Challenge to Creationists:

I hereby respectfully challenge biblical/ young-earth creationists to watch the following video, and then try to make an argument that is not totally faith-based in nature supporting your belief:



The reason why I am issuing this challenge, is because I am getting sick of creationists saying things to the effect of creationism requiring less faith than the belief in evolution. That is utter non-sense.

In an unrelated thread today, someone had the gall to say that their kid's "science/math" teacher stated that 'evolution is much more an issue requiring faith than creationism.' Oh really!!?? Besides, how is what some unknown middle-school teacher's opinion indicative of anything anyway?

It seems to me that this modern push of creationism is nothing more than a agenda-driven pseudo-scientific mob based on, at best, truthiness. Look, if you want to believe something based on faith alone, fine. Faith, as in:

faith - noun; belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I know is is hard to deny that thing in your head that is supposed to rely on being rational, and using logic when trying to decode the world around you, but pretending that the biblical belief in creationism is a rational belief just does not make it so. Again, it is a purely faith-based belief, as in faith:

faith - noun; belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 1/11/2010 by skunknuts]

Hi Skunknuts,

I'm not a creationist

But it looks like a good idea to review these things.

Great clip.

S & F.

Ziggy

Intelligent Design here. I have always said that from the most neutral
point of view, all explanations sound/look ridiculous in regards to mankinds origins.
However I wish to bring something to light here.
If I may.
I believe in science in a big way. It can tell us so much about this existence we all share. Sadly, it will never be able to tell us what
ought to be done.
Something scientists should keep in mind always.

Originally posted by randyvs
Intelligent Design here. I have always said that from the most neutral
point of view, all explanations sound/look ridiculous in regards to mankinds origins.
However I wish to bring something to light here.
If I may.
I believe in science in a big way. It can tell us so much about this existence we all share. Sadly, it will never be able to tell us what
ought to be done.
Something scientists should keep in mind always.

For sure, I agree with what I think is the intent of what you say. I actually believe that intelligent design does have a place in our current schema of understanding, but I think the radical biblical/koranical/new-earth creationists see intelligent design as some back-door way to support their agenda.

Best,
Skunknuts

He used some of the weakest creationist arguments. Which unfortunately are the loudest.

Dunno, i am an old-earth Creationist so i have no real qualm with evolution. I think he did a good job of nailing the Young Earthers. The only real question that makes me somewhat skeptical -and please somebody answer this for me, i've only gotten an answer that consisted of anything more than " LOL U BULEEVE EN UH FLAT URTH!"- of evolution is how a species with a "beneficial" mutation will Be able to reproduce with other species ? Like lets say a Python lays a clutch of eggs and for whatever reason it completely lacks the gene that gives it its vestigial Anal Spurs (look it up). How would this gene pass on to the descendents of this python? Would it have to breed with members of the egg Clutch they hatched from? Wouldn't inbreeding cause more problems and potentially kill off this line of python? In other words what is the likelyhood that two mutants (for lack of a better term) would be able to pass on there gene if they are the only members of their species to posess that gene? Would that require inbreeding or would it rely on another member of its species to also have that same exact mutation?


That said, the video made me laugh REALLY hard. I'm so sick of these YEC's giving us reasonable theists a bad name.

Originally posted by skunknuts
I hereby respectfully challenge biblical/ young-earth creationists to watch the following video, and then try to make an argument that is not totally faith-based in nature supporting your belief:

The reason why I am issuing this challenge, is because I am getting sick of creationists saying things to the effect of creationism requiring less faith than the belief in evolution. That is utter non-sense.

In an unrelated thread today, someone had the gall to say that their kid's "science/math" teacher stated that 'evolution is much more an issue requiring faith than creationism.' Oh really!!?? Besides, how is what some unknown middle-school teacher's opinion indicative of anything anyway?

It seems to me that this modern push of creationism is nothing more than a agenda-driven pseudo-scientific mob based on, at best, truthiness. Look, if you want to believe something based on faith alone, fine. Faith, as in:

faith - noun; belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I know is is hard to deny that thing in your head that is supposed to rely on being rational, and using logic when trying to decode the world around you, but pretending that the biblical belief in creationism is a rational belief just does not make it so. Again, it is a purely faith-based belief, as in faith:

faith - noun; belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 1/11/2010 by skunknuts]

Do you also Challenges Islamic Creationism, Intelligent Design and Intervention theory(sci-fi Hybrid of Creationism and Evolution)?

For sure, I agree with what I think is the intent of what you say. I actually believe that intelligent design does have a place in our current schema of understanding, but I think the radical biblical/koranical/new-earth creationists see intelligent design as some back-door way to support their agenda.

reply to post by skunknuts

young earthers.
I find certain aspects of their position extremely hard to defend. At the same time their are many evolutionists trying to completely nullify the existence of a supreme being. A point I take great offense to.

As far as I'm concerned, there are some things about life, that I can wait to find out about, truely believing oneday we all do.
i agree also about the backdoor agenda as you put it.
We both agree it is not.
I see I.D. that is backed by scripture, as what will someday lead to a grand compromise. Great arguements in evolution no doubt.
Both sides need arogance eliminated I think.
SnF


[edit on 11-1-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by randyvs

For sure, I agree with what I think is the intent of what you say. I actually believe that intelligent design does have a place in our current schema of understanding, but I think the radical biblical/koranical/new-earth creationists see intelligent design as some back-door way to support their agenda.

reply to post by skunknuts

 

young earthers.
I find certain aspects of their position extremely hard to defend. At the same time their are many evolutionists trying to completely nullify the existence of a supreme being. A point I take great offense to.

As far as I'm concerned, there are some things about life, that I can wait to find out about, truely believing oneday we all do.
SnF

[edit on 11-1-2010 by randyvs]

It's all good, as long as you admit that your belief is faith-based, lol.

Best,
Skunknuts

reply to post by skunknuts


lol I think you know it isn't like that. Science in so many ways has pointed
to" a Supreme one".

You might have posted at the wrong time. I'll bump this thread in the morning if I don't see it. Sooner or later you should have people desending on you.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by randyvs]

Actually,the belief in "Intelligent Design" aka,by GOD,has been around alot longer than the theory of evolution!

I won't rule out the Theory of an Agenda by the evolutionists though!

Science cannot show us how we got here. It can only examine what IS.

The Bible says we will know Him by His observing His creations.






[edit on 12-1-2010 by On the Edge]

LALALA you have no proof, evolution isn't real. WHY DON'T MONKEYS GIVE BIRTH TO HUMANS??

LOL!

That video was great thanks for sharing. I will be showing this to people I know.

ahahaha

Typical religious folk.

*shakes head*

reply to post by tim1989


Your at least 20, Act it

reply to post by GW8UK


Growing old is mandatory.

Growing up is optional.

reply to post by On the Edge

Actually,the belief in "Intelligent Design" aka,by GOD,has been around alot longer than the theory of evolution!

Well I can't be so sure. It says God formed us out of clay,"The dust of the earth". What was man at that point? Genetic manipulation could have
happened after that by whatever means. Maybe Adam is that common
ancester evolution keeps singing about.

Young earth creationism is way to hard of a line to take. There are other things that can be said in it's place. Something like," you scientists can go
right on trying to find the answers to these questions" if you like.

(The creationist can just claim ignorance is bliss." We're waiting on those
answers" because they don't need everything answered in this life.
You see there comes a point where you quit asking questions because
of the obvious).

You can't expect everyone to believe the results. Not when you have in no way eliminated other strong possibilities. Science can't just find alternative answers and expect everyone just to say, "oh well that explains it then".

If the earth
is six to ten thousand years old at the most? That isn't enough time when
you consider that the Exodus was almost four thousand years ago. The
Jews had already been in bondage four hundred years. That leaves eighteen hundred years for the six thousand year old model, that I'm pretty sure
I just debunked.
You see what happens taking such a hard line?
Once you have to come away from it the least bit. The whole thing goes
to dust.


[edit on 12-1-2010 by randyvs]

[edit on 12-1-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by DeathShield
How will a species with a "beneficial" mutation be able to reproduce with other species?

Well, first of all, it isn't another species, it's another individual of the same species. A mutant, but not incapable of breeding with other members of the species. For example, Queen Victoria of England was a mutant; she acquired the mutation for haemophilia from her father, the Duke of Kent, in whose gametes it appears to have originated. Neither the Duke nor her mother, Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg, had haemophiliac ancestors.

But although she was a mutant, Queen Victoria was perfectly capable of reproducing, and spreading the gene for haemophilia through the royal families of Europe. More here, including a genealogy chart.

Lets say a Python lays a clutch of eggs and for whatever reason it completely lacks the gene that gives it its vestigial Anal Spurs (look it up). How would this gene pass on to the descendents of this python?

The spur-less python's mutant offspring would be perfectly capable of reproducing with other, normal pythons. Their descendants would receive the gene from their other, non-mutant parent.

What is the likelihood that two mutants (for lack of a better term) would be able to pass on their gene if they are the only members of their species to posess that gene? Would that require inbreeding or would it rely on another member of its species to also have that same exact mutation?

Neither. According to Mendel's laws, there is a 50 percent chance that any child of a mutant-normal mating receives the mutant gene. If the gene is not recessive, it will be expressed (its effects would be seen) in the body of the child (or in its behaviour, which is the same thing, really). In the normal way of things, then, the child's own children would have a 25 percent chance of receiving the gene, its grandparents a 12.5 percent chance, and so on. The gene would slowly disappear from the gene pool.

In fact, since most mutations are thought to be deleterious--to shorten the life and/or reduce the reproductive success of the carrier--the mutation would probably disappear very rapidly.

But consider what happens if the gene actually promotes survival and reproduction. Then the mutant would have more offspring than average for its species. There would be several gene carriers in the next generation, and they, too, could live longer and reproduce more than 'normal' members of the species. The number of carriers of the mutated gene would increase, not decrease, as a percentage of the species population. Eventually, it would be commonplace in the gene pool of that species.

I hope that makes things clearer. If it didn't, reading up on Mendel's laws, in particular the concept of recessive genes, should do the trick.

I'm so sick of these YEC's giving us reasonable theists a bad name.

I am an atheist myself, but I sympathize. The argument over evolution is not an argument between theists and atheists--that is a popular misconception, which politicians and the media play up because it suits their purposes. The argument over evolution is an argument between civilization and barbarism. It is an argument between contemporary Western civilization and those who fear and loathe its baffling complexity, its humiliating sophistication, its inhospitability to tradition and faith and, above all, its infuriating, disorienting mutability.

Originally posted by skunknuts

Originally posted by randyvs
Intelligent Design here.

I actually believe that intelligent design does have a place in our current schema of understanding,.....

A Challenge?

I'll bite.

And to begin, just what the hell are you to speaking about here. Biblical Creation!

That was toooo Easy.

Intelligent Design? What is more Intelligent that GOD?

It seems your problem stems from your FAITH, in little green men, apposed to, how did you put it, the faith of "radical biblical/koranical/new-earth creationists" and their GOD.

Now to be clear, I do not believe in Little Green Men, since there is no evidence of them, but I do believe in an Alien presense. An Alien is ANYTHING that is NOT OF THIS EARTH, and if you had not caught on by now, this is what the Bible and it's Original Sources speaks of.

GOD and the Angels are exactly what is defined as an Alien. (I'd give GOD a Pass on this somewhat, since GOD Created everything, but that's another topic.)

NOW that I have had my fun, what is your difficulties with "Creationism"?

I see nothing in the Bible that contradicts anything Science has to offer in respects to Origins, and as a matter of FACT, I see the "MISSING LINK" Science wishes to simply ignore. Obivously you too, have.

I DO NOT believe the impression of the Term "DAY" is specific to a 24 Hour Period of Time. I believe it is used in the manner of expressing an AGE or ERA.

I DO NOT believe the Earth is some 6-7000 Years old. The Only thing this old is ADAM and his descendants. Adam is Created to Garden, and is Created after the Day of Rest.

I DO believe MAN, re-created on the 6th day (Age/Era?) was here for thousands of years. How many, is speculation. My guess is 24000 - 14000 years ago. Anything Science points to older than this (the 6th Day) is not "Man" in the Image of GOD and the Angels.

I DO believe in the leviatan and behemouths Science refers to as Dinosaurs.

I DO believe we have no TRUE idea of the EXACT age of the Universe, but "IN THE BEGINING" would have definately been then. I have some problems with "Dating Equipment" because we a dealing with "Knowns" as we consider them today, and based upon this, the Machinery and Equipment constructed and calibrated for dating are tested against "KNOWN" conditions. I would argue, prior to the Flood, we had a Firmament seperating the Waters from the Waters and the Land. I believe this is why we had the Flora and Fauna Science indicates once flourished on the planet. BUT I have no difficulties in accepting the Silicate Datings done recently and utilizing these as some BEST GUESS Origin date. It's not a FACT though. Just the Best Guess.

I DO NOT believe the "CREATION" Account in Genesis is a CREATION account. IT IS A RECREATION ACCOUNT.

Now that I have expressed my BIAS I have in respects to this matter, would I be accepted as a Supporter of what the Bible Indicates about the Genesis of things?

Because, I do fully support exactly what the Bible expresses as FACT.

Interpetations are another matter, and that becomes the realm of man, and has nothing to do with the letter GOD inspired and left for us.

The Story is there and is quite easy to follow.

It is the Doctrines and Theologies and Dogmas that MAN makes up, that is the Problem.

I am sorry YEC'ers.

Logic is a GOD given tool we have been blessed with.
Please utilize this GOD given blessing, and read and study the BIBLE.
Do not seek the interpetations of a Sect or Cult of Christainity for example.
Ask God for understanding and study yourself.

After all, GOD is SUPERNATURAL, so it's only NATURAL we can see NATURE in his work.

If it is an UNnatural condition, that is the problem, then maybe, just maybe, it is BABEL (confusion) and the Originator of this, is the Dragon, that old seprent, the Devil, Satan.

Confusion has NOTHING to do with GOD.

Other than that, have a good day

Ciao

Shane

I'm an ID'er here as well, why would some think that something as simple as your computer monitor have a creater but something as complex as our known universe not...?

Could it be possible, that the earth was created already "aged"
...
Which would be case in point for a young earth hypothesis.

reply to post by randyvs


No, it hasn't. Science can only point to evidence.

reply to post by DeathShield


The way evolution works is extremely slow. Each of the successfully hatched eggs would contain at the least a recessive gene making them less prone to anal spurs, which in turn would be passed to each of it's offspring, which, aided by said gene, would survive to produce their own offspring, and so on and so forth, and over hundreds of generations, that gene, if beneficial to survival, would become prevalent amongst most if not all members of that species.

Evolution couldn't work the way I've heard it stated. In order for it to work you would have to make an illogical assumption that all the conditions remained the same for all the time it took to evolve. The human body has something called irreducable complexity. If anything is out of place the whole system collaspses. There are about 100 trillion cells in the body each have near 50000 chemical reactions per second and most of those chemical reactions happen many hundreds of times per second. Can't you see that it is so unimaginably complex that when you say it all happened by chance it is a complete joke; it's laughable. That's also one reason why it takes more faith for evolution than it does for creation. All of nature screams against it. There is nothing you can show me that I cannot show you it's stand against evolution.