• Thurs news: Lilly’s weight-loss drug prevents diabetes. Merck pays $588M for bispecific. Amgen speaks out about bone density issues with obesity drug. PTC gets gene therapy approval. JNJ’s 340B legal fight. See more on our front page

Creationism's Top 10









Pathetically weak and inaccurate piece that in no way deals with devastating critiques of evolution such as irreducible complexity and information theory.

Meanwhile some people around here are foolish enough to believe in random evolution which is something that has a zero probability of having occurred. You remember what they say about people who live in glass houses fellas.....

This piece is especially laughable as it is put forward by someone who has repeatedly proven that he doesn't even understand BASIC biology.
 












If I had one I'd train it to fetch my slippers in the evening. In the morning, I'd walk it on a leash. Imagine my neighbors' surprise!
 




God supposedly created all the animals including humans in 2 days, and since fossil evidence proves the existence of dinosaurs, using the transitive property (see what I did there - I'm using sciency math stuff to show I'm not making this all up) this must mean that dinosaurs and humans lived together relatively recently.

Isn't that awesome. Just think about it. Life about 6000 years ago was probably just like the Flintstones. Since we are such a superior race we probably had dinosaurs doing all kinds of stuff for us. Think about Roman gladiator games. The history books tell you that they fought tigers and lions but they probably also fought vicious dinosaurs. In fact, there's proof to make us suspect that dinosaurs lived into the 15th century - What with everyone talking about fearsome dragons - They were probably just dinosaurs.

Unfortunately dinosaurs are all but extinct in the modern world. Every once in a while you'll get someone spotting the Loch Ness Monster which is probably just a plesiosaur that managed to survive to today. Further proof that dinosaurs and the Earth could not have existed for billions of years.
 




My, aren't they cute making funnies and knocking over straw men!

Pssst, hate to burst your balloons but there are still major problems with the theory you guys support. Little things like logic, probability analysis and information theory!

It all adds up to you losing despite how funny you think you are! Hahahahaha!
 








A debate implies two reasoned arguments that are supported by factual evidence discussing conclusions drawn from said evidence. At least, that is how the scientific community views a debate. For example, evolutionary scientists have debated about punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism as mechanisms of evolution, both arguing based on data collected.

There is no debate between creationism and evolution. Creationism is a belief system that doesn't (and can't) change and Evolution is a theory that adapts to the data that is continually observed. Evolution is supported by evidence and Creationism is supported by conjecture and faith.

Also, those who believe the bible is to be taken literally on matters of science (and not all do) should be made to use the same primitive medicinal cures in Leviticus for skin and other bodily diseases. Put your life and health where your mouth is and live by the science of Palestinian people 3000 years ago. After all, the cures MUST work, as it came directly from God right?

To paraphrase the comedian Dara O'Brian . . . "An astrophysicist does not have a debate with a guy who thinks the sky is a carpet put in the sky by god."
 




Based upon the definition put forward in the first sentence, your definition, then there is indeed a debate between creationism and evolution.

As much as you would like to avoid such issues, such logic-based concerns as irreducible complexity, information theory and probability analysis come into play. The fossil record doesn't even support evolution.

The bottom line is that worst, absolutely worst case scenario, for creationists is that the theories are on equal ground. Nothing requires more blind faith than believing in blind chance evolution which has a probability of zero. That's the position you've staked out and that means you live in the most fragile of glass houses.

As great as science is, it is merely a tool, not the fount of all knowledge and it is a tool totally unfit to deal with the question of origins, something which cannot be observed or measured in real time.

The real empirical position is creationism, as much as that may pain you and that will remain the case no matter how many quotes from comedians you put up.
 




Man For All Seasons said:
Pathetically weak and inaccurate piece that in no way deals with devastating critiques of evolution such as irreducible complexity and information theory.

Meanwhile some people around here are foolish enough to believe in random evolution which is something that has a zero probability of having occurred. You remember what they say about people who live in glass houses fellas.....

This piece is especially laughable as it is put forward by someone who has repeatedly proven that he doesn't even understand BASIC biology.
Click to expand...

As I recall, Behe was the only expert who was willing to testify about irreducible complexity in the Dover case. He got blown out of the water on the only example he could provide.

If you think evolution is "random" then you obviously don't know much about the subject.
 




Man For All Seasons said:
Based upon the definition put forward in the first sentence, your definition, then there is indeed a debate between creationism and evolution.

As much as you would like to avoid such issues, such logic-based concerns as irreducible complexity, information theory and probability analysis come into play. The fossil record doesn't even support evolution.

The bottom line is that worst, absolutely worst case scenario, for creationists is that the theories are on equal ground. Nothing requires more blind faith than believing in blind chance evolution which has a probability of zero. That's the position you've staked out and that means you live in the most fragile of glass houses.

As great as science is, it is merely a tool, not the fount of all knowledge and it is a tool totally unfit to deal with the question of origins, something which cannot be observed or measured in real time.

The real empirical position is creationism, as much as that may pain you and that will remain the case no matter how many quotes from comedians you put up.
Click to expand...

I am still waiting to meet any creationist who has even a junior high school level understanding of evolution or science. It is painful to listen to them.
 




wm97 said:
I am still waiting to meet any creationist who has even a junior high school level understanding of evolution or science. It is painful to listen to them.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for someone who believes 'god created the Universe and mankind' to explain why evolution couldn't be part of the method their creator used? The underlying question should be: Is there an underlying purpose to all of this? The 'tools that were used' are being uncovered daily..
 




Vagitarian said:
I'm still waiting for someone who believes 'god created the Universe and mankind' to explain why evolution couldn't be part of the method their creator used? The underlying question should be: Is there an underlying purpose to all of this? The 'tools that were used' are being uncovered daily..
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath while you wait.
 








wm97 said:
As I recall, Behe was the only expert who was willing to testify about irreducible complexity in the Dover case. He got blown out of the water on the only example he could provide.

If you think evolution is "random" then you obviously don't know much about the subject.
Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong!

How can evolution (according to the way you and others seem to be using the term) be anything other than random? Is it directed? Is it planned? Anything other than theistic evolution is indeed random evolution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:








Vagitarian said:
I'm still waiting for someone who believes 'god created the Universe and mankind' to explain why evolution couldn't be part of the method their creator used? The underlying question should be: Is there an underlying purpose to all of this? The 'tools that were used' are being uncovered daily..
Click to expand...

Have you even been paying attention. Nobody that I recall has said that they couldn't.
 








You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back