so that it no longer threatens the established anti religious agenda of certain body's and person's.

Sorry but it really us that blunt a fact.

You seem to think that scientists are threatened by the claims of creationists. I think that you have that backwards. And thanks for the links by the way. One leads to ICR, who are about as scientifically reliable as a chocolate teapot and the other led to a very amusing website that made yet another claim to finding Noah's Ark. That's been debunked so many times that it's ridiculous. Amusing but ridiculous. It's a geological formation on a fricking volcano. In fact the aerial photos show some similar formations to one side, partially cropped out.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: adnanmuf

No they have a point and it is what they believe, trading insult's help's no one and responding to bating will only give them what they want, better to walk away with dignity than act like a frothing bull to a rag, you are better than this statement, present your opinion, give your point and anything you will to add and if they then want to make themselves look like bullying school kid's then let them as the intelligent will weigh all sides and not based on insult's.
Remember you are better than to trade insult's or to be goaded out by idiot's with a trolling agenda.

No, the intelligent will look at the scientific evidence. Are you Ken Ham by the way? He lost any shred of credibility when he said that nothing would ever shake his belief in the bible, no matter what scientific evidence was presented to him. He had already lost the 'debate' with Bill Nye by that point, but that underlined it and stuck a vast neon sign over it that said: 'This man is a fraud and a charlatan.'

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Evolutionists are bum.they ignore evidence that ruin their fantacy they worked so hard on but only for themselves to believe in that fantacy of theirs that humans came from monkeys.human haters.

This is a standard creationist attack, straight out of AiG's playbook. We did not come from monkeys per se, we share a common ancestor.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's always semantics or reading comprehension or
some other BS with you. Never considering common sense.
What a joke?

Semantics is everything in english if you say something that is vague or can be interpreted broadly, it leaves room for people to create misconceptions about your words or try to twist them. I like to talk precisely, if I say something, it is usually crafted to give one idea not many. This requires careful choice of words. Maybe try expanding your vocabulary and you wouldn't have these problems when you talk to me. I get your problem with semantics since you like to read the bible and that crappy book is open to all sorts of interpretations. Semantics gets lost in there. You can't have precise definitions if one person considers the tale to be a metaphor and the other takes it literally and yet a third sees it as a mix of both. That's what we call terrible evidence and not worth considering as a valid source of information.

Never considering common sense? Do you even know what common sense is? Because I sure don't. I surely don't let it guide my decision making process as far as scientific problem solving goes. Seems that that would be a big source of confirmation bias and a good way to skew your conclusion. I'd rather start with an empty brain and build my knowledge that way looking only at the evidence. Sorry bud, god isn't part of that equation. You can cry and moan about it all you want, it just doesn't make it true. ZERO evidence exists for your or any god and until that evidence surfaces, I'm just going to say that I don't know in that regard. I don't say that it doesn't exist though.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

we share a common ancestor.

I wonder if you could list all the similarities between your
common ancestor and my God?

a reply to: adnanmuf
If you multiply your post million times, it still does not offer any evidence for your 'claim'. What single male, when that is not what DNA tells us. There is no chicken and egg, and we are not offspring of a single male.
That is not what DNA and evidence tells us, and that is not how evolution works.

originally posted by: randyvs
That's why there' s a book.

He is our Father in Heaven.

Book written by whom? How come large parts of that 'book' were plagiarized from Mesopotamia - from same folks whose religion now we call mythology. How is your religion any different then their mythology?

I will answer that - it's not.


You believe in something without any evidence, and you follow book that we have EVIDENCE that not only is wrong, but is plagiarizing some earlier religions that we today call mythology.

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: adnanmuf

Howdy,

Sorry, but can I ask for clarification? Yes, all humans share ancestry, I understand that, but what do you mean to imply? It would seem to me that common ancestry of all humans would be evidence supporting both Creationism and the theory of evolution, so I fail to see why this information would at all be relevant... Perhaps that is why it is "ignored?" :/

Again, please clarify if I misunderstand something.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

you are trying avoid the obvious. That human share ancestry to a Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Common Ancestor (Ancestor not Ancestors,Ancestor not Ancestors,Ancestor not Ancestors, Ancestor not Ancestors)
One man one man one man one man one man)
What's the odds/probability/likelihood/mathematical probably) that the ancient claim that humans all came from one man, and this new DNA evidence????

Are you talking about Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve because we all know about those two individuals. But keep in mind that they lived NO WHERE near the same time in the past. Just because we can trace all of humanity back to a single person, doesn't mean that the human race originated from that person just that all other lineages from when that person lived have died out. You need to also start putting some links and sources to back up your claims, no one is going to take you seriously otherwise.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Evolutionists are bum.they ignore evidence that ruin their fantacy they worked so hard on but only for themselves to believe in that fantacy of theirs that humans came from monkeys.human haters.

It's funny you say this because you apparently ignored the evidence that we didn't evolve from monkeys.

Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution

1. Did we evolve from monkeys?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

Try again son.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

we share a common ancestor.

I wonder if you could list all the similarities between your
common ancestor and my God?

I have no idea which god you worship, so your question is irrelevant. If you worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn then I wouldn't say that are very many similarities.

a reply to: SuperFrog

your 'claim'. What single male, when that is not what DNA tells us. There is no chicken and egg, and we are not offspring of a single male.
That is not what DNA and evidence tells us, and that is not how evolution works.

To this date there isn't a single indication or example of evidence
for this "common ancestor" in the fossil record. So there couldn't have
been to many if they're that tough to find. And I'd say that ads up to
belief in a big ass zero. So find your material proof before you demand
proof of the spirit. Phff you can't even do that.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I have no idea which god you worship

How does it matter? Which ever one you don't
believe in.

‘Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.’ The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”
—Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43

a reply to: randyvs

Dude your quote is from 1981. We've made a BIT more progress in evolutionary theory since then. Science gets updated all the time. A quote from 33 years ago is HARDLY evidence of anything when talking about modern scientific theories.