Proof Creationism Is BS

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
Not at All.

If you don't fear other gods because you think they are lesser gods, imagine how much less fear someone has for a god they don't even believe exists.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

They are ALL AFFRAID of that Life Review they Will go through in the Afterlife . I Can Hear them ALL Crying Already........

That is a funny statement. I know just as many bad people that are religious or non-religious. Religion doesn't by itself establish good in a person, but it sure gives people a way to excuse their bad behavior over and over again...lol

Religion has Nothing to do with my Post . Why was it Inserted in the Responses then ?

a reply to: Zanti Misfit
It does not matter.
They feel like you are attacking their faith.
They are not as confident in their faith, so they strive to make you question yours.
Honestly, I think many of them know the truth, they just refuse to admit they are not the apex intellect.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Honestly, I think many of them know the truth

What's the truth? That Genisis is all factually true and God created Adam from the dust of ground and Eve from his rib? Is that the "truth"?

a reply to: Sookiechacha
I have already answered that, yet you haven't answered any of my questions.
Why?

a reply to: Quadrivium

LOL
I don't think you have, But please humor me, and answer it one more time, or link the answer you already posted so that I too can know the truth!

originally posted by: Peeple
Men have nipples.

If a Creator would have made Adam first, why on Earth did he give him nipples?

I mean I'm open to read your answers, but I doubt you can come up with anything that would explain that.

Therefore I challenge you to prove me wrong, if I state:
The fact that men have nipples is conclusive proof there is no Creator.

This explains it, but some here won't like it.

That’s because sex was invented before heterosexuality — before males or females, for that matter. The first sexual beings to emerge perhaps 2.5 billion years ago were what biologists call isogamous — which is a little like being gay, except everyone is somewhere between male and female.

www.seattletimes.com...

a reply to: Quadrivium

" They feel like you are attacking their faith."


What > ? What is their " Faith " ? Better to be Silent here , it is No Concern of Yours .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Quadrivium

" They feel like you are attacking their faith."


What > ? What is their " Faith " ? Better to be Silent here , it is No Concern of Yours .

To the "evolutionists" evolution is their faith.
Time is their god and all things are possible through their god.
The theory of evolution is their scripture.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your turn.

a reply to: daskakik

1. Fossils do not show evolution.

Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on scientific grounds.

2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds.

Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead.2 A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations.3 Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead. None truly evolved. Big-picture evolution did not happen in the past, and it is not happening now. Other evidence excludes evolution from real science. "

3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution.

Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information.6 Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any other kind of mutation—a process called “genetic entropy.” Each individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all prior generations. Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations to far fewer than evolutionary history requires.


4. All-or-nothing vital features refute evolution.

Finally, transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and parabronchi required by the new bird system.7 Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution.

Similarly, to transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a mammal’s four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart wall that would block vital blood flow, or new heart vessels that would fatally disrupt the amphibian’s vital blood flow.

These four observations show why the unbiblical evolutionary idea that creatures change without limits is unscientific. If creatures evolved through nature—and not God—then Scripture is not trustworthy, since from beginning to end it credits God as Creator. But science clearly confirms the Genesis creation account.



www.icr.org...



Conclusions - Evolution Can be Refuted . The Question of Divine Creation is Still Unresolved .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit
Didn't even bother reading past the first line of what you posted because it had nothing to do with my point. People can't be afraid of what they don't believe in.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Zanti Misfit
Didn't even bother reading what you posted because it had nothing to do with my point. People can't be afraid of what they don't believe in.

Your Point was you Believe the Theory of Evolution is in Some way a Fact of Life . I Chose to Show you Otherwise .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
Your Point was you Believe the Theory of Evolution is in Some way a Fact of Life . I Chose to Show you Otherwise .

Nope, I never said that.

I said if you are not afraid of other people's gods what makes you think other people are afraid of your god.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Zanti Misfit
Didn't even bother reading what you posted because it had nothing to do with my point. People can't be afraid of what they don't believe in.

Your Point was you Believe the Theory of Evolution is in Some way a Fact of Life . I Chose to Show you Otherwise .

You put forth your belief of otherwise, not necessarily any proof.

Why can't creation be both divine and an evolvement? Remember Adam and Eve had no knowledge at the time of their creation so they really could not have figured out their creation. When consciousness and thinking skills advanced in mankind then there were verbal reckonings of creation by different human cultures. Why is this story right and others' are wrong? Scripture is the written word of these verbal reckonings and the Bible is just one people's story. The divine creator may have created us but through a divine evolutionary process.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Sookiechacha
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your turn.

That's not "truth". That's what you believe. It's not the kind of "truth" you were referring to when you said:

They are not as confident in their faith, so they strive to make you question yours.
Honestly, I think many of them know the truth, they just refuse to admit they are not the apex intellect.

Is it? Or do you think what you believe is "truth" and everyone who doesn't agree with your truth is lying to themselves?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Sookiechacha
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your turn.

That's not "truth". That's what you believe. It's not the kind of "truth" you were referring to when you said:

They are not as confident in their faith, so they strive to make you question yours.
Honestly, I think many of them know the truth, they just refuse to admit they are not the apex intellect.

Is it? Or do you think what you believe is "truth" and everyone who doesn't agree with your truth is lying to themselves?

Not truth? You mean it's subjective?
Like faith?
Duh....

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Not truth? You mean it's subjective?
Like faith?
Duh....

You got caught being dishonest again. You said to Zanti Misfit; "Honestly, I think many of them know the truth, they just refuse to admit they are not the apex intellect."

Not subjective truth or faith but "the truth" but the only truth I'm seeing is that you never really answered the question of "What is the truth?" you just gave your opinion.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Not truth? You mean it's subjective?
Like faith?
Duh....

You got caught being dishonest again. You said to Zanti Misfit; "Honestly, I think many of them know the truth, they just refuse to admit they are not the apex intellect."

Not subjective truth or faith but "the truth" but the only truth I'm seeing is that you never really answered the question of "What is the truth?" you just gave your opinion.

Do you know we each have a subjective truth? Something we take on faith?
There is also objective truth. The reality that exists, regardless of your faith/feelz.
Or are you being dishonest?
You seem to do that a lot.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Do you know we each have a subjective truth? Something we take on faith?

Sure but that was not what you were asked for. Since that is what you gave you never really answered the question.

There is also objective truth. The reality that exists, regardless of your faith/feelz.

That was what you seemed to be talking about in that quote, "the truth" that might not fit with "evolutionist's" feelz, but you really can't prove what it is.

Or are you being dishonest?
You seem to do that a lot.

Not at all, I'm not the one who said "I answered your question" and then, in this very post that I am replying to, pointed out the difference and the reason why you actually did not answer the question.