It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why People are STILL Laughing at Creationists (and ID'ers)

page: 18
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:41 PM
OKay where to begin... no reply on fish so
.... big bang... point taken i guess that whole theory is a difficult one to argue so; we will take ON FAITH that life spontaneously arose from some unknown substance was not engineered to have any real purpose but rather instinct alone. So we have this "living" being did it have a conciousness??? just a tangent there... sorry... this (lets assume cell or heck why not fish- quite the jump ) Fish one day spontaneously through mtutation (we must assume mutation...right... :@@
grows a fin which in turn endows it with a leg up (get it haha) on the other fish. This assumes of course that there are other fish too or cells for that matter which so amazingly and improbably sprouted out of naught but gas.
So now this fish has to mate with another inside of it own species to replicate this anomaly. Then on the slight chance that the offspring do inherit this dominant form of the gene they too must replicate so even after several subsequent generations we are still left with only FISH that have bigger fins. For a perfect example of this i would refer you to research done on fruit flies for the last century. We still don't have a CHANGE OF SPECIES. This phenomena has yet to be seen in recorded history. With so many generations of changing and evolving you would think transitional fossils would be easy to come by, right? WE are talking about REAL TRANSITION not inter species change. Natural selection and survival of the fittest do not require an evolution from one species to another. This is a jump into FAITH. Our modern day scientists certainly cannot produce(to my knowledge) any mutation that supersedes the quality of the parent. Rather we find, with the fruit flies, a tendency towards the degrading of chromosomes. So now lets take this and put it towards a fish evolving legs or a tail... WE still don't get a NEW SPECIES only a mutated fish. Try and explain which came first the chicken or the egg, the acid or the stomach lining, the eyeball or the nerves, the brain or the spinal cord

I've got more but i hope you think on these things. All I am saying once again is that it takes a lot of faith to believe in the theory of evolution. Once you acquire this faith, the utter lack of compassion is appalling. For to follow this theology to it furthest stretches we get sad results. Everyone talks about the evils the Catholic Church has done... and well deserved i wont hesitate to say... No body ever discusses the evils done in the name of science.
To wrap up todays post i will say this: with the HUGE i mean Huge chance that we just 'kinda got here' ... You would think... with all cultures recording some interaction towards/or with gods... maybe there was some truth to it? I mean if we are gonna accept that we are the descendants of apes we could possibly find some meaning in The old Sumerian tales... Or ... any number of Theories because they all have pretty much the same ODDS of happening! This is the point, creationism is no more outlandish than evolution. The resulting theologies are diametrically opposed and to me "love your neighbor" versus "There is no point" .... Well i wont bore you with my opinion

In Love and humility

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:17 PM
Just wanted to post this (and here seemed the most appropriate place). Thunderf00t, who has a series of YouTube videos called 'Why do people laugh at creationists?' as well as a 5 part series of interviews with Richard Dawkings has himself come under attack by those looking to gain financially from his works.

If anyone is a fan of thunderf00t please be mindful of a recent scam attempt by a supposed fansite. Video is below:

Best of luck to y'all!


posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by moocowman

My first instinct is to disagree ( what can i say? Dogma is a strong thing is it not?), but it is still an interesting theory, could you point me towards some articles that can corroborate your statements?

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:05 PM


posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by 517.101

This why i like the agnostics. There logic on creation and god is the only logic i can 100% agree with.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:17 AM

Originally posted by freedomintruth
Well then let's discuss holes I'll begin with some examples then I will be 'schooled' and this will be a lot of fun and educating for BOTH if not at least one of us

Examples of what, exactly? I am already pretty sure you did not even read my response to you.

Let's start with THE BIG BANG:
How did matter... or wait..(The nothingness that was.. condense into 'something' ? What was the catalyst that caused that big explosion? What caused this bundle of hydrogen and helium to STOP and condense? Exactly how did these light gases produce planets, (and jump the mass 5 and 8 gap)filled with heavier 'material' . After achieving these great 'law-bending' feats why did they start orbiting?
I ask only for theories that fit the facts not the other way around - the just cause. answer is a cheap answer with devastating consequences.

OK....I am still waiting....

Any time now....

Maybe if you read it again, you can respond appropriately. Did I not already say that there were holes in evolution? Pretty sure I did not even mention the big bang. What I said was that you have NOTHING TO DEFEND CREATIONISM WITH. Look, you backed me up on that. I admitted there are holes and you think you are going to school me by agreeing with me? Yep there are holes. We both got that. Then you ramble on about the big bang. Great, I am glad you see holes there too. Where is your defense of creationism?

Do I get to poke my hole now?

Creationism - God did it all by magic.

Two big holes there. There is no god and there is no magic. My holes make a far bigger dent than yours but maybe if you actually tried to respond to what I said, this could have been productive.

In regards to fish evolving of which do you speak? Lake Victoria?

In love and humility

That would be them.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:26 AM

Originally posted by freedomintruth
OKay where to begin... no reply on fish so
.... big bang... point taken i guess that whole theory is a difficult one to argue so;

I did not know you were so anxiously awaiting my reply. Should I feel flattered or weary? You will be waiting a while for that big bang response because I have no clue what you want from me on that anyway? I never brought it up, nor did I claim it must be true or perfect. What I did do was admit there were holes in some of these theories. Why would you expect me to argue with holes I already acknowledged? Are you special in some way?

we will take ON FAITH that life spontaneously arose from some unknown substance was not engineered to have any real purpose but rather instinct alone. So we have this "living" being did it have a conciousness???

Let me just stop your steady train of ignorance right there. You ramble on a lot, trying to poke holes in things I already agreed have holes. That means you did not read anything you responded to and just really wanted a soapbox, or you are stupid. You can pick. I never said I had faith in anything, scientific or not. Try paying attention to what I said.

Evolution is not perfect.
Creationism is not perfect.

There is evidence for evolution.
(crickets crickets crickets)

My point, again - the third time now - is that evolution is not perfect and I do not put faith in it, I accept what can be proven and continue to see what they find. NO FAITH INVOLVED AT ALL. I never insisted I knew how everything worked so I need no faith in that belief......BUT Creationism, while also full of holes, also has nothing to punch any holes in. It boils down to "I dont get it so it musta been magic."

You can poke holes in science all day long. I never said there were no holes there. Can you do ANYTHING to elevate creationism from the realm of a fairy tale?

If you are still confused, go back to the beginning and read what you first tried to reply to again and again and again. Then read your responses a few times. When you figure out that I am not your soapbox and you are arguing the wrong thing with me, send me a U2U. I would hate to miss your response and have to have you waist another post to cry about not getting back to you in a timely manner. Sorry if this thread and your completely off the point response were not on the top of my to do list.

Kind regards, peace, love, humility, and all kinds of other completely insincere sentiments,

In Love and humility

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by freedomintruth

reply to post by Lillydale

Just because you lack the knowledge regarding the science behind the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution does not mean that the knowledge is not out there... Both of you keep spouting off so called 'holes' that have more than sufficiently been covered by the scientific community. This is the equivalent of arguing about the validity of Calculus while only being able to count to 100. Education: It isn't just for school kids anymore!

top topics

<< 15  16  17   >>

log in