Challenge to Creationists who dismiss evolution!

[mzungu]

could anyone please show me the similarities between the first two pictures with the third? Taking into consideration that all sperm and ova look alike!

This is what you and all humans started out from the fusion of the tailed creature and the egg:

This is what human sperms fused with human eggs end up becoming:

So pray tell me where are the similarities?

 

[juvenissun]

Sperm (man) and egg (woman) are different.

So?

I suspect that this would turn out to be a lousy question.

 

[mzungu]

Sperm (man) and egg (woman) are different.

So?

I suspect that this would turn out to be a lousy question.

I say this because creationists compare fossils of hominids and insist that they are not hominid since they resemble chimps more.

Creationists refuse to accept Evolution simply because this will mean that they will have to admit that humans belong to the greater ape family and that all life forms are genetically related in some way or another.

A human sperm bears absolutely no resemblance to a human but is almost identical to all sperms from the animal kingdom.

How can this be? A single celled creature with a tail fusing with a round single celled creature brings forth humans?

I would like creationists to ponder on this for a moment as the sperm egg example shows exactly how biological change happens and how this process is common in most animals inhabiting this planet.

 

[No Time]

The truth, facts and all of that nonsense is the very last thing creationists are concerned about.

Evolution is the killer of creationism and as such must be kept from their children at all costs,
who cares about their childs education? the rest of the world can teach it if they like but not the creationists.

 

[steve_bakr]

The truth, facts and all of that nonsense is the very last thing creationists are concerned about.

Evolution is the killer of creationism and as such must be kept from their children at all costs,
who cares about their childs education? the rest of the world can teach it if they like but not the creationists.

I am not a "Creationist" in the sense of all the baggage that word carries, but I do believe--however process by which life unfolded--that God created the universe in the sense that He is the Author, not only of all things, but of all physical laws and processes by which the universe operates. Do you believe this?

 

[No Time]

I am not a "Creationist" in the sense of all the baggage that word carries, but I do believe--however process by which life unfolded--that God created the universe in the sense that He is the Author, not only of all things, but of all physical laws and processes by which the universe operates. Do you believe this?

Do I believe what you say? No I don't because it makes no sense.

I ask you, Why should there be a God? why would there be a God? and most importantly of all if there is a God where did this God come from and where is this God?

Gods and I say Gods because if the people who live on planet earth are to be believed there are many many Gods,
Gods are nothing more than feelings.

 

[steve_bakr]

Do I believe what you say? No I don't because it makes no sense.

I ask you, Why should there be a God? why would there be a God? and most importantly of all if there is a God where did this God come from and where is this God?

Gods and I say Gods because if the people who live on planet earth are to be believed there are many many Gods,
Gods are nothing more than feelings.

You might do well, then, to read Ibn Rushid's and Thomas Aquinis' logical argument for the existence of God.

For me, however, the existence of God is a self-evident truth whose proof is demonstrated in the wonders of the universe. I don't understand why anyone who studies nature would NOT believe in God.


I find it odd, if you do not believe at some level, that you would feel the need to populate a Christian forum.

Remember also that logic is only one aspect of our minds. Our understanding is not limited to logic alone.

The answer to the question as to where God came from is that He has always existed. As far as where He is, God is both transcendent of time and space and His presence is immanent throughout existence. God is what keeps the universe existing and operating.

Peace

"God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein

 

[Tiberius]

I don't get how creationists claim that humans can't come from single celled organisms when they did it themselves in their first nine months...

 

[steve_bakr]

I don't get how creationists claim that humans can't come from single celled organisms when they did it themselves in their first nine months...

However we came, God is the Author of our existence.

Peace

 

[Greg1234]

I don't get how creationists claim that humans can't come from single celled organisms when they did it themselves in their first nine months...

The same reason a bicycle can't turn into a car because a car starts off as 3 pieces of metal on the assembly line. The mechanism governing gear change is impotent, in both machines. A singled cell human is already a human being built . No Darwinism required

 

[Greg1234]

Do I believe what you say? No I don't because it makes no sense.

I ask you, Why should there be a God? why would there be a God? and most importantly of all if there is a God where did this God come from and where is this God?

Gods and I say Gods because if the people who live on planet earth are to be believed there are many many Gods,
Gods are nothing more than feelings.

God is reason you can feel in the first place. The spirit of life is God. The creation of man as man is God. Yes, God being felt is ....Darwinism.. . . nope God again (sorry).

 

[Nick665]

God is reason you can feel in the first place.

This is nonsense to an atheist . Xenu is the real reason you can feel in the first place.

 

[Greg1234]

This is nonsense to an atheist . Xenu is the real reason you can feel in the first place.

No it's Ogd

 

[Delphiki]

The same reason a bicycle can't turn into a car because a car starts off as 3 pieces of metal on the assembly line.

...and cars and bicycles don't reproduce on their own, nor with each other, nor are living things, nor are made of organic compounds, nor operate ont heir own without some human intervention... and so on.

The mechanism governing gear change is impotent, in both machines.

A mechanism which is no different that when a person strikes a nail with a hammer or turns a bolt with a wrench.

A singled cell human is already a human being built .

Yet look completely different than the resulting organism, and you accept that. But you won't accept the morphological similarities between various primates as an indication of evolution (which is the point of the OP).

No Darwinism required

Except in matters where creationists are concerned. Creationists could use a good dose of "Darwinism". I wouldn't be too upset if creationists earn their Darwin awards by ultimately rejecting the same medicine we owe advances in evolutionary biology to. But I guess creationists don't have that much faith in creationism. How about the next time you come down with a terminal illness you just pray?

 

[MoonLancer]

For me, however, the existence of God is a self-evident truth whose proof is demonstrated in the wonders of the universe. I don't understand why anyone who studies nature would NOT believe in God.

because once they study it they no longer rely on incredulous arguments.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I am not a "Creationist" in the sense of all the baggage that word carries, but I do believe--however process by which life unfolded--that God created the universe in the sense that He is the Author, not only of all things, but of all physical laws and processes by which the universe operates. Do you believe this?

That's all very well Steve, and I could go along with this, but it's a long, long way to all the different religions of the world and even the thousands of Christian denominations. Which is the right one?

What you describe is little more that Deism:-

Deism in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Furthermore, the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life ... Deists believe in the existence of a god without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books. Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mike Elphick]

No it's Ogd

Other Government Departments
OGD Operator Groep Delft (Dutch: Delft Operator Group; Delft, Netherlands)
OGD Old Grand-Dad (bourbon whiskey)
OGD Order of the Golden Dawn
OGD Orchid Guide Digest
OGD Osteoglophonic Dysplasia
OGD Osteoglophonic Dwarfism
OGD Organización de Gestión de Destino (Bolivia)
OGD Oesophago-Gastroduodenoscopy
OGD Open Government Document
OGD Obstacle Gain Diffraction
OGD Old Granulomatous Disease
OGD Organic Grocery Deals (web forum)
OGD - What does OGD stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary.

Which one? Or if you're trying to day God, please do it in a way others can understand.

 

[Greg1234]

...and cars and bicycles don't reproduce on their own, nor with each other,

Doesn't matter. Tests on both reveal the same results- limited adaptation governed by intelligence and degradation over time by stochastic processes.

nor are living things,

Doesnt matter, as given above

nor are made of organic compounds,

Doesn't matter, as given above

nor operate ont heir own without some human intervention...

Oh living organisms have intervention. But as to your point, doesn't matter, as given above.

and so on.

Etc

A mechanism which is no different that when a person strikes a nail with a hammer or turns a bolt with a wrench.

Yes tests show that it is impotent and that's why it is. Congratulations!

Yet look completely different than the resulting organism, and you accept that.

The starting of the car in production looks nothing like the car.

But you won't accept the morphological similarities between various primates as an indication of evolution (which is the point of the OP).

I don't believe that bacteria can turn into a monkey.

Except in matters where creationists are concerned. Creationists could use a good dose of "Darwinism". I wouldn't be too upset if creationists earn their Darwin awards by ultimately rejecting the same medicine we owe advances in evolutionary biology to. But I guess creationists don't have that much faith in creationism.

I don't know about them, but I do. I use creationism and see it being used in medicine, where the mind is the mediator and creator of matter. A process which began as such and is still in continuation today. Careful, the main source of evidence for Darwinusm (adaptation) may just be the most prominent piece of evidence for Creationism. The irony continues.

How about the next time you come down with a terminal illness you just pray?

No probs. We now have information that the oasis of life within man can bring about his rectification. Some of what you attribute to the placebo effect. Here's one exposition The German New Medicine a new Natural Science" by Professor Dr. Hans Ulrich Niemitz

If i want then I might go to the hospital. The idea that bacteria can turn into men has nothing to do with it. Additionally, it still takes the mind (and other factors i will not get into here) or it will never heal or keep recurring. It's a lottery game in some cases and the medicine itself kills you in others. But overall it's a good practice in the name of wellness. It doesn't have to find the root cause and can alleviate symptoms with the constant administration of medication. But its a shame that basic herbs created are downplayed to the extent that they are.

 

[Greg1234]

Which one? Or if you're trying to day God, please do it in a way others can understand.

Try "pluretyup"

 

[steve_bakr]

That's all very well Steve, and I could go along with this, but it's a long, long way to all the different religions of the world and even the thousands of Christian denominations. Which is the right one?

What you describe is little more that Deism:-

The sense of God sustaining the universe is not the same as Deism, which is that the Creator is no longer involved in creation

You make a good point regarding the varieties of religions. I can only allow--although I myself am a Catholic--that different people have different capacities for understanding God. As St Paul says, "We see (the truth) as through a glass, only darkly."

Peace