5 Questions for Creationists

[Aman777]

It is a fact, not an opinion, that as the positive claimant, the burden of proof is yours. No amount of wheedling or self-aggrandizing will get you out of this.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that all you have supplied in light of your responsibility is a parade of vacuous naked assertions, as anyone with a functioning brain can plainly see simply by reading your own words.

Or truth in general. What you have is called imagination, which you've mistaken for reality.

Again, you can't remedy a naked assertion by piling more naked assertions on top of it. I shouldn't have to explain this to an adult.

That's how it is in your imagination, I have no doubt. But meanwhile, in reality, it's a naked assertion in point of fact. It fits the exact definition.

I understand your position, though. You see, I am actually forty-seven feet tall. You might say 'no you're not', but that is because you are perishing. You are but a mewling babe, unable to comprehend the supreme nature of my forty-seven feet tallness. Only those who possess the Truth® are able to see it.

How do you acquire the Truth®? I'm glad you asked, child. It's very simple. The chosen people who possess the supreme Truth® of my forty-seven feet tallness are those who already believe I am forty-seven feet tall.

It's perfectly logical, as you can see.

Actually, it's a fact. You misattributed a fallacy. Again, anyone with a functioning brain and the ability to read can figure this out on their own with about thirty seconds worth of research into basic logical fallacies, so I'm not sure who you think you're fooling.

I find it hilarious when the religious use religion as a putdown. By all means, keep it up.

That would be another imaginary concept invented by clueless creationists, so no.

You can stop pretending to be amicable now. You're not even fooling yourself at this point.

Dear Readers, Unworthy of comment.

In Love,
Aman

 

[effalo]

Hello Tempus Fugit,

Um, I would appreciate any feedback. And I've posted these questions on another board, in case if anyone accuses plagiarism. Thanks.

1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don’t we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as Australopithecus? We can see with hominid fossils that they come from different eras, and it just happens that as the dates approach the present, they become more and more similar to us. It seems quite mightily convenient for Evolutionary Theory that we find a similar trend throughout every fossil hierarchy. It doesn’t seem to fit with the Creationist stance that God created the animals at around the same time – why would they happen to exist in distinct eras with clear progressions from one set of fossils to the next?

I am a creationist simply because I know as a fact that there is a God that created. Since I’m not a fossil expert, I will refer you to the following link that's full of Bible supporting answers from scientists about fossils and other issues:

answersingenesis DOT org

But don’t we have more sources of knowledge than the study of geology and fossils to point us to the truth of our origin? Although forensic experts to determine “whodunit” are valuable, authorities prefer eye witnesses. Simple common sense is also useful.

Was there an eye witness to document evolution over the millions of years time period? What concrete proof for evolution do we have from mathematical and scientific laws?

I KNOW as a creationist that the Creator Himself witnessed His creation and documented it in a book called the Bible. Probability and Thermodynamics prove contrary to evolution. A sand castle on a beach proves that a human was present. So do our bodies that are far more complex than sand castles make the case that the universe and you and me came about by intelligence.

2. I’d asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs. More specifically, why it happens that these vestigial organs happen to have had a purpose in earlier species Evolution predicts were ancestors. Why would a Creator give animals vestigial organs in such a manner that so conveniently lines up with Evolutionary theory? Is this Creator actively deceiving us? And even in organs that do serve a purpose, I’m sure any first year medical student could list numerous organs just in the human body that could be made orders of magnitude more efficient.

Human organs that were aforetime considered vestigial were later found not only useful, but essential in function.

The natural selection phenomenon does not support evolution. A dog marooned in the wild to adapt to its environment and propagates its generations over an extended period of time ends up still a dog. Is natural selection unguided? No. The intelligence of the animal in adapting guides it.

Indeed, many of our physical and mental traits seem uniquely adapted for survival in a hunter gatherer society, which makes absolutely no sense if you prescribe to Genesis, or any creator that would recognize we would eventually become agricultural and industrial. Evolution not only explains but expects such imperfections, as natural selection is a slow, blind process, the nonrandom selection of random mutations. But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to “god works in mysterious ways”, or rather “occam’s razor can go [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself.”

Is evolution a person to explain or expect? Should we count TRUTH that we were INFORMED OF by the Creator as theory? We creationists were told that we were made in the image of our Creator instead of having evolved and were commanded to work. We were made according to our kind and animals their kind.

3. Why don’t Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids? You’d think this would be a pretty major point, that there were once other intelligent beings, presumably also with souls. What happened to them?

The written word of God tells us of the time God brought man into existence and speaks of no other intelligent natural being. Fossils found today are either human or non-human with nothing between.

4. Where are Creationism’s testable predictions? It isn’t falsifiable – it is based on no observations and is not applicable to any other field. Evolutionary Theory can be used to explain numerous phenomena in biology, biochemistry, psychology, neuroscience and animal science, while creationism is entirely self contained in that it makes no predictions and no observations.

Science has not but proven what the word of God TELLS us and is still doing so repeatedly. Geological and fossil evidence studied are consequences of the flood that the Bible spoke of.

Early scientists such as Newton were very happy to know science as a way to attain a deeper understanding of God's magnificent creation.

5. Building off of the last question, if, as with most creationists, your primary justification is some variant of the first cause argument, how do you extrapolate this to anything specific in your mythology? How do you know God created Eve out of Adam’s rib, or that he created the plants before the stars? Where does any of this come from?

I say again, our knowledge as creationists is based on what’s WRITTEN. Belief of what’s SAID is not extrapolation from any mythology. The written word strongly emphasizes the word, “believe” without which it may be seen only as another book of myths and thus rendered useless. When a person trusts and believes, God supernaturally proves Himself beyond doubt.

You also said in another place, “Such as the pain women experience during childbirth; from my memory the Bible quite sadistically claims this is a punishment for disobeying God, yet neuroscience and basic physics make it clear that this is a result of human baby’s having large craniums.”

The explanation that a baby’s large cranium as the cause for the mother’s pain during childbirth only leads to another question. Why doesn’t the mother elephant suffer pain birthing an offspring that’s much larger than a new-born child? Even without a physical explanation, the fact that the woman suffers pain is consistent with scripture and thus confirms it as true.


If creation truth is ever proven false and evolution true, the DOI that says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are CREATED equal” would be rendered dead and worthless as a protector of liberty. But how is it possible to disprove what’s self-evident?

The bottom line in the creation-evolution controversy is the opposing mandates whether to accept or reject God as Supreme Authority.

Take care,
Earl

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Dear Readers, Unworthy of comment.

Translation: 'I'm in way over my head. Time to cut and run.'

 

[lasthero]

Simple common sense is also useful.

Not in science. Intuition can be very, very wrong.

What concrete proof for evolution do we have from mathematical and scientific laws?

None, but science doesn't deal in 'proof'. There's no 'concrete proof' for heliocentric theory or gravity theory, either.

Probability and Thermodynamics prove contrary to evolution.

Not really.

A sand castle on a beach proves that a human was present.

It doesn't, actually. To be sure, it's strong evidence for human presence, but there's no way to prove, 100%, thatt the sand castle was made by a human. All we know is that every sand castle we've ever observed was made by humans, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for something unknown to make one.

Human organs that were aforetime considered vestigial were later found not only useful, but essential in function

An organ being vestigial doesn't mean it's useless - that's not what vestigial means.

A dog marooned in the wild to adapt to its environment and propagates its generations over an extended period of time ends up still a dog.

A dog marooned in the wild is just going to die and not evolve into anything, because populations, not individuals, evolve.

Geological and fossil evidence studied are consequences of the flood that the Bible spoke of.

Would you like to show this geological evidence that supports the Flood? Because I've never seen it. The vast majority of geologists haven't seen it. Paleontologists haven't seen it.

Why doesn’t the mother elephant suffer pain birthing an offspring that’s much larger than a new-born child?

Had I to guess, it's because an elephant mother is much larger than a human mother. I'm also curious where you read that at.

If creation truth is ever proven false and evolution true, the DOI that says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are CREATED equal” would be rendered dead and worthless as a protector of liberty.

What?!

The bottom line in the creation-evolution controversy is the opposing mandates whether to accept or reject God as Supreme Authority.

Many people who accept God as Supreme Authority also accept evolution and believe their god uses it as his tool. The vast majority of scientists from different fields accept evolution, and within biologists, the number of people who reject it are less than a percent. There's no more controversy than there is between real doctors and homeopathic doctors, or real geologists and purveyors of hollow-earth theory.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear Readers, Unworthy of comment.

In Love,
Aman

But sadly for you, very accurate.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I am a creationist simply because I know as a fact that there is a God that created. ...

How do you know for a fact that there is a God?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know for a fact that there is a God?

Taste.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Taste.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Er, I said "How do you know for a fact that God exists".

That is no more a proof for God's existence than "I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" is for Santa's existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know for a fact that there is a God?

Taste.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Er, I said "How do you know for a fact that God exists".

That is no more a proof for God's existence than "I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" is for Santa's existence.

First you asked how I know for a fact, then when I answer, you Arab phone it to "proof" to challenge my belief.

This is the kind of behavior I've grown to expect from you scientific methodists.

You really don't care, do you?

You're just here to ridicule, aren't you?

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Readers, Unworthy of comment.
​

Translation: 'I'm in way over my head. Time to cut and run.'

Dear Eight Foot Manchild, False. I don't cut and run, and I'm certainly not over my head. I do realize when someone is insulting my intelligence with your Santa is the same as God, argument. I won't give it a thought which is why I posted Unworthy of comment. It is worthy only to those who enjoy pre-juvenile comedy.

In Love,
Aman

 

[ThinkForYourself]

First you asked how I know for a fact, then when I answer, you Arab phone it to "proof" to challenge my belief.

This is the kind of behavior I've grown to expect from you scientific methodists.

You really don't care, do you?

You're just here to ridicule, aren't you?

This is like the third time you have accused me of "Arab phone"ing something. I have no idea what you mean, nor can I find a definition on the internet.

Each time I ask you what it means, and you don't explain.

How can I stop doing something when I have no idea what you want me to stop doing?

And again, I'm not trying to ridicule, I'm trying to understand. My mother died recently, and yeah, it got me thinking about my beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

My mother died recently, and yeah, it got me thinking about my beliefs.

I'm very sorry to hear that.

My apologies for being mean.

 

[Aman777]

But sadly for you, very accurate.

Dear bhsmte, Only to those on the fringe of a teeny weeny tiny Minority Godhating opinion. What percentage of the population hate God so much that they spend their days fighting against that which they claim they don't believe?

Real Godhaters, who waste their days in such pursuit, are probably less than 1% of 1% of the population, and some of them post right here on this board. So don't feel sad for me. I've alive forevermore thanks to Jesus. Feel sad for those still held hostage by the devil himself.

In Love,
Aman

 

[bhsmte]

Dear bhsmte, Only to those on the fringe of a teeny weeny tiny Minority Godhating opinion. What percentage of the population hate God so much that they spend their days fighting against that which they claim they don't believe?

Real Godhaters, who waste their days in such pursuit, are probably less than 1% of 1% of the population, and some of them post right here on this board. So don't feel sad for me. I've alive forevermore thanks to Jesus. Feel sad for those still held hostage by the devil himself.

In Love,
Aman

How do you hate something you don't believe exists?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you hate something you don't believe exists?

By projecting.

 

[HitchSlap]

Taste.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Remember the Pepsi and Coke taste test? Good times.

 

[AV1611VET]

Remember the Pepsi and Coke taste test? Good times.

Wrong kind of taste.

 

[HitchSlap]

Wrong kind of taste.

Are you suggesting taste doesn't mean taste?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you suggesting taste doesn't mean taste?

No.

Get a better dictionary.

 

[HitchSlap]

No.

Get a better dictionary.

Of course it doesn't. Is this why there are over 30,000 Christian denominations, because everyone is free to interpret the Bible to be congruous with their personal beliefs?