Creationists - Explain this please

Originally posted by the_watcher

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]

That you wouldn't have if it wasn't for the amazing advances of science. But when science tells you how the world got started and how it all came together you, allegedly, seriously say "God did it".

I'm sorry to mock...but don't you see how silly it is? Shouldn't you have castrated yourself then gone and lived up a pole in the desert somewhere? That's what the first Christians did.

Originally posted by redshirt0202

I'm going to make this short as it's already very late, so here it goes :

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?

Clearly it didn't pop up out of thin air, so my guess is it must have evolved from another animal.

Any thoughts on this?

Ah the age-old debate that will never go either way for the following simple reason:
We all have our beliefs. Some (like myself) are open to change based on new discoveries, but I believe most are not. You have decided what is your truth and there is nothing that will sway it. Like my truth is that there is a universal consciousness (or something of that sort who more than likely was involved in some sort of creation event). That is the one thing I cannot be swayed from. The other thing I cannot be swayed from is that the Bible is not the word of "God", it is about aliens pretending to be gods.

Evolutionists believe in evolution and you cannot sway them from it. Even if a "creator" appears right in front of them and says "I did it!" will they not believe. This evolutionist (because his own senses cannot be trusted to provide evidence) will ask this entity to follow him to a lab where it can be prodded and poked and tested just to make sure it is real.

The sole reason I do not believe in macro-evolution is the lack of transitional fossils. The usual answer to that is "Evolution is not a simple process. Transitional animals get eaten yada yada yada." Evolutionists refuse to grasp how really big this problem is.

My point is that is discussion is as pointless as all the other discussions on evolution versus creationism. Noone will sway either way. Neither can be proved conclusively.

My answer to the OP is "There should be more transitional than non-transitional fossils, but there isn't. Therefore your argument holds no water, pun not intended." Since you evolutionists are generally highly intelligent and well educated folk you should get what I'm saying, but I think I will try to simplify it anyway.

1. There should be more transitional than non-transitional fossils but there isn't.
2. Your living organism is not out of place (time), you just haven't found it's fossils in earlier periods.

Look at 1 and 2 together and REALLY think about it.

EDITED to change evolution to macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is a proven fact, but it does NOT prove macro-evolution.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Lannock]

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by the_watcher

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]

That you wouldn't have if it wasn't for the amazing advances of science. But when science tells you how the world got started and how it all came together you, allegedly, seriously say "God did it".

I'm sorry to mock...but don't you see how silly it is? Shouldn't you have castrated yourself then gone and lived up a pole in the desert somewhere? That's what the first Christians did.

*sigh* I love science! Science is awesome because I would not have computers without it, and computers are my life. I have a degree in Computer Science, and am happily employed with a great company.

Science is tested, proven, and repeatable. Evolution is a bunch untested lies.

The difference between the theory of electricity being right and evolution being wrong is that electricity can be tested and studied. You can apply mathematics to it and you always get the same results with every scientific experiment regarding electricity. It works and we see it work. Done deal.

Evolution cannot be tested. How can you scientifically prove a single cell organism evolved into a multi-celled organism? Is there an experiment that shows this process through generations of petri dishes? No. Have we ever observed this in nature? No. Can it be studied? No. Can you honestly say there is any evidence to support it? Maybe. An experiment that seems to prove it, like one involving mold that needed sunlight to live, adapted to live without sunlight, does not conclusively prove anything beyond what we already know; which is that animals and plants adapt. So? Things adapt. They must. If they don't adapt they cease to exist. Our creator knew this and gave His creation a limited ability to do so. Simple as that.

PS The scientific alternative to Creationism, evlolution, does not offer any more answers. When I ask a scientist "What caused the Big Bang?" I get the "We're not sure, but maybe..." answer. How is that different from the answer "It is entirely possible that a supreme deity willed he universe into being?" It isn't any different at all! Either way no one knows for sure, right? Why is evolution so much more valid then? It offers absolutely no answer that Creationism does not.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by the_watcher]

Originally posted by the_watcher
*sigh* I love science! Science is awesome because I would not have computers without it, and computers are my life. I have a degree in Computer Science, and am happily employed with a great company.

But you just think that some of it is bull. Despite the rest of the academic world being against you.

Originally posted by the_watcherEvolution cannot be tested. How can you scientifically prove a single cell organism evolved into a multi-celled organism? Is there an experiment that shows this process through generations of petri dishes? No.

I'd like this to be put to Beethoven's fifth, please:

Wrong-wrong-wrong-wronnnnnnngggggggggggg

So, what you've just said is: "I don't know, I didn't look, I just asserted that I was right, and you are wrong!"

Originally posted by the_watcherHave we ever observed this in nature? No. Can it be studied? No. Can you honestly say there is any evidence to support it? Maybe.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I have provided evidence above, gleaned from one simple Google search. First page. You clearly did not look.

Originally posted by the_watcherAn experiment that seems to prove it, like one involving mold that needed sunlight to live, adapted to live without sunlight, does not conclusively prove anything beyond what we already know; which is that animals and plants adapt. So? Things adapt. They must. If they don't adapt they cease to exist. Our creator knew this and gave His creation a limited ability to do so. Simple as that.

This is amazing. In one paragraph you can denounce evolution as non-existent, and in this one you can absurdly justify it because now you've called it "adaptation". You see, something like this is not adaptation. I'll cite from the example I gave you above, and I'd like you to read it twice so you get the full gist of it:

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

This means they must have developed a method of doing it, requiring a physical process that was not in place before. It evolved something new, not adapted something it was already in possession of.

Don't even bring up "our Creator" as you can only cite unsubstantiated superstitious fairytale myths to support it. I want evidence alone, please. I'm almost a protestant in that respect.

Originally posted by the_watcherPS The scientific alternative to Creationism, evlolution, does not offer any more answers. When I ask a scientist "What caused the Big Bang?" I get the "We're not sure, but maybe..." answer. How is that different from the answer "It is entirely possible that a supreme deity willed he universe into being?"

You don't see the glaring logical inconsistencies with this farcical statement?

"Nobody really knows, so it must be God, innit?" is the stupidest thing I ever heard. By your reasoning, it's just as likely to be the Devil, reptilian aliens, Care Bears and the Wizard of Oz. You can't possibly know its not.

That's the difference between the humble sciences, who are always willing to learn from their mistakes and accept another's point of view, and the arrogant, absolutist religions, who claim to actually know everything, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with utter infallibility and wisdom. What a freaking crock!

Originally posted by the_watcherIt isn't any different at all! Either way no one knows for sure, right? Why is evolution so much more valid then? It offers absolutely no answer that Creationism does not.

Right. Okay. Aside from the fact you're arguing against abiogenesis, not evolution, I know what you're trying to say.

I want you to read what you wrote, and then get back to me. I'm not even going to use this as a punching bag because I think that with a bit of thought you'll be able to see the logical fallicies within this bit. If you can't, then I'm afraid to say I think this conversation can't go any further because I don't believe you'll understand the things I tell you anyway.

I will, however, give you a hint: "Look at your sources".

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by the_watcher
*sigh* I love science! Science is awesome because I would not have computers without it, and computers are my life. I have a degree in Computer Science, and am happily employed with a great company.

But you just think that some of it is bull. Despite the rest of the academic world being against you.

The academic world is not ruled by truth. It is ruled by a bunch of stubborn-minded individuals who wish to cling to some archaic myth.

I'd like this to be put to Beethoven's fifth, please:

Wrong-wrong-wrong-wronnnnnnngggggggggggg

So, what you've just said is: "I don't know, I didn't look, I just asserted that I was right, and you are wrong!"

This is a very interesting article, but it does not prove evolution. The scientist(s) draw an absurd conclusion from an absurd belief.

My answer to that article is that more research should be done on the previous generations. Why? Because I believe the results on those previous generations are actually going to be the very same as the later generations. What is my basis on this theory? Science.

Let's look at bacteria that seem to become immune to antibiotics when they previously were not. This would almost seem to prove an evolutionary mutation, right? Just like the E. coli. Wrong.

www.fda.gov...

Quote from FDA Article:
Any population of organisms, bacteria included, naturally includes variants with unusual traits--in this case, the ability to withstand an antibiotic's attack on a microbe. When a person takes an antibiotic, the drug kills the defenseless bacteria, leaving behind--or "selecting," in biological terms--those that can resist it. These renegade bacteria then multiply, increasing their numbers a millionfold in a day, becoming the predominant microorganism.

No evolution is observed here. I believe the same will be true of the E. coli. This is obviously a pre-existing, although possibly dormant, trait.

This is amazing. In one paragraph you can denounce evolution as non-existent, and in this one you can absurdly justify it because now you've called it "adaptation".

Because that is indeed what it is. Adaptation.

You don't see the glaring logical inconsistencies with this farcical statement?

"Nobody really knows, so it must be God, innit?"

There are no glaring inconsistencies in the fact that science offers no explanation beyond "the big bang did it."

The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day. So... where did this hot and dense condition come from? Why did it suddenly explode into the universe we have now?

Even if that is how the universe came into being, it does not offer any answers as to how life began. Abiogenesis almost does... but not really.

Science has fewer answers to offer than Intelligent Design. If you ask a person who believes we were all created by God where life came from he/she can give you an answer, but if you ask a scientist he/she has none. Perhaps the scientist can talk about Abiogenesis as a best-guess answer... but he/she really has no answer.

So evolution is still wrong, and will remain wrong, because there really is no evidence.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by the_watcher]

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


Another thing that came to mind with the E. coli experiment is that since this "mutation" was dormant in the previous generations, and the scientist is not yet sure (according to the article) what caused this dormant trait to awaken, I wonder if you can take the very first generation and make generations then on with the awakened trait.

Once the triggering cause is found I mean. I don't see any reason to doubt it's possible until an experiment is done to prove it isn't.

But what if, the Universe as we know it, is Not what you think it is, and is actually a program that has been written producing an interactive holograph.

After all, DNA is a chemical program that controls the workings of so called living forms.

What if every one, has their own program and that we are merely looking at a virtual reality program and the the other end of ourselves is not in the universe at all but is looking into it from the outside?

And we are all linked together in a huge lattice work of Light cords exchanging information and decoding/Encoding, through the brain?


Will there be then, such a need for evolution, or does evolution actually exist at all or is it just in the form of the story (in the form of interactive Holographs) of our our Universe that involves evolution?

Any Ideas on this?

Be open minded, as this is just a question, about what our universe my be.

If all is based on Concepts and stringent rules, within the program producing the whole affect, of what we think is reality, are theories of big bangs and others, just total nonsense!

What is manifesting the Universe may be totally different than what has been manifested and still is being manifested.

Maybe it is time for all of us to re-look at everything again, as it is the year 2008 and Not 1901.....

But then again............?

Hmmmmmmm.....?

reply to post by the_watcher



As I said, I don't believe you understand my arguments, so I will not waste my time.

Good day to you.