Creationists, may I ask you...

a reply to: Murgatroid

I'm not attacking you. You're just dumb. You don't understand the definition of science and think it is some belief system. Science does not revolve around the theory of evolution. Evolution is one aspect of science. If you passed high school biology, you would know this.

How many years did you spend researching and learning about Molecular Biology, Cellular Biology, Microbiology, Physiology, chemistry, or genetics?

Do you have knowledge in any of these fields?

Or are all those science related fields part of the cult?

a reply to: scorpio84

I'm not looking for:
-defensive replies
-prolonged debate
-trolling
-rude behavior

Really? Could have fooled me. Seems as though you are begging for all of the above.

This is one of those what came first the chicken or the egg problem.

The fact remains that no matter which way you think the wind blows, it never blows in one direction.


There is nothing wrong with believing both possibilities, since that is the most logical conclusion.

Although, my version of creation is not predicated on a warped version provided by some concocted man-made religious concept.

The creation of the Universe is beyond comprehension and therefor makes no difference.

The evolution of any species in the entirety of the Universe is, also, not readily available information to Earthlings.


Anything that is tangible has been created and will either evolve or devolve, become dispersed energy and will manifest in many different forms for eternal life.

Trying to make this an either or scenario is simply not feasible or necessary. Both probabilities exist and requires no debate.

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: scorpio84

Creationism: based on a historical text (the validity of which has been attested to by many scholars and historians) that is the word of the living God.

The living word of God huh? Then why are there at least 2 authors of the Hebrew version, which isn't the earliest version of the myth as it was plagiarized during the Hebrews captivity in Babylon? Why does "God" give Noah 2 different reasons for the flood? More than one set of instructions as to what animals etc... to being aboard his boat?mwhy are there 2 different time frames for how long the flood lasts, different explanations for the nature of the flood waters,midge rent circumstances under which Noah, his family and the animals leave the ark and then there are the 2 different names for "God" used( Elohim and YHWH). Why are there differences in characteristic style of writing, vocabulary and grammar used? This doesn't dound like the word of a living God. It sounds like the work of multiple authors and revisions in the Hebrew version alone. And thst doesn't even take into account the discrepancies between the Genesis version and the original source material.

Noah's ark has been found--and it's the exact thing the Bible describes (yes, down to the exact measurements and materials). It was found about a decade ago--very surprised that everyone hasn't heard of this by now.

Oh lots of us have heard of the "discovery". I've heard of several "discoveries" of alleged arks going back to an episode of ...In Search Of with Leonard Nimoy when I was 5 or 6. The only problem with this new " discovery" is that it's natural rock formations and not any sort of boat. So no, not the same materials at all. As for the measurements given in the bible... A vessel built to those specifications is little more than a slow burial at sea for anyone aboard it. You would have better luck sailing the rock formations found in Turkey than a ship built to biblical specs. I've had bowel movements that were more sea worthy than Noah's alleged ark. And I'm not even getting into the extraordinary improbability of the amount of rainfall and the fact that the authors of this text gave no pause towards the implications of having the entire planet covered in such a deep layer of water and how there would be no plant life for herbivores to eat which means the survivors would all perish from starvation in a matter of weeks. I could continue but there are other threads dedicated to this topic where I go into far greater detail.

Evolution: Darwin's theory was bastardized by Herbert Spencer who invented the whole humans evolving from apes malarkey (btw Spencer is a eugenicist)--

How did he bastardized it when he wrote about evolution before Darwin did? I can't argue that he took Darwins concept of natural selection and coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" but he was on to Evolution before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Spencer's explanation for the evolution of complexity in an organism was drastically different than Darwins also. The fact is though, thst Spencer had a fairly well thought out hypothesis on evolutionary theory prior to OtOoS and begrudgingly included natural selection into his own work because of the amount of data collected by Darwin supporting it. He, rather contrarily to Darwins theory, attempted to show that evolution had an actual goal , a direction and an endgame. To reach perfect equilibrium. As for your comment about Spemcer "inventing" the concept of humans evolving from apes... Bull s#. While he didn't get into it in OtOoS, Darwin did go into great detail 12 years later when he wrote Descent of Man. Furthermore, NOBODY claims humans evolved from apes. We are apes and we share a common ancestor with the other Great Apes.

Darwin didn't believe any of that.

Then why on earth would he write Descent of Man, which deals directly with the evolution of Homo Sapiens?

Natural selection definitely exists. So does adaptation. So, to that end, evolution exists (at least, the evolution Darwin spoke of). Herbert Spencer's archaebacteria/invertebrate/vertebrate/fish/monkey/human fantasy is totally unfounded and there is absolutely no evidence of this type of thing being even remotely true.

Except that what you are attributing to Spencer was in fact Darwins position and he most definitely believed what you call fantasy. No evidence? The Human Genome Project and Neamderthsl Genoke Project have more than enough genetic evidence proving common ancestry thst I don't even need to go into the fossil record, archaeological record or geological evidence.. All of which are copious. Evolution is an indisputable fact accepted by over 98% of earth scientists( biologists, geologists, anthropologists, paleontologist et al.) who are members of the National Academy of Sciences. While we are still a long way from knowing everything about how evolution works, it is still the most well supported theory in the history of science.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: scorpio84

I'm not looking for:
-defensive replies
-prolonged debate
-trolling
-rude behavior

Really? Could have fooled me. Seems as though you are begging for all of the above.

This is one of those what came first the chicken or the egg problem.

The fact remains that no matter which way you think the wind blows, it never blows in one direction.


There is nothing wrong with believing both possibilities, since that is the most logical conclusion.

Although, my version of creation is not predicated on a warped version provided by some concocted man-made religious concept.

The creation of the Universe is beyond comprehension and therefor makes no difference.

The evolution of any species in the entirety of the Universe is, also, not readily available information to Earthlings.


Anything that is tangible has been created and will either evolve or devolve, become dispersed energy and will manifest in many different forms for eternal life.

Trying to make this an either or scenario is simply not feasible or necessary. Both probabilities exist and requires no debate.

You're mixing definitions. Biological evolution is a process explaining how we get biological diversity. There is no devolving in that definition. We've done a pretty good job understanding how evolution has impacted our planet for being mere earthlings....

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Evolution doesn't disprove god, just the one you were taught to believe in as a child. God and evolution can coexist, but no current religion and evolution can exist together.

Why is it folks seem fixated on the bearded magic man in the clouds? Let's move out of sunday school, 'kay?

You may say it but do you genuinely believe God, in all his infinite wisdom, created amino acids to one day evolve into a single cell organism? Why not create animals/humans at their currently established form through evolution ?

I believe God set up the fundamental forces which effectively coded the universe to support life, and the properties of water, amino acids, lipids, etc are a by-product of that coding. As for the rest, I cannot know the mind of God. But since He isn't restrained by time and space the way we are, how do we know that we aren't in the middle of creation right now?

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Murgatroid

I'm not attacking you. You're just dumb. You don't understand the definition of science and think it is some belief system. Science does not revolve around the theory of evolution. Evolution is one aspect of science. If you passed high school biology, you would know this.

How many years did you spend researching and learning about Molecular Biology, Cellular Biology, Microbiology, Physiology, chemistry, or genetics?

Do you have knowledge in any of these fields?

Or are all those science related fields part of the cult?

Fun fact, most of the fundamental discoveries of early biology occurred before Darwin, and/or many of their founders (eg Mendel, Wolff, van Leeuwenhoek, Hooke) rejected his 'descent with modification' theory. Darwinism needs biology a heck of a lot more than biology needs darwinism.

p.s. I'm not sure about Murgatroid, but I spent 4 years in college earning my Biology and Microbiology degrees.

This is a topic that just goes back and forth tirelessly like an endless game of tennis. I say let those who deny the possibility of creation go about their business and let those that do believe go about their's. I don't have a problem living amongst the heathens, have no desire to try to win them over. So long as they keep their 'logic' to themselves I am happy to swim in the same current so to speak.

But enough about me. Its very easy to put one's faith in logic and science. One can point to the data and say, 'Ah-ha, here is proof, look!' And shake their head in frustration when realising that for a lot of people no amount of logic and scientific data will constitute proof that there is no Creator.

The OP asks, Why? I in turn ask, Why do you care? I mean really, if you are safely ensconched in accepting the 'facts' why do you want to know why some of us believe in something contrary. Or aren't you as certain of your ground as you make out to be?

a reply to: scorpio84

Depends on what you mean by evolution.

originally posted by: scorpio84
...why do so many of you not believe in evolution?

1 does believe that over periods CREATOR Creations do evolve and are sent assistance to evolve. Assistance associated with the Ancient Alien theory or from a natural panspermia events that have caused radioactive or biological enhanced materials to fall to the planets abroad, that spawn or enhance growth and or intelligence. The AA theory can also tie into a artificial or intentional panspermia event sent to Evolve a species progress...

originally posted by: scorpio84
I honestly do not get it.

Evolution: Based on data that can be observed and tested.

Creationism: Based on an ancient book that has been consistently translated inaccurately and which contains several errors.

Evolution is based on tested observed data yes, but it does not factor in events where extreme radiation exposure may have blanketed a planet altering radiation dating. Extreme radiation exposure from STAR emitted radiation or radiation from fallout from celestial collisions, which can offset much of the current observed dating.

Its also observed that some of the Creation data associated with the Great religious books is related to ancient archaeological related information that signifies a strong Ancient Alien hypothesis...

originally posted by: scorpio84
This is an honest question and if it some how offends it, then I'm sorry...that you are so easily offended. But seriously, if anyone here can give a good (i.e. logical and valid) reason as to why creationism makes more sense (i.e. is more correct, not is easier) than the theory of evolution, I'd love to read about it.

BTW, if this has been answered before, pardon me. I'm not about to go through thousands of posts which are invariably interspersed with a bunch of bickering.

Last the big bang theory ... What was the medium material present before and after the big bang was Initiated? Is this medium older then the assessed 13.5 billion years? 1 thinks the medium is more elder then the expanse material that was added to it to make up the observable universe. The medium is present today also for it is the main background of the observable universe considered the dark / unknown energy... For some medium had to exist in order to assist in the expansion of the observable universe.

And with all this unknown and theorized data its not easy to decide which group is more accurate in their theoretical positioning on Creation or Evolution.

It seems that the unknown is written off as nothingness?
So theoretically nothingness cannot Create something?
But it seems that the unknown observed as nothing may actually be something just not perceivable to the unaware observer. Which causes the mind to question the accuracy of some theorized data...

NAMASTE*******

originally posted by: blueman12
I'm not attacking you. You're just dumb.

"The louder the opposition protests, the more I know I am on the right track." ~ Zorgon

I'll take that as a good sign...

That mocking tone and critical attitude really makes it hard to take a person seriously though.

Insults are nothing more than a sign of desperation and an attempt to manipulate emotions.

I can't say I blame you, who wouldn't get frustrated trying to defend an impossibility?

originally posted by: Skyfloating
But you want to know what actually convinced me of the ID crowd? 10 years of seeing the completely spiteful, mocking and ignorant behavior of atheists/evolutionists on online forums, with their childish remarks on "you believe in the toothfairy, nanananana!" Seeing such a stark contrast in mentality, decency, respect and kindness makes it pretty obvious which if these sides have refined and cultured minds and which are of more simple and coarse intelligence.

a reply to: rukia

Creationism: based on a historical text

Yes, the Bible is historical in the sense it was written a long time ago (you know, back when people knew next to nothing about the natural world).

(the validity of which has been attested to by many scholars and historians)

Define "validity."

Are you talking about historicity? - Something being old does not make it valid.
Are you talking about claims about the natural world? - Science has proven them false. You willfully ignoring this fact does not validate the Bible.
Are you talking about historical events portrayed in the Bible? So what? Some things may have been right, others incorrect (I'm fuzzy on my historical theology - my concentration was analytical theology).

that is the word of the living God

This is an assumption. Telling you it is the word of Akaharu, Lord of the Vysukum has as much validity. Which is to say, of course, none.

Noah's ark has been found--and it's the exact thing the Bible describes (yes, down to the exact measurements and materials).

Ah, reported all over Christian news - nothing about it in other news sources and very conveniently found by Evangelicals. Also, a quick Google search will expose the fraudulence (at least unreliability) of this "discovery":

"Discovery" of Noah's Ark a Hoax.

It was found about a decade ago--very surprised that everyone hasn't heard of this by now.

Probably because not everyone gives credence to hoaxes that have been roundly debunked by various scholars.

Now to the part that I am no expert in:

Darwin's theory was bastardized by Herbert Spencer who invented the whole humans evolving from apes malarkey (btw Spencer is a eugenicist)--

His being a eugenicist means nothing - other than he was an asshole. Furthermore, even though I know just about nothing regarding evolution, even I understand that no one claims that humans evolved from apes. Humans are part of the great ape family (which also includes gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees) and the theory is not that we evolved from chimpanzees - but from a common ancestor. I'm sure there are plenty of people on this thread that can explain this to you in more detail.

Herbert Spencer's archaebacteria/invertebrate/vertebrate/fish/monkey/human fantasy is totally unfounded and there is absolutely no evidence of this type of thing being even remotely true.

Except, of course, for vestigial structures.

And of course transitional fossils.

Yes, you answered my question - you blindly follow something you don't understand and are willing to accept obvious hoaxes, so long as it does not change your false perception. Take it from me, as someone who has studied theology - not in a seminary - but analytical theology...the only logical conclusion to make about the Bible is that it is an obsolete morality guidebook that also served as part history/part myth of the Hebrews. It is no more inspired than the Epic of Gilgamesh or Homer's Odyssey or Virgi's Illiad.

Open your mind to reality.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Murgatroid

I'm not attacking you. You're just dumb. You don't understand the definition of science and think it is some belief system. Science does not revolve around the theory of evolution. Evolution is one aspect of science. If you passed high school biology, you would know this.

How many years did you spend researching and learning about Molecular Biology, Cellular Biology, Microbiology, Physiology, chemistry, or genetics?

Do you have knowledge in any of these fields?

Or are all those science related fields part of the cult?

Look, I know Murgatroid can be frustrating to deal with, but making comments about someones intelligence by calling them dumb and questioning their education is in fact a personal attack on them. It does nothing for your own position at all and in fact weakens your argument while simultaneously detracting from the actual topic of discussion. One of the biggest issues with these threads is that people resort to this level of behavior instead of attempting to be semi civil and address the actual topic of the thread. One can't claim the intellectual high road if we aren't engaging in a dialogue based on the facts and putting aside our hurt feelings. The whole thread derails into anarchy and 3 days later another thread appears with the same or very similar inquiry or statement when it could have been addressed in the initial thread. That chance for a legitimate dialogue is lost and credibility is lost. Again, I can understand the level of frustration but don't diminish your position by sinking your own ship.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Ancient Alien theory

1). It's not a "theory"
2). If this is the premise of your post to me, I can't be bothered to read/reply to the rest.

originally posted by: scorpio84
...why do so many of you not believe in evolution?

I honestly do not get it.

Evolution: Based on data that can be observed and tested.

Creationism: Based on an ancient book that has been consistently translated inaccurately and which contains several errors


I'm not looking for:
-defensive replies
-prolonged debate
-trolling
-rude behavior

This is an honest question and if it some how offends it, then I'm sorry...that you are so easily offended. But seriously, if anyone here can give a good (i.e. logical and valid) reason as to why creationism makes more sense (i.e. is more correct, not is easier) than the theory of evolution, I'd love to read about it.

BTW, if this has been answered before, pardon me. I'm not about to go through thousands of posts which are invariably interspersed with a bunch of bickering.

If it is tested and observable
Then why do you state that it is a theory

When you should be stating it as fact
Please send me evidence that I can observe
I want to see a species change into a different species before my very eyes

What pisses me off is when people go around
And claim the earth is millions of years old
As though it is fact when they should
Inform others that it is a theory

Lol I watched a news program the other day
And the news presenter was talking about the
Latest data that shows the earth is at its hottest in all its history

Wow stop the press
We know how old the earth really is
The caveman must of kept records


Busted
telling a big fat lie

originally posted by: piney


If it is tested and observable
Then why do you state that it is a theory

When you should be stating it as fact

Evolution is indeed a fact. When talking about a scientific theory, the theory serves to explain HOW something works. It's not the same definition as theory holds in laymans terms. It's not the equivalent of Scooby-Doo and the gang having a hunch while trying to figure out who the bad guy is.

Scientific Theory. Rnoun
1.
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation

Please send me evidence that I can observe
I want to see a species change into a different species before my very eyes

That's not how it works and it's incredibly naive to assume so and in fact, if that happened it would be contrary to Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

What pisses me off is when people go around
And claim the earth is millions of years old

Me too. Especially when it's approximately 4.5 Bn. Whoever these people are quoting millions
Of years for the age of the Earth should enroll in a remedial Earrh Science course or Geology 101

As though it is fact when they should
Inform others that it is a theory

Are we talking about evolutionary theory or geology now? Two different fields of study. There is certainly some overlap but dating the earth is a seperate field of inquiry.

Lol I watched a news program the other day
And the news presenter was talking about the
Latest data that shows the earth is at its hottest in all its history

I doubt that's how it was presented. Anytime I see data of that nature it is always used in the appropriate context of "since we began keeping records" which only puts it back to the 19th century. Nobody is trying to convince people that we have magical time traveling thermometers.

Wow stop the press
We know how old the earth really is
The caveman must of kept records

You do realize that "cave man" is a euphemism for Neolithic HG's don't you and that there wasn't any life period let alone hominids 4.5 BA?
That and the fact that the assessed age of the Earth is an approximation. Nobody is claiming that they can pinpoint a specific date on the Gregorian calendar when the Earth formed.

Busted
telling a big fat lie

Busted-

For being extraordinarily naive and incredulous towards multiple scientific disciplines that you clearly don't have a full understanding of. You can't dispute something you haven't taken the time to actually learn about. That's just silly.

a reply to: peter vlar

Are you telling me you're going to back this kind
of crap Peter?

Scientists don't "belive" things.

Human beings aren't robots and none of us go thru life
without belief in something. Strawman my ass Peter.
You have to believe someone loves you because you
can't put it in a G-D petri dish and prove it. I swear it's like
you people wish we were all less than what we are.
We're human beings, we have spirit and an imagination
and we don't go trhru life without belief. Why does science
always want to take away our humanity like a bunch of freaks?

a reply to: scorpio84

because...

God

ATS should have more conversationalists of your calibur.
I await your next syllable with great eagerness.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: peter vlar

Are you telling me you're going to back this kind
of crap Peter?

Scientists don't "belive" things.

Could you be so kind as to take a deep breath, lessen the hostility, increase the civility and show me where exactly I made that comment about scientists and belief please? Or am I missing something?

Human beings aren't robots and none of us go thru life
without belief in something. Strawman my ass Peter.

Your analogy is a strawman though. You're comparing a mothers continuous reinforcement through demonstration that they love their child with an insinuated love by a supposed benevolent deity who has on occasion tried to wipe out all life on Earth.

You have to believe someone loves you because you
can't put it in a G-D petri dish and prove it.

No, I don't have to believe any such thing. I evaluate the evidence around me. Just to be clear, I never said I don't believe in anything so I'm confused a bit regarding the hostility. My comment was only in regard to the analogy you used. I'll use a personal anecdote here. I know my wife loves me. She demonstrates and reinforced this daily. I know my daughter loves me, same criteria. I know my ex doesn't love me because she's a thieving whore and has reinforced this behavior with every person who has been in her life since I dumped her ass a dozen years ago by repeating the same behaviors. As to belief... I don't believe she has a soul because she is that devoid of humanity but that belief doesn't mean jack because I can't measure or quantify the data from my position.

When I still worked with Neanderthal remains, I knew how strong an individual specimen was when alive, I knew how large and dense their muscles were because I could measure the attachment point scars and plug in those numbers. I knew how large their brains were, how tall they were. If I was doing that work today, I would know what color hair and eyes they had because we would have access to their DNA. Were there things I personally believed about Neanderthals, perhaps aspects of their social life? Certainly. However it wasn't relevant if I didn't have the data to support my belief based hypothesis. And I think that was the crux of the point initiated back on page 2 that gave rise to the post if yours to which I responded.

I swear it's like you people wish we were all less than what we are.

Not at all and that's not even remotely what I stated or implied.

We're human beings, we have spirit and an imagination
and we don't go trhru life without belief.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth my friend. These insinuations are directed at the wrong person I believe. See, another thing I believe in!!!

Why does science always want to take away our humanity like a bunch of freaks?

Science is nothing more than a tool. It's not a person. It's not an entity and it's not some multidisciplinary, worldwide conspiracy to strip you of what makes you you or shove institutionalize do atheism down your throat. And it certainly isn't trying to take away your humanity or anything else for that matter.

Yeay Fighting fishes how much for one ?

a reply to: peter vlar

I don't believe she has a soul because she is that devoid of humanity but that belief doesn't mean jack because I can't measure or quantify the data from my position.

She has no soul?

perhaps said person is devoid of light in her soul but no soul?