Question for Creationists

reply to post by auraelium


Should we also believe in Talking Cats because we read Dr Suess?

Should we believe in Vampires, Werewolfs, Witches because we read other books that says these things are real?


The list can go on and on.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by auraelium
All Christians think Science is great when their lives are improved by ......

Cars
Trains
Washing Machines
Tumble Driers
refridgerators
Airplanes
Electric Shavers
Hi Fi's
Electric cookers
Trucks
Bridges
Sky Scrapers
Computers (without which u wouldnt even be on here talking)
printers
Cameras
Medicines
internet
Plastics
Surgical instruments
Huge Tunnels
Underground car parks
Shopping Malls
Defibulators
Ships
Submarines
Phones
Salilites
Space stations
Lights
Helicopters
Veteranarians
Doctors
Explosives
Dishwashers
Ipods
Ipads
Ambulances
Fire Engines
DVDs
CDs
Lawnmowers
Space Travel
and
on
and
on ............

This is your evidence Science works..
But science that has brought you all this doesnt ask much in return... only facts and evidence to back up your cliams... where is your evidence God exists? there is none.Creationists are hypocrits.

Science has noting to prove, What has religion got to prove? everything because you have no evidence.

The only thing that Religion has done that i can see is create brainwashed stooges ,who come on here day after day and tell people that they are right and science is wrong,without any evidence what so ever to back up their claims,only some book thats clearly not written by a "God" .

edit on 14-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

No. Wrong.

I am married to a scientist. My husband has a PhD, and teaches Chemistry. He is published in many prestigious journals, and has done some impressive research in the area of antiviral compounds.

Christians are NOT Anti-Science. You are OVER GENERALIZING.

Science exists that supports intelligent design. Have you looked for it?

The evidence is not in the Bible. It is within us.

Check out "Dissent from Darwin". www.dissentfromdarwin.org...
Here is a list (20 pages long) of top scientists who are "skeptical" about evolution. www.discovery.org...

Please start there, and then tell me how scientists ALL think there is no evidence for Creationism.

Then, WATCH THE CASE FOR CREATION!!! :-)

My post is addressed to evagelical creationists. Thats what the OP is about.

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by auraelium
All Christians think Science is great when their lives are improved by ......

Cars
Trains
Washing Machines
Tumble Driers
refridgerators
Airplanes
Electric Shavers
Hi Fi's
Electric cookers
Trucks
Bridges
Sky Scrapers
Computers (without which u wouldnt even be on here talking)
printers
Cameras
Medicines
internet
Plastics
Surgical instruments
Huge Tunnels
Underground car parks
Shopping Malls
Defibulators
Ships
Submarines
Phones
Salilites
Space stations
Lights
Helicopters
Veteranarians
Doctors
Explosives
Dishwashers
Ipods
Ipads
Ambulances
Fire Engines
DVDs
CDs
Lawnmowers
Space Travel
and
on
and
on ............

This is your evidence Science works..
But science that has brought you all this doesnt ask much in return... only facts and evidence to back up your cliams... where is your evidence God exists? there is none.Creationists are hypocrits.

Science has noting to prove, What has religion got to prove? everything because you have no evidence.

The only thing that Religion has done that i can see is create brainwashed stooges ,who come on here day after day and tell people that they are right and science is wrong,without any evidence what so ever to back up their claims,only some book thats clearly not written by a "God" .

edit on 14-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

No. Wrong.

I am married to a scientist. My husband has a PhD, and teaches Chemistry. He is published in many prestigious journals, and has done some impressive research in the area of antiviral compounds.

Christians are NOT Anti-Science. You are OVER GENERALIZING.

Science exists that supports intelligent design. Have you looked for it?

The evidence is not in the Bible. It is within us.

Check out "Dissent from Darwin". www.dissentfromdarwin.org...
Here is a list (20 pages long) of top scientists who are "skeptical" about evolution. www.discovery.org...

Please start there, and then tell me how scientists ALL think there is no evidence for Creationism.

Then, WATCH THE CASE FOR CREATION!!! :-)

My post is addressed to evagelical creationists. Thats what the OP is about.

I AM an Evangelical Creationist.

Evangelical Creationist is not code for "moron who does not think." Unfortunately, that is how we are portrayed.

I'm sorry you don't know any intelligent Evangelical Creationists. Maybe you wouldn't believe the stereotypes, if you did.

Look, I know that I'm not suddenly going to post something and have you guys say, "WOW! Georgia Girl is right! I'm joining a Christian church TOMORROW, moving to Africa, and becoming a missionary!"

I would, however, love for you to explore some of the evidence for Intelligent Design. You might find yourself questioning the "official story" of evolution.

Once you accept that maybe...just maybe...there IS something to the idea of Intelligent Design....you might find yourself asking who the designer might be.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Intellegent design has nothing to do with the discussion.The original discussion is about people believing God exists and the creation story is true because it says so in the Bible.
Intellegent design is a quaint way for creationists to shy away from their discredited theorys.Intellegent design in some ways suggest that their might be a God.It still doesnt prove that there is one.Far from it.
We cant understand how the universe was created so we say that God made it.What if a God didnt create everything.maby it was created in a way that we as a species are not intellegent enough to comprehend?

Not accepting creation on the bible for face value I would have to say all the sources being dismissed as hoax for the proof of jesus outside of the bible doesn't seem to be the case from my reading. As far as throwing up zeitgeist as a "here look this should show you" type video is really not helpful to anyone that actually spends some time looking up their claims. Its a great vid but full of crap and shows nothing of use in this debate.

The idea of id or creationism has faults as well. The weblink dissent from darwin seems to start out a bit bad for me. Looking around I keep seeing origins of life. Technically thats not evolution its abiogenesis and since this is for scientists why would that be allowed. There may be something more that I need to read that will change my view but I havent seen anything to go against evolution. At the same time I have not seen a solid explanation for the origin of life.

As far as the creation story of the bible........nah just dont buy it in the least. That may be due to my lack of belief or faith. But I could be wrong. I'm waiting to be shown if I am. By something other than copy/pasta over and over the same strawman bs and the same false bs being spewed out by both sides of the debate.

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

Intellegent design has nothing to do with the discussion.The original discussion is about people believing God exists and the creation story is true because it says so in the Bible.
Intellegent design is a quaint way for creationists to shy away from their discredited theorys.Intellegent design in some ways suggest that their might be a God.It still doesnt prove that there is one.Far from it.
We cant understand how the universe was created so we say that God made it.What if a God didnt create everything.maby it was created in a way that we as a species are not intellegent enough to comprehend?

edit on 14-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

Okay, then I don't think you are ready for a truly open minded discussion about Creationism. You have too many parameters. You only want to hear from people that you have already decided are wrong. You only want to talk to a certain type of Creationists. Plus, you all kept saying to everyone (before I got into the discussion), "Stop saying it's just because of the Bible. Show us some evidence!" Then when I tried to get you to think about Creationism differently, exploring some Intelligent Design ideas, suddenly you just wanted to talk to someone whose only evidence was the Bible? Confused.

I'll just stay quaint. I have no problem with that. One day you may be ready to open your mind a little more.

This may be trite, but I will say it anyway...If I am wrong about God, no harm, no foul. But if YOU are wrong, then....

How about checking out that video? :-)

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

Intellegent design has nothing to do with the discussion.The original discussion is about people believing God exists and the creation story is true because it says so in the Bible.
Intellegent design is a quaint way for creationists to shy away from their discredited theorys.Intellegent design in some ways suggest that their might be a God.It still doesnt prove that there is one.Far from it.
We cant understand how the universe was created so we say that God made it.What if a God didnt create everything.maby it was created in a way that we as a species are not intellegent enough to comprehend?

edit on 14-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

Okay, then I don't think you are ready for a truly open minded discussion about Creationism. You have too many parameters. You only want to hear from people that you have already decided are wrong. You only want to talk to a certain type of Creationists.

I'll just stay quaint. I have no problem with that. One day you may be ready to open your mind a little more.

This may be trite, but I will say it anyway...If I am wrong about God, no harm, no foul. But if YOU are wrong, then....

How about checking out that video? :-)

I am open minded, but it still boils down to a matter of evidence....The vid has some interesting theorys but it has no evidence.You can be the most open minded person in the world and believe anything you want,but if you cant provide evidence then you are at nothing, you are wasting your time.You call it parameters i call it reality.A theory is nothing more than a figment of someones imagination and thats all it will be until you provide evidence to back up your theory.Then when or if you do provide evidence then your theory moves into the realm of reality.

Originally posted by OneNationUnder
reply to post by Zeer0

 

You gotta do more research man...every year they uncover at least one more thing that was in the Bible. They have found cities, people's dwellings, burial tombs --many things.

Wow, I see you Deny the Holy Spirit. Let me ask you something now...Is your conscience gone yet?

Come on! His "Holy Spirit" is fully intact, just as yours is, and all of ours is. It is called our "Immortal Soul" for a very good reason, and no, you are not without it if you are not a Jesus follower. We are all, each one of us, born with it.

And that research you are talking about is also proving a lot of what the Bible says is a big fat lie too. By the way, if you can prove the actual existence of Jesus Christ by any or all records, Ancient Texts, or anything not the Bible, I know a two guys who will pay you $5000 cash.

Originally posted by AnotherSkeptic
reply to post by Zeer0

 

Sorry, I'm new here but - why do you post a question that you say is important, and then insult the people your asking in the post?

That's an easy one. Take a hard look at every one of the ET/Alien threads. The Christian people are always there with their rhetoric, "all Aliens are Demons" is one I have read in here a thousand times or more. I myself have been called a Demon because I believe in ET life.

So, I guess it's just that they, the Christians, cannot take it, then I reckon they should not dish it out like they do. I remember this one thread a few weeks ago, a nice lady was posing about her kid hearing voices of Aliens, the kid called them "visitors." Several of our good, loving Christians were all over that poor women's thread, accusing her of this and that, and all with the demonic crap....I tried my best to back her up, and even invited one Christian to start a separate thread, and I would debate with him all day. He ignored me, probably knows he would not have a chance in Hades of beating me up in a debate on religion.

Originally posted by Zeer0
reply to post by OneNationUnder

 

But have we ever found the Body of a Angel Demon or Nephilim? Did the Rapture ever happen? None of that stuff has been proven as fact. What has you convinced of such things?

I deny anything i know is not real.

There's no mention of the 'rapture' in the bible. The concept of the 'rapture' was totally invented by some minister in the late 1960's (from memory)..........

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
reply to post by GmoS719

 

i have yet to see any actual 'proof' that is not biased to look good for creationism. please feel free mention some proof in particular so i can tell you why its wrong.

thats why i love science, it is based on fact and if something new and unexpected is discovered we can change the way we understand things but creationists try and take what they see and make it fit with their idea by stretching the truth

You want scientific research to prove creationism? Here you go: www.halos.com Have fun debunking that.

Originally posted by JonU2

Originally posted by Zeer0
reply to post by OneNationUnder

 

But have we ever found the Body of a Angel Demon or Nephilim? Did the Rapture ever happen? None of that stuff has been proven as fact. What has you convinced of such things?

I deny anything i know is not real.

There's no mention of the 'rapture' in the bible. The concept of the 'rapture' was totally invented by some minister in the late 1960's (from memory)..........

bible.cc... There you go. Facts is facts.

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by OneNationUnder
reply to post by Zeer0

 

You gotta do more research man...every year they uncover at least one more thing that was in the Bible. They have found cities, people's dwellings, burial tombs --many things.

Wow, I see you Deny the Holy Spirit. Let me ask you something now...Is your conscience gone yet?

Come on! His "Holy Spirit" is fully intact, just as yours is, and all of ours is. It is called our "Immortal Soul" for a very good reason, and no, you are not without it if you are not a Jesus follower. We are all, each one of us, born with it.

And that research you are talking about is also proving a lot of what the Bible says is a big fat lie too. By the way, if you can prove the actual existence of Jesus Christ by any or all records, Ancient Texts, or anything not the Bible, I know a two guys who will pay you $5000 cash.

So, if I understand what you are saying, I should be able to prove the existence of something while not using anything that proves its existence. Tough to do. Like to see you do that with science, too... (Wait for it....) Your statement is somewhat ironic to me. However, there are other ancient texts that are not in The Bible that prove the existence of Jesus, for example the Jewish historian Josephus writes of Jesus.

reply to post by Zeer0


If you can prove all of the foundational axioms of science which are taken for granted, I will then believe that we should only believe that which is proven.

Should we only believe that which we can prove?

Prove it.

Regards,

followtheevidence

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by OneNationUnder
reply to post by Zeer0

 

You gotta do more research man...every year they uncover at least one more thing that was in the Bible. They have found cities, people's dwellings, burial tombs --many things.

Wow, I see you Deny the Holy Spirit. Let me ask you something now...Is your conscience gone yet?

Come on! His "Holy Spirit" is fully intact, just as yours is, and all of ours is. It is called our "Immortal Soul" for a very good reason, and no, you are not without it if you are not a Jesus follower. We are all, each one of us, born with it.

And that research you are talking about is also proving a lot of what the Bible says is a big fat lie too. By the way, if you can prove the actual existence of Jesus Christ by any or all records, Ancient Texts, or anything not the Bible, I know a two guys who will pay you $5000 cash.

So, if I understand what you are saying, I should be able to prove the existence of something while not using anything that proves its existence. Tough to do. Like to see you do that with science, too... (Wait for it....) Your statement is somewhat ironic to me. However, there are other ancient texts that are not in The Bible that prove the existence of Jesus, for example the Jewish historian Josephus writes of Jesus.

Josephus's account of Jesus is highly suspect and there has been much debate about it.The original texts are lost and all that exist is a copied text which was copied after the the foundation of the catholocism by an unknown scribe.
There are no other documents in the historical record other than Josephus's,that mention Jesus.

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
reply to post by GmoS719

 

i have yet to see any actual 'proof' that is not biased to look good for creationism. please feel free mention some proof in particular so i can tell you why its wrong.

thats why i love science, it is based on fact and if something new and unexpected is discovered we can change the way we understand things but creationists try and take what they see and make it fit with their idea by stretching the truth

You want scientific research to prove creationism? Here you go: www.halos.com Have fun debunking that.

yes easy , debunked here....

www.talkorigins.org...

&

paleo.cc...

1) Do the rocks from which Gentry drew his samples represent the "primordial" basement rocks of the originally created Earth?

Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist. He doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing. For his research, Gentry utilized microscope thin sections of rocks from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s). He also does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples that make up his studies - i.e., the abundance and distribution of major, accessory, or trace minerals; the texture, crystal size and alteration features of the rocks; and the presence or absence of fractures and discontinuities.

Gentry does not acknowledge that the Precambrian time period represents fully 7/8 of the history of the Earth as determined by decades of intensive field and laboratory investigations by thousands of geologists. Consequently, he does not recognize the wide diversity of geologic terranes that came and went over that enormous time span. His claim that his samples represent "primordial" basement rocks is patently incorrect . In Gentry's model, any rock looking vaguely like a granite and carrying the label Precambrian is considered to be a "primordial" rock. True granites are themselves evidence of significant crustal recycling and elemental differentiation (see for example, Taylor and McLennan, 1996), and cannot be considered primordial. A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks.

Gentry provides no explanation for how polonium alone finds its way into biotite and fluorite, or why radiation damage haloes in these minerals are common in areas of known uranium enrichment, but rare where uranium abundance is low. Gentry's hypothesis would seem to suggest that there should be a uniform distribution of all polonium isotopes in primordial rocks, or at least no particular spatial association with uranium. Gentry (1974), himself, notes that haloes have not been found in meteorites or lunar samples, rocks known to be very low in uranium abundance. Lorence Collins (1997) has noted these and several other contradictory situations between the polonium halo hypothesis and observed geological relationships in the field.

Polonium haloes in mica are found only in granitic, or granitic-type rocks, and not in mica from adjacent rocks of other compositions

Polonium haloes are found only in rocks which contain myrmekite, a replacement mineral intergrowth - a clear indication that the rock is not "primordial."

2) Are the concentric haloes observed by Gentry actually caused by alpha particle damage to the host crystal structure?

Going back to Gentry's early research (Gentry, 1968, 1971; Gentry, et al., 1973), it is apparent that the association of concentric colored haloes with polonium is actually speculative. Gentry adopts and expands on the work of Joly (1917) that polonium isotopes were the most likely cause of the features observed. Joly did most of his work with discoloration haloes in the first decade of the Twentieth Century, a time when the structure of the atom was just being discovered, and before the crystal structure of minerals had been unraveled. This was also the period when the nature of radioactivity was just being uncovered. Joly made the very speculative assumption that if alpha particles could travel 3-7 centimeters in air, then they would only travel 1/2000 of that distance in biotite mica. From this generalization, and without considering the variability in the density and the crystal structure of the host mica (or even the variable density of air), Joly attempted to correlate the radial size of the concentric ring haloes with the alpha particles of specific isotopes (he was first to suggest polonium). He also tried to develop an age dating technique based on the diameter of the halo features - the larger the halo, the longer the radiation had been affecting the host mineral grain. Henderson (1939) carried Joly's work further, developing a classification scheme for the different patterns of discoloration haloes he observed, and deriving hypotheses for how short-lived polonium could find its way into the host crystal structure.

edit on 14-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

I use to believe in evolution until I researched the evidence for evolution, and still I havnt seen or heard anything that would convince me evolution has any evidence.
Evolution is a far harder religion to support that any other religion on offer.

Originally posted by boony
I use to believe in evolution until I researched the evidence for evolution, and still I havnt seen or heard anything that would convince me evolution has any evidence.
Evolution is a far harder religion to support that any other religion on offer.

You havent done much research then.if you think that there is little evidence in the scientific world that refutes creationism. Considering there are millions of papers written by hundreds of thousands of scientists on the subject going back 120 years.
Especially since we have mapped the DNA for most animals and can trace their evolution back through millions of generations.

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by boony
I use to believe in evolution until I researched the evidence for evolution, and still I havnt seen or heard anything that would convince me evolution has any evidence.
Evolution is a far harder religion to support that any other religion on offer.

You havent done much research then.if you think that there is little evidence in the scientific world that refutes creationism. Considering there are millions of papers written by hundreds of thousands of scientists on the subject going back 120 years.
Especially since we have mapped the DNA for most animals and can trace their evolution back through millions of generations.

edit on 15-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

Uhh, sounds like you're just pulling numbers out of your bum. It also sounds like you're just talking about Micro-Evolution, which Creationists actually believe in, as it's just evolution through the same species, which is why you can trace their DNA back generation after generation and find similarities.

What you will NOT find, is one species turning into another species. You'll not find the so called "missing link", because the missing link is missing, not because of like of searching, but because it doesn't exist.

Please clarify if I'm wrong in making my previous assertion about Micro-Evolution, however.