Ask me anything about Creationism!

a reply to: superman2012

Genetics - God knew that when Eve got pregnant, her fetus would need to have an umbilical cord, so He encoded that into their genes.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: superman2012

Genetics - God knew that when Eve got pregnant, her fetus would need to have an umbilical cord, so He encoded that into their genes.

what evidence do you have for this hypothesis?

that which can be posited without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

a reply to: TzarChasm

My evidence is the miraculous work of God we call, "Life."

That the attachment to the placenta via the umbilical cord is fairly important to the fetus seems to be well understood - do you require evidence of that?

a reply to: scorpio84

Actually, your answer doesn't really apply to superman2012's question. Sure, their offspring needed umbilical cords, but Adam and Eve wouldn't have had a need for them since they were created, not gestated and born.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You can't read a book and accurately represent creationism either...it's abundantly clear from the inaccurate answers throughout the thread...just like a creationist who reads an evolution article and thinks he knows everything....there is almost always something that gets misinterpreted....

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TzarChasm

You can't read a book and accurately represent creationism either...it's abundantly clear from the inaccurate answers throughout the thread...just like a creationist who reads an evolution article and thinks he knows everything....there is almost always something that gets misinterpreted....

A2D

From previous threads, scorpio84's claims that because he is an agnostic, he can argue from both a theistic side and an atheistic side.

Personally, I dont really see how that makes much sense. no offense scorpio.

a reply to: Ghost147

None taken. Upon longer reflection on the issue, I think it was my mistake to think of only the anti-theist/Dawkins type atheists.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Instead of griping, would you kindly provide us with the corrected versions of the answers I've given?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: TzarChasm

My evidence is the miraculous work of God we call, "Life."

That the attachment to the placenta via the umbilical cord is fairly important to the fetus seems to be well understood - do you require evidence of that?

My request was more toward your opinion that a conscious agency was responsible for the development of placentas and umbilical cord, specifically for our benefit. Do you have evidence for this claim?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TzarChasm

You can't read a book and accurately represent creationism either...it's abundantly clear from the inaccurate answers throughout the thread...just like a creationist who reads an evolution article and thinks he knows everything....there is almost always something that gets misinterpreted....

A2D

From previous threads, scorpio84's claims that because he is an agnostic, he can argue from both a theistic side and an atheistic side.

Personally, I dont really see how that makes much sense. no offense scorpio.

To be agnostic is to say you don't know and possibly cannot know. Which falls under neither theism nor atheism.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The evidence would be life.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TzarChasm

You can't read a book and accurately represent creationism either...it's abundantly clear from the inaccurate answers throughout the thread...just like a creationist who reads an evolution article and thinks he knows everything....there is almost always something that gets misinterpreted....

A2D

Creationism in a word: someone created everything. There is no evidence of this someone. And there is no evidence this event, this act of creating.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: TzarChasm

The evidence would be life.

My counter evidence is unicorn farts.

I'm not taking this seriously if you aren't.

a reply to: scorpio84

I will when I have time. I have already corrected one of your very first answers...I'm sure I'll see more once I'm at home and not forced to reply via mobile

A2D

a reply to: scorpio84

But then where the chicken come from, it had to have hatched from an egg?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: superman2012

Genetics - God knew that when Eve got pregnant, her fetus would need to have an umbilical cord, so He encoded that into their genes.

Okay, that is a quick, not well thought out answer. Why do we have the appendix? Why does the hair rise up on people when they are scared? What about Darwins Point? Body hair? Wisdom teeth? Auricular muscles? Coccyx? and last, but certainly not least.... male nipples?

I await the, "God knew" copout answer....

a reply to: Vector99

But I must "KNOW", the secret of the universe rides on it. And no the T-rex came before the chicken egg and the chicken.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: scorpio84

But then where the chicken come from, it had to have hatched from an egg?

That's why the answer is 'neither'. It was a gradual change overtime, transitioning into what is known as the modern chicken.

a reply to: Ghost147

U r not helping.

Here's a thought to tinker, if you take water and freeze it, did YOU create ice?