Creationists - Explain this please

reply to post by iesus_freak

Forget entropy?
Don't tell me have given up on your perpetual motion machine already!
I doubt you have the curiosity to read anything explaining the many methods of radiometric dating, even if it is written by a Ph.D. geophysicist who actually does it, but who also happens to be a Bible-believing Christian.

FYI: Huse, is a ruse.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Eyemagistus]

reply to post by Eyemagistus


so you have a hard time believing that all humans came from 1 pair but have no problem with believing that all living things came from a common ancestor? How does that work?

reply to post by dave420


True. Evolution is highly illogical. For some reason, there has yet to be a proven beneficial mutation in mankind, in our times. The same people who say "evolution is all around us, all the time, since the beginning of time..." et. al., still need to come up with some reason why monkeys became men to them, but nowadays we only see men and women becoming monkeys (usually late night/early morning over weekends).

reply to post by J.Smit


No, evolution is highly logical. The rest of your post made no sense.

Nothing that is in the universe can "always exist" and even the universe itself had to come from something. So before all you atheists out there who think they know the origons of life insist you are right, I suggest that you work on the actual beginning and explain to the world out there how it is that you get everything from absolutely nothing at all. And to say that it simply came from another universe, big bang, etc still does not say where they all had their beiginning. You will find that the question cannot be answered, and so neither can those who spout evolution ever be convincing. Since God cannot be seen, one can only use circumstancial evidence for his existence apart from faith. Life, intelligence, creativity, love, desire, the ability to dream, are some. Others are complexities of order and design.

I know I am wasting my time ever trying to convince those who do not believe in God, or are having their own little personal war with God, but the stupidity of the question begs to be answered.

reply to post by Fromabove


No atheist claims to know where life came from. There are various theories, all backed by evidence. That is at least something to start with. Saying "well, I don't know, so I guess God did it" is ridiculous.

Also, abiogenesis and the origin of the universe have nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution, or the subsequent changes to it which form today's theory of biological evolution.

But nice try.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Fromabove

 

No atheist claims to know where life came from. There are various theories, all backed by evidence. That is at least something to start with. Saying "well, I don't know, so I guess God did it" is ridiculous.

Also, abiogenesis and the origin of the universe have nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution, or the subsequent changes to it which form today's theory of biological evolution.

But nice try.

Your answer disqualifies the question.

reply to post by Fromabove


In your mind, maybe. But that is of little consequence, as the evidence still supports evolution, and doesn't support 'God did it'. No matter what pithy one-liners you decide to write on ATS.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Fromabove

 

In your mind, maybe. But that is of little consequence, as the evidence still supports evolution, and doesn't support 'God did it'. No matter what pithy one-liners you decide to write on ATS.

Do you even consider what you just said ? God did do it. Evolution has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Has never been proven. Has no actual transitional fossil record. Has many times accepted hoax presentations as science. Without knowing the origin of existence one cannot know the origin of life itself. For you it is an endless frustrating circle. Why bother yourself with the details. Be content to just deny God because that's what this is really all about, right?

Originally posted by redshirt0202
Assuming that Creationism is right and evolution is wrong, how do you (creationists) explain that we have found fossils of animals that have been living only in a certain time period and not before that time. What I'm trying to say is, where did that animal come from if it hadn't always existed?

My answer is actually quite simple here. Let's a take a look at fossils we find burried in rock. Now, realistically speaking, we can't accurately date them. Instead of going by a specific date I am sure we can agree that the fossils have been there for many years, right? Ok.

We have established that this Dinosaur was once living, is now dead, and has been stuck there for many years. Therefore it is safe to assume (only because we have no credible witness to say otherwise) that the Dinosaur was alive in the past and is no longer living now. Right? Ok.

Where did he come from? Here comes the answer I know you're not going to like, but I will try and make it less... simple sounding. The Dinosaur was created by a diety of emmense intelligence. This intelligent designer was also responsible for plants, stars, humans, and other natural things.

Now... you asked why do we see animals existing in a certain period of time and not before; and I'll explain how this all ties in to the answer. First of all you have to understand how the layers of rock got there. It was actually not over millions of years, as some would have you believe. Instead what happened is that a global flood washed through that area, drowning the animal, and as the waters reseeded (which took many years, but not millions, not even 100.) the Dinosaur, which had drowned, became burried. Over the many years (This time maybe a couple thousand? Give or take) the debris solidfied and we have or fossil buried in rock.

Now! Lets get to the stuff that matters because I know you've heard all that before. What your asking is why don't we see modern day birds? Or modern day cats? Or something along those lines. Well, the surprising answer is that we have! A fossil unearthed in China caused great confusion. In November 1996, the existence of a bird named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flight were attached, just as in modern birds. This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds in other respects, too. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not possess the primitive structure alleged by evolutionists.

Now, why don't see modern day dogs? Well that is because they were originally wolves. Through selective breeding they lost their wolf-like traits and became what we know today. It's similar with cats and other domesticated animals.

So does this satisfy you?

[edit on 9-9-2008 by the_watcher]

[edit on 9-9-2008 by the_watcher]

reply to post by redshirt0202


Anything can be Created if we are only experiencing a program which has been Created, or written, called "Earth and the Universe", then "history" could be programmed into it, even though the program its self, may only be a few years long in its story line.
That is if every entity is looking at an individual program, that can be linked to others.

Friendly regards,
The Matrix traveller





[edit on 10-9-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by the_watcher


Your post is all kinds of wrong.

Fossils need more than "a few thousand" years to form - that's less than recorded history.

Furthermore, there was never a global flood. There can't have been, there isn't enough water on the Earth to completely cover all the land.

You are clinging to the primitive myths of the Levantine Israelites after their expulsion from Egypt, the monothestic reformations of Akhenaten and the Mesopotamian epics combined into one. Your religion is a whoring bastard child of multiple potential parents. It is not the "inspired word of God", and therefore the best you can glean from it is a vague racial memory regarding some of the more common themes and motifs, such as the Tower of Babel or the Deluge.

This would lead one to conclude that there was a large flood. So large, the peasant who was sat in his boat thinking "where has all the land gone?" actually thought the gods (note, plural - there was no monotheism at this time) had covered the whole Earth.

Of course, we know he didn't. We know that it's just the impression of a peasant caught in an unfortunate position, and by a bit of luck he managed to survive.



[edit on 10-9-2008 by C.C.Benjamin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by redshirt0202
Clearly it didn't pop up out of thin air

Duh! Easy-peasie.

God made it from dirt using think n' poofs! Says so in the bible. And da flud placed them all in an order that fits evolutionary theory so well. So it could have been god. But it might have been the devil!

See, this creationism stuff is easy - as long as you have no need for rational evidence-based arguments.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by melatonin]

I would think evolutionists would welcome a global flood. Then they could say the flood washed all the transitional forms away

You also made the mistake of labelling all creationists as Christians. Poor form bro!

reply to post by Fromabove


Just because you say evolution has more holes in it than Swiss cheese doesn't make it so - your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing. Please at least try to read about evolution before you try to trash it, as it's making you look silly. There are transitional fossils everywhere - your lack of knowledge about them doesn't make them not exist.

Of course you can know how species came to exist without knowing the origin of the universe - logic doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. By your logic no-one can ever know anything as long as one unknown exists in the universe. That is ridiculous.

I don't deny god any more than you deny Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. There is as much evidence for any of those 3.

reply to post by Lannock


There is a great list of transitional fossils. Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist.

PLEASE try to learn about evolution before attacking it, as you're not achieving anything except graphically illustrating your zealotry to ignore sound scientific evidence.

"Why are there no transitional fossils?"

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
reply to post by the_watcher

 

Your post is all kinds of wrong.

Actually it's all kinds of right.

Fossils need more than "a few thousand" years to form - that's less than recorded history.

No they don't. I know this because the earth is only about 6,000 years old and we have fossils. Some were even found with their original flesh attached! Pretty neat, eh?

Furthermore, there was never a global flood. There can't have been, there isn't enough water on the Earth to completely cover all the land.

The fact that we find a multitude of drowned animals, all across the globe, inside layers of dirt, that were deposited there by a global flood, says otherwise.

You are clinging to the primitive myths of the Levantine Israelites after their expulsion from Egypt, the monothestic reformations of Akhenaten and the Mesopotamian epics combined into one. Your religion is a whoring bastard child of multiple potential parents. It is not the "inspired word of God", and therefore the best you can glean from it is a vague racial memory regarding some of the more common themes and motifs, such as the Tower of Babel or the Deluge.

And you're clinging to a worthless theory that doesn't mean or explain anything. It was made up and has absolutely no scientific basis.

This would lead one to conclude that there was a large flood. So large, the peasant who was sat in his boat thinking "where has all the land gone?" actually thought the gods (note, plural - there was no monotheism at this time) had covered the whole Earth.

Your theory is pretty stupid, and there was monotheism. I mean Adam and Eve believed in one God, Moses did too, and the Jews were in full swing at the time of the flood.

Of course, we know he didn't. We know that it's just the impression of a peasant caught in an unfortunate position, and by a bit of luck he managed to survive.

No. God actually did it.


[edit on 10-9-2008 by C.C.Benjamin]

[edit on 10-9-2008 by the_watcher]

reply to post by the_watcher


It's clear your entire post is sarcastic, and so I am spared the hassle of actually dragging your post through the wringer and showing you how you could be so wrong.

Thank God!

[edit on 10-9-2008 by C.C.Benjamin]

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
reply to post by the_watcher

 

It's clear your entire post is sarcastic

I was actually serious...

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
reply to post by the_watcher

 

It's clear your entire post is sarcastic

I was actually serious...

Of course you were. Because God did it. Perhaps we should just accept it and go back to living in wattle-and-daub houses and calling crusades on one another, eh?

After all, God wills it.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Of course you were. Because God did it. Perhaps we should just accept it and go back to living in wattle-and-daub houses and calling crusades on one another, eh?

After all, God wills it.

That sounds pretty ignorant... I'd rather be living in my nice modern, air-conditioned, house. The Crusades were never God's work. The Catholic church is not even a true church, no matter what they tell you.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by the_watcher]

[edit on 10-9-2008 by the_watcher]