Creationism is a joke

[Da_Funk]

Now I can understand why Snowman is 30 years, working a shitty factory job and can barely afford to pay his bills.

 

[The.Menace]

People already replied but I have to say something about a couple of things myself....

Evolutionary theories remain incapable of explaining the existence of sex, symbiosis or altruism.

Why? That's just not true. Sex is the exchange of information, symbiosis does provide an advantage in evolution.... so, these are perfect examples for evolution in my view.

Single-celled organisms such as bacteria, amoeba and algae have the
same degree of complexity within them that multiple-celled organisms have
within them.

lol.

"Both the number of base pairs and the number of genes vary widely from one species to another"

Bacterium, Escherichia coli - 4,000,000 base pairs
Mammal, Homo sapiens - 3,200,000,000 base pairs

Genome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There would be no advantage for
a creature to have a half-evolved eye

Why not? To see a little bit is better than to see nothing at all...?

he input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of
undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up

what is "undirected energy"?

In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such
as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically
impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to
form by random action in nature. It cannot happen!

"At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 2-3 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed"
Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mutations, the supposed driving mechanisms of evolution, are random in
nature and are neutral or harmful. They do not accumulate beneficially.

Pesticide resistance is the adaptation of pest species targeted by a pesticide resulting in decreased susceptibility to that chemical. In other words, pests develop a resistance to a chemical through artificial selection; after they are exposed to a pesticide for a prolonged period it no longer kills them as effectively. The most resistant organisms are the ones to survive and pass on their genetic traits to their offspring
Pesticide resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jokerman]

A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by
random chance.

Neither do living bodies. Creationists and intelligent designers are always crying "chance" as an alleged fatal flaw in the theory, but it's a straw man. And that's because Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It's a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection. If it were really a theory of chance, it's obvious it wouldn't work. But all that designers can see is "random mutation," then their brains conveniently switch off at that point, and they run with it. They need to study the subject first, but, unfortunatley, faith doesn't involve the mind. So all our explanations here are for naught.

 

[EDouble]

whats creationism"?

 

[Preach]

whats creationism"?

lol.

the belief that everything was created the way it exists today. essentially, it's the belief that we were created by a god.

 

[Jokerman]

whats creationism"?

At it's most baisc, it's the belief that the universe and all life was created in its original form by God.

 

[Glockmatic]

Intelligent Design is another word for it

 

[Preach]

that's two words ehehehehe.

 

[Duke]

In his 30-point list, so many things are faulty, poorly argumented or just "reading" the theories and laws of science and evolution wrong. There's only so many times one can stomach to hear the laws of thermodynamics being twisted to show that "evoltution is wrong LAL!". It simply shows you have no fucking clue. Period.


And even if. Even if everything you said is correct, it only disproves evolution. You can't prove your own ludicrous theory of the bearded man making us in 7 days, and then doing a horrible, horrible job at it.

If God exists he or she is either/or not all powerful, sadistic, cynical, lazy etc. In other words, a cockwipe. And you are his lackey.

 

[raywaters11]

have u never seen 'bruce almighty'
it explains everything.

 

[Duke]

Oh c'mon, the whining about "free will". Boohoo, I'm God and I can't solve world hunger because I gave them free will. God = stupido.

 

[EDouble]

I dont know on how "Every thing that exists today", & shit on the universe and this & that but asortment of things on earth i believe God ''created including us I havent done as much research on things as some of you but i recall reading in a paper about why cant beliefs be along side 'science' again I hold ignorance on alot of issues or view points related to this discussion but it seems plausibal to be reasoned

science obviusly holds shit in life; im wondering if this Proof seeking for creationism is valid if science is more connected with Theory of Evolution while Creationism is connected with Faith

if Im right on that how can there be proof for someones belief

 

[Duke]

I dont know on how "Every thing that exists today", & shit on the universe and this & that but asortment of things on earth i believe God ''created including us I havent done as much research on things as some of you but i recall reading in a paper about why cant beliefs be along side 'science' again I hold ignorance on alot of issues or view points related to this discussion but it seems plausibal to be reasoned

science obviusly holds shit in life; im wondering if this Proof seeking for creationism is valid if science is more connected with Theory of Evolution while Creationism is connected with Faith

if Im right on that how can there be proof for someones belief

I'd say you're a smart believer (one of the too few, unfortunately). "Creationism" as it's often found is the belief in what the Bible literally says about the origins of the world. God creating everything in 7 days, that nonsense.

Obviously, belief and science aren't mutually exclusive. The way the world works is explained by science, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a God that started it all. Just not in the way most creationist idiots would want you to believe.

 

[raywaters11]

maybe god is a scientist



eureka bitches, king me.

 

[Jokerman]

maybe god is a scientist

No, God is reality. And facts are God's native tongue. That is, how God reveals himself is primarily through facts, facts about reality, discovered through the scientific method. So, you see, scientists are the real priests and holy men/women. They are seeking the only real God, reality. So science is a holy endeavor, a sacred enterprise.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Because evolution takes MILLIONS of years to happen and it is so minor that we cannot see it in our lifetime. We humans have only been around for about 10,000 years which is a fraction of time in evolutionary terms..

Of course, We all know Evolution works in mysterious ways.

Ask that same question lets say ten million years ago. Nope. still nothing here. You're point is valid only IF evolution began around the same time humans did, Which could explain why we cant see it happen cause its only been 10 000 years.

Archaeopteryx.

LOL.

Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form but is clearly a full-bird. This is even the considered opinion of scientists who are firm believers in evolution. When the 'evidence' is in, the case turns out not to support the theory but some continue to use the old evidence. This is obviously case with archaeopteryx

Many more specimens have been found and analyzed, scientists HAVE generally concluded (You can't refute this) that Archaeopteryx was a full bird and in no way did it evolve from other types of dinosaurs.

Many fossils of 'full birds' have been found that existed LONG before the believed ancestor of archaeopteryx. So why would this 'creature' evolve from a completely different creature when similar birds lived much earlier this ancestor?


The hilarity in evolutionary believers who quickly leech onto evidence, any evidence, which seems to support their theory and automaticaly assume it to be fact

You're blind faith in this absurd theory is no different than any persons belief in a religion. Period.

No different than the rest of your points. They're old and rusty. I dont have the time to go through the all.. They're all Pure Sci-fi

Similarities between different species just tells me that they all indeed had one/same creator

 

[TecK NeeX]

Creationism is a joke.

Refute that line with evidence supporting creationism.

Go.

Creationism is not a joke

Refute the line with evidence disproving it. Good luck


You can use all the evidence you want that you so blindly believe supports evolution, however, they still dont disprove creationism.

All they prove is that similar species lived in different time periods in stages or rather a ladder which had similar characterstics. some went extinct and some continued to exist

I cant go back in time and prove to you that all these different creatures were created and lived in different time periods nor can you go back in time and live for millions of years and witness the evolutionary stages with your own eyes. both theories can be just as flawed or just as plausible.

We cant provide physical or observeable evidence of creationism because it's not within our power to communicate with God and beg him to create things before our own eyes. Its a belief based on faith so its not on us to prove it to be true, its on you to try and prove it otherwise. All creationists can do is counter other theories that claim to have found an answer to how life originated. And so far the things that have been used as evidence of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification.

I guess I can say that any evidence against evolution is very good evidence for creationism

 

[Illuminattile]

You can use all the evidence you want that you so blindly believe supports evolution, however, they still dont disprove creationism.

Well that depends on what particular brand of creationism you believe in. Creationism at its heart claims that animals (including humans) were created fully-formed and did not evolve from lower life forms. So evidence for evolution is evidence against creationism.

And so far the things that have been used as evidence of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification.

I guess I can say that any evidence against evolution is very good evidence for creationism

You're contradicting yourself. Go back and read your first paragraph.

Evidence for one side would be evidence against the other, because the two sides cannot both be true. However, evidence against one side is not evidence for the other.

Look at it this way; evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK isn't evidence that aliens did. However, evidence that aliens did kill JFK would be evidence that Oswald didn't.

Of course, We all know Evolution works in mysterious ways.

It doesn't work in mysterious ways, it just works slowly.

Ask that same question lets say ten million years ago. Nope. still nothing here. You're point is valid only IF evolution began around the same time humans did, Which could explain why we cant see it happen cause its only been 10 000 years.

You're missing the point entirely. Evolution began thousands of millions of years ago. And we can see that it did happen from fossils. The point Glock was making is that we can't see it happen in front of our eyes because it's a long process.

Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form but is clearly a full-bird.

Really? Then why are so many of its features found in dinosaurs and not birds?

Many more specimens have been found and analyzed, scientists HAVE generally concluded (You can't refute this) that Archaeopteryx was a full bird and in no way did it evolve from other types of dinosaurs.

We don't need to refute it until you provide some kind of evidence.

Many fossils of 'full birds' have been found that existed LONG before the believed ancestor of archaeopteryx. So why would this 'creature' evolve from a completely different creature when similar birds lived much earlier this ancestor?

Again, do you feel like providing proof? Or should we just take your word for it?

No different than the rest of your points. They're old and rusty. I dont have the time to go through the all..

Find the time.

 

[Glockmatic]

Like Illuminattile said, you can't bring something and provide no source or evidence. Post some links to your claims from a reputable source please.

Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form but is clearly a full-bird.

Birds don't have teeth and a long tail.

 

[Preach]

I also think it's funny how he didn't even touch the article about scientists who did see evolution happen "in front of their eyes". Tech NeeX, while you're at it, attack that one as well. Your arguments are funny to read.