A Riddle For Atheists - Evolutionists Can't Handle This One

[AV1611VET]

Then why do I see so many creationists trying to use the first law of thermodynamics to "disprove" the big bang?

No comment.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Indeed!

That's exactly what God started with -- nothing!

That's why it's called creatio ex nihilo.

And here you are -- comparing yourself to God!

Scratch the surface of a creationist, and you'll always find a narcissist.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The backbone of creationism is that God created the universe from nothing.

And if creationists would only stick to that, and not add the products of their own ego into the mix, nobody would ever mistake creationism for a "challenge" to evolutionary theory.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

Would it matter?

You'd just call it semantics, doublethink and weaseling; wouldn't you?

Correct no answer would ever satisfy an unbeliever. The problem with them is that they have a very narrow minded world view and if something doesnt fit into that criteria they will attack.

They dont understand that there is lots of evidence there that supports the christian worldview but what they want is to know without a shadow of a doubt, but what they dont understand is God will never give them that because if no faith is required, then no love is required.

Ask an unbeliever if they believe that their parents are really their parents and their hypocrisy will show so clearly. If they answer the dna matches, I can say that someone could have faked the dna tests, your parents could have been cloned by a technology that we dont know about yet, aliens could have cloned them for another purpose, or aliens could have cloned them for amusement. This is called irrational skepticism and if someone wants to make it so, no answer will ever satisfy them.

Why do you think unbelievers score so high on the asperger quotient test, thsi is also why most are known to be socially inept, and have a very narrow worldview.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

And if creationists would only stick to that, and not add the products of their own ego into the mix, nobody would ever mistake creationism for a "challenge" to evolutionary theory.

There is a big difference between evolution and neo-darwinian evolution which from what I read has too many holes in it, and thanks to perry marshall I can truely see what they are now.

 

[Belk]

Correct no answer would ever satisfy an unbeliever. The problem with them is that they have a very narrow minded world view and if something doesnt fit into that criteria they will attack.

They dont understand that there is lots of evidence there that supports the christian worldview but what they want is to know without a shadow of a doubt, but what they dont understand is God will never give them that because if no faith is required, then no love is required.

Ask an unbeliever if they believe that their parents are really their parents and their hypocrisy will show so clearly. If they answer the dna matches, I can say that someone could have faked the dna tests, your parents could have been cloned by a technology that we dont know about yet, aliens could have cloned them for another purpose, or aliens could have cloned them for amusement. This is called irrational skepticism and if someone wants to make it so, no answer will ever satisfy them.

Why do you think unbelievers score so high on the asperger quotient test, thsi is also why most are known to be socially inept, and have a very narrow worldview.

 

[Split Rock]

Correct no answer would ever satisfy an unbeliever. The problem with them is that they have a very narrow minded world view and if something doesnt fit into that criteria they will attack.

Funny how that seems to fit the more outspoken creationists here. Also, how much more narrow minded can you get than "the only answer is the one based on my personal interpretation of the KJV1611 bible?"

They dont understand that there is lots of evidence there that supports the christian worldview but what they want is to know without a shadow of a doubt, but what they dont understand is God will never give them that because if no faith is required, then no love is required.

Sorry, but there is no evidence that supports the Christian Creationist worldview.

Ask an unbeliever if they believe that their parents are really their parents and their hypocrisy will show so clearly. If they answer the dna matches, I can say that someone could have faked the dna tests, your parents could have been cloned by a technology that we dont know about yet, aliens could have cloned them for another purpose, or aliens could have cloned them for amusement. This is called irrational skepticism and if someone wants to make it so, no answer will ever satisfy them.

Are you claiming that not believing in your god constitutes "irrational skepticism?" How about Shiva? Or Thor? Or Allah?

Why do you think unbelievers score so high on the asperger quotient test, thsi is also why most are known to be socially inept, and have a very narrow worldview.

Citations, please. Or is this just empty rhetoric or even worse, false witness?

 

[Split Rock]

There is a big difference between evolution and neo-darwinian evolution which from what I read has too many holes in it, and thanks to perry marshall I can truely see what they are now.

Please tell us what you think the difference is between "evolution," and "neo-darwinian evolution."

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Correct no answer would ever satisfy an unbeliever. The problem with them is that they have a very narrow minded world view and if something doesnt fit into that criteria they will attack.

They dont understand that there is lots of evidence there that supports the christian worldview but what they want is to know without a shadow of a doubt, but what they dont understand is God will never give them that because if no faith is required, then no love is required.

Ask an unbeliever if they believe that their parents are really their parents and their hypocrisy will show so clearly. If they answer the dna matches, I can say that someone could have faked the dna tests, your parents could have been cloned by a technology that we dont know about yet, aliens could have cloned them for another purpose, or aliens could have cloned them for amusement. This is called irrational skepticism and if someone wants to make it so, no answer will ever satisfy them.

Why do you think unbelievers score so high on the asperger quotient test, thsi is also why most are known to be socially inept, and have a very narrow worldview.

"Well, yeah, that's just like, your opinion, man."

 

[Nathan Poe]

There is a big difference between evolution and neo-darwinian evolution which from what I read has too many holes in it, and thanks to perry marshall I can truely see what they are now.

Care to address one or two of those holes? Or is it safer hiding behind a wall of text?

 

[Nathan Poe]

"Well, yeah, that's just like, your opinion, man."

More like an excuse than an opinion, really.

 

[Lindros09]

More like an excuse than an opinion, really.

u mad brah?

 

[lucaspa]

The following information comes from Perry Marshall:

--------

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

DNA is the example. Or, rather, directed protein synthesis is the example. The "code" in DNA is the triplet base code that corresponds to amino acids in proteins.

As it turns out, chemistry and natural selection created this particular coded information. It starts with chemistry.
"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048

Then continues with chemistry and natural selection:
1. AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world. J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. Describes Darwinian step-by-step for evolution from RNA molecules to cells with directed protein synthesis. All intermediate steps are useful. http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Poole_et_al_1998.pdf

Now, the genetic code started out as a 2 base code, not 3. What's more, the present code evolved to minimize changes in the proteins:
5. David H. Ardell and Guy Sella No accident: genetic codes freeze in error-correcting patterns of the standard genetic codePhil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002 357, 1625-1642
No accident: genetic codes freeze in error–correcting patterns of the standard genetic code — Philosophical Transactions B
6. Saverio Alberti The origin of the genetic code and protein synthesis Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 45, Number 4 / October, 1997, 352-358. SpringerLink - Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 45, Number 4

So, what you thought was an argument against atheism turns out to be the example you were looking for about non-intelligent processes producing a code!

 

[lucaspa]

The backbone of creationism is that God created the universe from nothing.

That's not really the backbone of creationism. If that were the case, creationists could easily accept Big Bang.

No, creationism depends on God creating things in the universe from nothing in their present form. Let's face it, AV, if all creationism was was God creating the universe, then creationists would have no trouble with evolution. But instead creationists want birds, whales, humans, etc. all created "from nothing" in their present form. No evolving or developing from things created when the universe was created.