Creation

[Umkazar]

Some one who belive in Creation explain to me how science and evoloution is wrong? I do not understand how you can discount these things, or do you not discount them just interpet them differently.

 

[Kasey]

Some one who belive in Creation explain to me how science and evoloution is wrong? I do not understand how you can discount these things, or do you not discount them just interpet them differently.

I believe in Creation and I dont think nor believe that science is wrong. When concerning evolution, it determinely exactly what type of evolution your talking about. Since, obviously, you must be talking about billions and billions of years of evolving, I dont agree with that and I have my evidence.

There is a couple of things that I would use to disprove that mainstream evolutionist/existence theory and that is these.

1. Abiogenesis is a theory and unprovable. Textboot definition of that is that living matter comes from life-less matter. This is scientifically impossible. It is a fundamental law of the universe that all life comes from a source. Life begets life. Humans beget humans. Animals beget animals, plants reproduce in their own way. All life comes from a source. Non-living matter cannot replicate nor propogate itself. Its a proven fact that all reproductive entities within reality are already part of living matter, not life-less matter.

If you think that living matter can come from life-less matter, then make a hunk of plastic spring forth flowers, or an empty cup spring forther grass. It doesnt work. Therefore Abiogenesis is rediculous and un-scientific. Also, Abiogenesis doesnt define where the life-less matter initially came from, hence, this argument is destroyed instantly. Theories of existence need to be proven from all angles, not just one. All questions need to be answered and abiogenesis doesnt even begin to do so.

2. There are no missing links and you cant disprove a negative. People who state that they are going to find it and that its out there are constantly proven wrong time and time again.

3. When concerning the earth and the universe evolving over billions and trillions of years is rediculous in any sense of the word because where are all the half-mutants? I dont see a half-monkey/half-man walking around. Evolution, it it works in the long run, you would see short-term results as well. Human beings, in the past 1000 years have not evolved into a different species, we are the same. We have two eyes, ears, no nostrils, two hands, two arms, two legs. We are the same.

These are the reasons as to why I dont believe in long-term evolution such as what I have described to you. I do believe that evolution, short-term can happen, but even that depends specifically on what your talking about. Evolution, broadly defined is not a good thing.

 

[Arikay]

I think that post answers your question pretty well (If you understand science). Most creationists just don't understand the theory they are argueing against. I counted at least 13 errors in that post. Fundemental errors that shows that the poster just doesn't understand evolution.

Generally its missunderstandings and a belief that evolution = atheism and thus to believe in evolution is to go against God and the bible.

 

[Sanguine]

I do not understand how you can discount these things, or do you not discount them just interpet them differently.

From what I've seen on these boards it comes down to a mixture of ignorance and emotion. There are those who are simply ignorant and have never really considered the topic in any depth. Then there are those who know the facts but will contort and selectively ignore them because their emotional attachment to their religion (the literal interpretation at least) is too strong, and of course there are a multitude of positions in between.

 

[Mistermystery]

I'd really wanted to point out the errors there are in that post (p.s., that part where you talk about "having evidence" was really funny)... but then I realised how pointless it would be, so I've decided not to. One request though, have you ever learned anything about evolution? 10 bucks say you haven't

 

[meebs]

There is a couple of things that I would use to disprove that mainstream evolutionist/existence theory and that is these.

1. Abiogenesis is a theory and unprovable. Textboot definition of that is that living matter comes from life-less matter. This is scientifically impossible. It is a fundamental law of the universe that all life comes from a source. Life begets life. Humans beget humans. Animals beget animals, plants reproduce in their own way. All life comes from a source. Non-living matter cannot replicate nor propogate itself. Its a proven fact that all reproductive entities within reality are already part of living matter, not life-less matter.

If you think that living matter can come from life-less matter, then make a hunk of plastic spring forth flowers, or an empty cup spring forther grass. It doesnt work. Therefore Abiogenesis is rediculous and un-scientific. Also, Abiogenesis doesnt define where the life-less matter initially came from, hence, this argument is destroyed instantly. Theories of existence need to be proven from all angles, not just one. All questions need to be answered and abiogenesis doesnt even begin to do so.

So you dont think God fashioned Humans from simple mud/dirt then? then made it come alive? I thought thats what you creationists beleived?

 

[Jet Black]

Textboot definition of that is that living matter comes from life-less matter. This is scientifically impossible.

why?

It is a fundamental law of the universe that all life comes from a source.

what stops that source from being "lifeless matter?"

Life begets life.

except when it emerges through chemsitry.

Humans beget humans. Animals beget animals, plants reproduce in their own way. All life comes from a source. Non-living matter cannot replicate nor propogate itself.

yes it can.

Its a proven fact that all reproductive entities within reality are already part of living matter, not life-less matter.

false. I can think of at least three things that replicate that you would regard as lifeless.

If you think that living matter can come from life-less matter, then make a hunk of plastic spring forth flowers, or an empty cup spring forther grass. It doesnt work.

it doesn't work, because that is a strawmen. If you saw that you would just disprove evolution.

Therefore Abiogenesis is rediculous and un-scientific.

obly based on your flawed premises. since we have established that all your premises are flawed, it follows that your conclusion is too.

Also, Abiogenesis doesnt define where the life-less matter initially came from, hence, this argument is destroyed instantly.

rubbish. check the definition of abiogenesis.

2. There are no missing links and you cant disprove a negative.

there are plenty missing links. there are also lots of found links too.

3. When concerning the earth and the universe evolving over billions and trillions of years is rediculous in any sense of the word because where are all the half-mutants?

aah, flawed understainding again.

I dont see a half-monkey/half-man walking around.

because they are extinct.

Evolution, it it works in the long run, you would see short-term results as well. Human beings, in the past 1000 years have not evolved into a different species, we are the same. We have two eyes, ears, no nostrils, two hands, two arms, two legs. We are the same.

1000 years is a very short timeframe over which to observe evolution, especially for such a large and spread out population as the human population. furthermore, humans alter their environment so envirnmental pressures are less.

These are the reasons as to why I dont believe in long-term evolution such as what I have described to you. I do believe that evolution, short-term can happen, but even that depends specifically on what your talking about. Evolution, broadly defined is not a good thing.

all you reasons are flawed. got any more?

 

[funyun]

I believe in Creation and I dont think nor believe that science is wrong. When concerning evolution, it determinely exactly what type of evolution your talking about. Since, obviously, you must be talking about billions and billions of years of evolving, I dont agree with that and I have my evidence.

There is one kind of evolution. Abiogenesis is not evolution, and micro and macro evolution are the same thing.

1. Abiogenesis is a theory and unprovable. Textboot definition of that is that living matter comes from life-less matter. This is scientifically impossible. It is a fundamental law of the universe that all life comes from a source. Life begets life. Humans beget humans. Animals beget animals, plants reproduce in their own way. All life comes from a source. Non-living matter cannot replicate nor propogate itself. Its a proven fact that all reproductive entities within reality are already part of living matter, not life-less matter.

If you think that living matter can come from life-less matter, then make a hunk of plastic spring forth flowers, or an empty cup spring forther grass. It doesnt work. Therefore Abiogenesis is rediculous and un-scientific. Also, Abiogenesis doesnt define where the life-less matter initially came from, hence, this argument is destroyed instantly. Theories of existence need to be proven from all angles, not just one. All questions need to be answered and abiogenesis doesnt even begin to do so.

1) Abiogenesis, first of all, has nothing to do with evolution. If you told a scientist that discounting abiogenesis discounts evolution in some way or form, they would laugh at you.

2) Abiogenesis is testable. There have been many tests run on the origin of life. There are tests that show amino acids come from "non-living" chemicals. All life is is fancy chemistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

3) Living matter can come from lifeless matter. We can show, as I said, the synthesis of amino acids from non-living matter. As for DNA and RNA, you're simply going to be proven wrong. You simply have no diea what you're talkign about when you say anything is a "proven fact". This is a possibility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

4) Your "hunk of plastic springing forth flowers" and "empty cup spring forth grass" experiments show you have no idea what abiogenesis is AT ALL. They sound more like the proven false ideas of spontaneous generation. And modern theories of abiogenesis DO specify where the living matter came from. You really need to educate yourself before making ridiculous claims.

2. There are no missing links and you cant disprove a negative. People who state that they are going to find it and that its out there are constantly proven wrong time and time again.

I don't even know what you're talking about here. What missing links?

3. When concerning the earth and the universe evolving over billions and trillions of years is rediculous in any sense of the word because where are all the half-mutants? I dont see a half-monkey/half-man walking around. Evolution, it it works in the long run, you would see short-term results as well. Human beings, in the past 1000 years have not evolved into a different species, we are the same. We have two eyes, ears, no nostrils, two hands, two arms, two legs. We are the same.

Wow. I just...don't know where to begin.

First of all, the universe is not trillions of years old. Secondly, anything dealing with biology has no effect on astronomy and astrophysics.

What in the world do you mean by "half-mutants"? Every species is a "half-mutant". Humans today are much different than humans were 100,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago for that matter. But we have not changed enough to where we are a different species. We DO see short-term results. Once again, learn before you talk. You just make yourself look ridiculous.

These are the reasons as to why I dont believe in long-term evolution such as what I have described to you. I do believe that evolution, short-term can happen, but even that depends specifically on what your talking about. Evolution, broadly defined is not a good thing.

Evolution short-term is the exact same thign as evolution long-term. If you accept the mechanics of one, you accept the mechanics of the other. If short-term evolution exists, long-term evolution is inevitable.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Most creationists just don't understand the theory they are argueing against.

Generally its missunderstandings and a belief that evolution = atheism and thus to believe in evolution is to go against God and the bible.

I think these two statements sum up about 95% of the creationism/evolution controversy. Sadly, the mainstream professional creationist organizations exploit this ignorance to further their own agendas and fatten their wallets in the process.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm a Creationist and I will say this:

Creation=God
evolution=the evidence of how He did it.

Atheists=no God
Creationist=One God

 

[Jet Black]

I'm a Creationist and I will say this:

Creation=God
evolution=the evidence of how He did it.

Atheists=no God
Creationist=One God

umm, that makes every christian a creationist by default, which is all well and good, but doesn't help us differentiate the different sorts of creationist.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

Oncedecieved,
Perhaps you could say that you are a believer in Creation, but not creationism.

My understanding is that creationism is the litteral belief in the creation story in the OT, opposed to being a believer that At some point God created the universe through some means, but not nessisarily through the literal version of Genisis.

 

[Mistermystery]

I'm a Creationist and I will say this:

Creation=God
evolution=the evidence of how He did it.

Atheists=no God
Creationist=One God

Close but no cigar:

Creation: the act of creating. Since we exsist we have been created at some point. Wheter or not a deity was involved in this process is something you should make up for yourself.
Evolution: process that explains diffrent species on planet Earth.

Atheists: A person who doesn't believe in a God
Creationist: Someone who believes that God created. dividable in thestic evolutionist, and creationism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedecieved,
Perhaps you could say that you are a believer in Creation, but not creationism.

My understanding is that creationism is the litteral belief in the creation story in the OT, opposed to being a believer that At some point God created the universe through some means, but not nessisarily through the literal version of Genisis.

I do believe in a literal reading of Genesis's creation sequence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

umm, that makes every christian a creationist by default, which is all well and good, but doesn't help us differentiate the different sorts of creationist.

The op was asking 'creationists' a question and I responded. I am personally a creationist so I felt that by responding I was only giving my (a creationists) viewpoint. So every Christian or every evolutionist really isn't a factor in this response.

 

[Jet Black]

The op was asking 'creationists' a question and I responded. I am personally a creationist so I felt that by responding I was only giving my (a creationists) viewpoint. So every Christian or every evolutionist really isn't a factor in this response.

and I was pointing out that your definition of creationist makes all christians creationists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Close but no cigar:

Creation: the act of creating. Since we exsist we have been created at some point. Wheter or not a deity was involved in this process is something you should make up for yourself.

Make it up for ourselves? That is not necessary.

Evolution: process that explains diffrent species on planet Earth.

Yes and no.

Atheists: A person who doesn't believe in a God

Agreed.

Creationist: Someone who believes that God created. dividable in thestic evolutionist, and creationism.

Except the op was asking creationists personally and personally I do not consider myself a theistic evolutionist nor do I fit under the standard creationist model.

 

[Jet Black]

Except the op was asking creationists personally and personally I do not consider myself a theistic evolutionist nor do I fit under the standard creationist model.

actually the OP was making a false dichotomy between creation and evolution. the fact of the matter is that we were created. the question is how. creationists who believe in creationism weren't mentioned until later.

 

[Oncedeceived]

actually the OP was making a false dichotomy between creation and evolution. the fact of the matter is that we were created. the question is how. creationists who believe in creationism weren't mentioned until later.

You're right, the op was a little fuzzy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

and I was pointing out that your definition of creationist makes all christians creationists.

By saying that Creation= God? Most Christians agree that God created they may differ on how.

By saying that Creation= One God? Most Christians agree that there is only one God that created.

So how does it make all Christians Creationists?