Creationists: Have you ever read a book about Evolution?

This is an honest question, and I hope I can get some honest answers.

If I am going to debate a topic's validity, it would be wise for me to know about the topic at hand in order to bring up valid points to begin with. Yet time and time again the individuals who attempt to show the Theory of Evolution is incorrect almost exclusively spout claims that are founded off of either misconceptions, or really have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution to begin with.

Unfortunately, the debate never really begins because the arguments are so flooded with these simple misconceptions that they aren't even arguments about the topic at hand.

So I ask those of you who feel Evolution isn't an accurate portrayal of how modern life came to be, have you ever read anything about it? It really doesn't have to be an entire book about the subject; even the Wikipedia page would suffice.

If you have read a good deal of information explaining its concepts, what did you read - specifically - that made you feel the need to reject the theory?

a reply to: Ghost147

I find no argument in my own view of Creation and Evolution. Yes, evolution is how it happened, but who started the process?

I believe in an universal consciousness that has deliberately started the process of life. Everything was programmed into the smallest "seed" of life; using that as an expression for the first animation of matter into life.

I see no argument. Evolution rocks. So does the Bible.

my good buddy always says that if evolution is real, then God invented it.....



I roll when I hear it....

that guy in your signature...he always was a handsome feller!!

originally posted by: Ghost147
This is an honest question, and I hope I can get some honest answers.

If I am going to debate a topic's validity, it would be wise for me to know about the topic at hand in order to bring up valid points to begin with. Yet time and time again the individuals who attempt to show the Theory of Evolution is incorrect almost exclusively spout claims that are founded off of either misconceptions, or really have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution to begin with.

Unfortunately, the debate never really begins because the arguments are so flooded with these simple misconceptions that they aren't even arguments about the topic at hand.

So I ask those of you who feel Evolution isn't an accurate portrayal of how modern life came to be, have you ever read anything about it? It really doesn't have to be an entire book about the subject; even the Wikipedia page would suffice.

If you have read a good deal of information explaining its concepts, what did you read - specifically - that made you feel the need to reject the theory?

This is an honest question and I hope you can answer the question

The creation v evolution forum is splattered with arguments and unanswered questions.
If creationists are all that stupid, why can't you answer the questions scientifically, why do you turn to straw men and ridicule

Why compose a thread that you know will cause animosity and bitterness

If you could explain the problems creationist have you would win your argument

You just look silly

Look up questions evolutionists can't answer, answer them and write a book, I promise to buy it
Better yet, answer them right here, that or straw man and ridicule

I dare you to author a thread titled this
"I will answer every question about evolution you have"

Then we will see how ignorant and unlearned you really are

Talks cheap, real cheap

a reply to: Raggedyman

So you won't answer the question?

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: Ghost147
Yes, evolution is how it happened, but who started the process?

That would be dwelling in the realm of Abiogenesis, in which we have a number of plausible hypothesis. I, personally, don't see a requirement for a 'who' to exist in order to get life started here on Earth. That's not to say it is impossible for that to be the case, just that we have other hypothesis that have evidence to suggest a natural cause.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
If creationists are all that stupid

I'm not saying that Creationists are stupid, I'm just saying that coming into a debate when all many of them have are misconceptions about the topic to begin with, is irrational.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
why can't you answer the questions scientifically, why do you turn to straw men and ridicule

Can you give an example of one of these questions?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why compose a thread that you know will cause animosity and bitterness

I'm sure it will cause animosity, but it really is an honest question. I really am curious to know if any creationists have actually read scientific articles or books on the topic, and what turned them away from the concept.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
If you could explain the problems creationist have you would win your argument

To the audience, absolutely, to the creationist, no. I've been in countless debates on this particular subject, and I have been able to answer all the questions (both misinformed and not) that they've had; with citations nonetheless. I have convinced a small handful of people who I was debating against to really understand that their misconceptions, or points were incorrect. However, the vast majority of creationists simply tend to plug their ears and spout the same misconception over and over again.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Look up questions evolutionists can't answer, answer them and write a book, I promise to buy it
Better yet, answer them right here, that or straw man and ridicule

You'll have to be more specific. There are tons of "questions evolutionists can't answer" youtube videos, or articles out there, and I have yet to see those questions be unanswered with ease.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I dare you to author a thread titled this
"I will answer every question about evolution you have"

Then we will see how ignorant and unlearned you really are

Talks cheap, real cheap

Sure. I'm game

Thanks for keeping this topic on track and suggesting to start a new one based on this issue. I'll link you to the topic once I'm finished it.

Here you are Raggadyman. Link Thanks for your suggestion, we can carry on your concerns there.

a reply to: Ghost147

The human eye! WHAT NOW? drops mic moon walks into a church

a reply to: jobless1

I can't tell if you're being satirical or not? lol

But, ask in the other topic if you're legitimately asking

The penny dropped when I researched carbon dating and found out it is based on assumption

Unless you had a time machine and went back a million years and observed a dinosaw
Die and then came back to the future

I could not deny that and would have to accept it as solid proof
So when you invent time travel you will be able to prove your claim

Until then you can assume untill the cows come home

I also watched a leading professor on fossils
And he claims fossils take any where from minutes to hundreds of thousands of years to form
Hold it right there
Did he say minute s
They have fossils that are so well preserved
They would have to be formed in minutes


To me the earth is 7000 years old
And man is 6000 years old

Until time travel is invented

And stop preaching evolution untill
You have observable evidence
That is what true science is
You observe repeat and observe again
For the same results

Can you give me something to observe
A change of a spicies into a different species
To prove your claim
You can't because your theory takes thousands of years to observe
You need that time machine again

I was brainwashed at school and I never questioned it
Now I know the truth

a reply to: Ghost147

i'm joking but on a serous note the earth is only 6 thousand years old and we are all decedents of a few Jewish flood refugees who owned a floating zoo

Unless you had a time machine and went back a million years and observed a dinosaw Die and then came back to the future

//www.google.com/search?q=dinosaw&biw=1093&bih=546&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwr-T0xrDJAhVD0WMKHSANCI4Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=4y_A31SL2S6v VM%3A

originally posted by: piney
The penny dropped when I researched carbon dating and found out it is based on assumption

Well, radiocarbon dating is actually based off of mathematics, rather than pure assumption. It's also not our only way of dating things, for instance, we can date things based of a number of different phenomena and deposits, Deep Core Ice samples would be one such example.

We can also date specific organisms/structures off of other things as well, take trees for example. All we need is to drill a small core out of a tree and count the rings to know how many years old it is precisely.

Radiocarbon dating certainly isn't our only dating method out there.

originally posted by: piney
Unless you had a time machine and went back a million years and observed a dinosaw
Die and then came back to the future

Personal observation is actually a very poor form of determining anything, as everything is subjective to ones senses and current chemical makeup. It's why we don't rely solely on witnesses in a murder case, for instance.

Furthermore, we can still make observations and predictions based off of the evidence we have around us. I haven't sat seen an eclipse from Pluto's perspective, but we still know they occur.

originally posted by: piney
I also watched a leading professor on fossils
And he claims fossils take any where from minutes to hundreds of thousands of years to form
Hold it right there
Did he say minute s
They have fossils that are so well preserved
They would have to be formed in minutes

Very interesting, I would greatly like to see that claim, could you cite it?

originally posted by: piney
To me the earth is 7000 years old
And man is 6000 years old

We have trees on this planet that are still alive that are older than 7000 years old. We can verify this by simply counting tree rings.

Not only that, but virtually everything goes against that notion. Light and gravity throughout the Earth and Universe both suggest the universe is several billion years old

originally posted by: piney
And stop preaching evolution untill
You have observable evidence
That is what true science is
You observe repeat and observe again
For the same results

Well, all Evolution is is reproduction with variation. I used to breed reptiles several years ago, and I managed to produce new patterns and coloration within a matter of a few small generations. That would be observable evidence that credits the theory.

Of course, everything we see in any living organism also gives credit towards Evolution, things like vestigial limbs, organs, and dna, junk dna, shared dna, shared physiological traits, they all point towards common ancestors.

originally posted by: piney
Can you give me something to observe
A change of a spicies into a different species
To prove your claim
You can't because your theory takes thousands of years to observe
You need that time machine again

Actually, speciation has been observed.

Here are a few examples (there are many more) where a species has diverged from another species

~ Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) (de Vries (1905))
~ Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) (Digby (1912))
~ Tragopogon (Owenby (1950))
~ Raphanobrassica (Karpchenko (1927, 1928))
~ Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) (Muntzing 1932)
~ Drosophila paulistorum (Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971))

if you'd like direct links to them, I can provide them

I have many Christian friends. Extremely intelligent and highly educated. Not one them believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis. I was woefully ignorant and they really opened my eyes.

They also believe that all Creationists are extremely stupid. This literal interpretation of the Bible is a new thing. Even Augustine didn't believe in the literal meaning of Genesis and he wrote a book about it. Genesis was written as a counter to core beliefs put forward by the Babylonians in Enuma Elish, Atrahasis,and the Gilgamesh Epic. Rather than explain how the universe was created it was written to explain the Jewish view of how God relates to man as opposed to the mainstream Babylonian point of view at the time. You have to understand the context and you need to understand a lot of ancient history.

I mean it's still all nonsense but it's extremely interesting. Creationists don't reflect the educated Christian viewpoints. They are fundamentalist idiots that lack the intellect to think in allegorical terms. Kind of like ISIS.

a reply to: Logman

Yes, I'm aware that not all Christians hold a literal account for Genesis. This was more so directed to the individuals who do hold that view, rather than Christians in general

So the rest of us need time machines to proove our point yet you only need a few pages of a book. Kinda unfair no?





a reply to: piney

a reply to: Ghost147

Ditto I wish people that talk evolution would read the bible and research it before
they try to debate it as well .
And from what i learned in my research of evolution is they still cant find the bones to
show that man came from ape thats why there is a missing link.....

And the law of Thermodynamics in physics says that everything is slowly breaking down and apart.
And evolution says everything is rewriting itself to get better stronger ect...

Now both of them cant be right And the Law of thermodynamics dont have a missing link.

It would be nice if we have a good debate on this subject and not just bash all the people that believe in a god.

do you not understand that evolution and creation have nothing to do with one another? the problem is when evolutionsists attack creationists they spout the same tired bs and when creationsists attack evolution they are told there is no evolution vs creation as evolution doesnt deal with the origin of life

see it is just the hate each has for each other. they will never see eye to eye because they are not the same subject

they have a fundamental misunderstanding on purpose. with this misunderstanding they are allowed to attach without need to defend just leading to more contempt

then you have the problem that not all creationists are religious which the pro materialistic people hate . they cannot seem to grasp that creation does not just mean god.

then you have the fact that neither evolution nor abiogenisis nor creation as a whole has really been tested or proven and i doubt they can be

the closest evolution has gotten to being tested is this ecoli experiment
en.wikipedia.org...

and guess what after 60000 generations we still have ....ecoli

in order to be proven you need to be able to repeat an experiment . that is what science is. if you do not have a repeatable experiment it is not science.

and evolution does not have that.

of course neither does creation.

both sides need to get over the fact that no one knows or will know the truth for hundreds if not thousands of years

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Ghost147
Ditto I wish people that talk evolution would read the bible and research it before
they try to debate it as well .
And from what i learned in my research of evolution is they still cant find the bones to
show that man came from ape thats why there is a missing link.....

And the law of Thermodynamics in physics says that everything is slowly breaking down and apart.
And evolution says everything is rewriting itself to get better stronger ect...

Now both of them cant be right And the Law of thermodynamics dont have a missing link.

It would be nice if we have a good debate on this subject and not just bash all the people that believe in a god.

We could do that if folk did some honest research instead of spouting the same debunked nonsense found on creationist websites....

The Missing Link Fallacy

The Law of Thermodynamics

The deception that we are being subjected to is absolutely huge.

Creationism Vs. Evolution is a farcical debate that is being guided by the occult rulers of this world and mainly perpetuated by the petty and ignorant in search of pride-fuelled games of one-upmanship.

We used to have a ceiling put on any belief or understanding in the hidden world via organised religion. Now, a purely materialistic uniformitarianism has successfully told most of us, that there is no such place.

Rudimentary psychological manipulation is at the heart of this nonsense. Something like: 'Clever people believe in evolution; the superstitious believe in religion. Here is the evidence for evolution and here is how you must interpret it. Anyone with any perception and that truly thinks for themselves, can clearly see that what I'm saying is beyond doubt'.

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Ghost147
Ditto I wish people that talk evolution would read the bible and research it before
they try to debate it as well .

Evolution isn't an ideology, so there's not really a group of people called 'evolutionists' who have a world-view in a philosophical way. Evolution can be accepted or rejected by anyone (including people of different and actual ideologies)

I would say that 'Atheists' would be more a suitable word to use in your sentence; Atheism is also not an Ideology or a world view, but it does deal with addressing theology. However, there's statistical evidence that shows that Atheists have a higher chance to have read the bible (alongside other religious texts) than Christians do (which I believe is something like 33% of Christians have read the bible)

Furthermore, anyone can read the bible all they want, but everything is left to individualistic interpretation. Even Christians don't agree what the bible says. There are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity, and inside those denominations people still disagree on what is meant by this verse or that verse.

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Ghost147
And from what i learned in my research of evolution is they still cant find the bones to
show that man came from ape thats why there is a missing link.....

Actually, Human evolution is one of the most direct and filled lineages that we have. There is no missing link.

here's a great, visual example (and then of course we have our shared DNA as well)

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Ghost147
And the law of Thermodynamics in physics says that everything is slowly breaking down and apart.
And evolution says everything is rewriting itself to get better stronger ect...

This actually isn't true. Firstly, the second law of Thermodynamics doesn't say "everything", it's specifically referencing heat alone.

Secondly, Evolution makes no claims that everything is getting bigger/stronger/faster/better. It is just as much an open system than anything else. Organisms, species, and populations are weeded out if they are poorly adapted to their environment. However, it's to that environment exclusively. Humans do not last long in huge amounts of radiation, for instance, and we likely never will naturally adapt to that, yet some other microorganisms can actually eat radiation.

In my other topic a similar notion is brought up, However, evolution often takes away rather than adds and adds and adds. It's the reason some worms lost their guts, or that vestigial unusuable limbs/organs exist, or that when an species used to live in a place with sunlight, they had eyes, and over time they gradually migrated to a place absent of light, and so their eyes are no longer necessary and they begin to disappear all together.

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Ghost147
Now both of them cant be right And the Law of thermodynamics dont have a missing link.

read above.

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Ghost147
It would be nice if we have a good debate on this subject and not just bash all the people that believe in a god.

I'm not bashing the belief in god, and I never was (unless of course you can directly quote me within this topic). What I am concerned about is when people try to discredit a scientific study, when they clearly have no idea what it actually says at all.

In your post, you have directly proven my concern.