Easy questions for a Creationist to answer.

[card]

If we are the main reason why everything else exists why are we so much like everything else?
don't you think we should stand out a little more than we do after all God made us in his own image?

If the earth was Gods pride and joy why did he stick it out on the end of our Galaxy so far from the centre?
and make our galaxy just one of millions?

Why do WE revolve around everything else and only a little pock marked moon revolve around us?

From everything the Bible tells us WE are the only reason everything in the universe exists,
yet we are just one of thousands of animals on this planet.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Great. Card vs JohnR7
There's a match made in Hell.
I'm outta here.

 

[card]

So WE are not the only reason everything in the universe exists, what other reason did God have for making it?
Please no Bible quotes.

And this is a strange thing for a Creationist to say: 'We would not be here if it were not for the moon' God was unable to
overcome the gravity problem then.

Sorry John please don't answer, this whole business is getting me down, let's leave it.

 

[mark kennedy]

If we are the main reason why everything else exists why are we so much like everything else?
don't you think we should stand out a little more than we do after all God made us in his own image?

Ok, let me ask your rethorical question with a question. If the level of divergence between the chimpanzee and human is so simular then why do evolutionists lie through their teeth about it?

If the earth was Gods pride and joy why did he stick it out on the end of our Galaxy so far from the centre?
and make our galaxy just one of millions?

Of course you know so much about the universe since you have crossed from one end to the other conjuring up your questions for the Creator.

Why do WE revolve around everything else and only a little pock marked moon revolve around us?

Why does everyones defintion of science revolved around an apriori assumption?

From everything the Bible tells us WE are the only reason everything in the universe exists,
yet we are just one of thousands of animals on this planet.

Quote the book chapter and verse because your generalities are boring me to death.

 

[Ondoher]

Ok, let me ask your rethorical question with a question. If the level of divergence between the chimpanzee and human is so simular then why do evolutionists lie through their teeth about it?

They don't. These numbers are currently being refined, and comparisons come in many forms.

However you slice it, humans and chimpanzees are more similar to each other than either is similar to a gorilla.

 

[mark kennedy]

They don't. These numbers are currently being refined, and comparisons come in many forms.

Divergence is growing as we speak and the size of the genome and number of genes is shrinking.

However you slice it, humans and chimpanzees are more similar to each other than either is similar to a gorilla.

The cranial capacity of chimpanzees and gorillas is comparable

 

[Aron-Ra]

Ok, let me ask your rethorical question with a question. If the level of divergence between the chimpanzee and human is so simular then why do evolutionists lie through their teeth about it?

You'd better defend that accusation with a specific citation. Because I can show where you have lied through your teeth multiple times specifically trying to conceal or ignore the fact that, if humans and chimps are so uniquely different, why are we both apes?

 

[Ondoher]

Divergence is growing as we speak and the size of the genome and number of genes is shrinking.

I see little reason to suppose that a more refined estimate will see the difference between humans and chimpanzees grow substantially. As it is, you like to exaggerate the current level of differences.

The cranial capacity of chimpanzees and gorillas is comparable

And this refutes cladistic analysis that concludes that humans are more similar to chimpanzees than either is to gorillas how?

 

[joey444]

I've noticed that no matter what question someone starts the topic out with, someone will say something incredibly stupid and the topic will change within two pages to "Evolution's impossible because a monkey never gave birth to a human."

I'm just gonna see if I'm right.

 

[card]

I've noticed that no matter what question someone starts the topic out with, someone will say something incredibly stupid and the topic will change within two pages to "Evolution's impossible because a monkey never gave birth to a human."

I'm just gonna see if I'm right.

The reason for this is because we have some creationists here who register as non-creationists,
(might even be the same person)
if they see a post that will give them trouble one of them answers the question with a load of rubbish
and another comes in as a non-creationists to counter the rubbish with more rubbish, that way they
can steer any comments away from the original question, I have noticed this before, it's a bit sad
really but if they have no answers to the questions what else can they do?
Also, if they can make their comments complicated or unreadable the reader loses interest and moves to another post.
This post is a perfect example of this.

 

[Aron-Ra]

If we are the main reason why everything else exists why are we so much like everything else?
don't you think we should stand out a little more than we do after all God made us in his own image?

If the earth was Gods pride and joy why did he stick it out on the end of our Galaxy so far from the centre?
and make our galaxy just one of millions?

Why do WE revolve around everything else and only a little pock marked moon revolve around us?

From everything the Bible tells us WE are the only reason everything in the universe exists,
yet we are just one of thousands of animals on this planet.

I criticized your style in another thread. But you deserve a compliment for these questions. They are very thought provoking for those who will evoke enough thought to consider them.

 

[card]

Aron-Ra, that let's you out.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron-Ra, that let's you out.

Out of what?

 

[AV1611VET]

If we are the main reason why everything else exists why are we so much like everything else?

Because we have a Common Designer.

 

[Tiberius]

So a Toyota landcruiser and a Range Rover (which share many common elements, just as Humans and Chimps share many common elements) must also have a common designer?

 

[AV1611VET]

So a Toyota landcruiser and a Range Rover (which share many common elements, just as Humans and Chimps share many common elements) must also have a common designer?

A Toyota and Ranger Rover could have a common designer -- yes.

The fact that they do not, has no bearing on the point in discussion.

 

[Cabal]

A Toyota and Ranger Rover could have a common designer -- yes.

The fact that they do not, has no bearing on the point in discussion.

Yes, it does - it means your answer is not conclusive - so try harder.

also necrofail etc

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, it does - it means your answer is not conclusive - so try harder.

What do you mean 'my answer is not conclusive'?

You answer it then, please:

Can a Toyota and a Range Rover have a common designer?

(And do be conclusive, if you can.)

also necrofail etc

We'll see.

 

[Cabal]

What do you mean 'my answer is not conclusive'?

Having similar characteristics is a trait common to both having a common designer and not having a common designer. Ergo, it's not conclusive evidence of having a common designer.

You answer it then, please:

Can a Toyota and a Range Rover have a common designer?

(And do be conclusive, if you can.)

They CAN, yes, but that's not the point - you claimed that another pair of objects with similar characteristics DO. They CAN have a common designer by virtue of their similarity, but that doesn't necessarily mean they DO. All one can infer is that it's possible (depending on one's conception of God, although as ever it involves throwing God's omnipotence under a bus when the going gets tough) but not necessarily probable.

We'll see.

Bit late for that

 

[AV1611VET]

Having similar characteristics is a trait common to both having a common designer and not having a common designer. Ergo, it's not conclusive evidence of having a common designer.

Let me guess -- but it is conclusive of a common ancestor, right?

A Toyota and Rover don't have a common designer, yet they have a common ancestor?

They CAN, yes, but that's not the point - you claimed that another pair of objects with similar characteristics DO. They CAN have a common designer by virtue of their similarity, but that doesn't necessarily mean they DO.

It doesn't mean they don't, either.

I'm entitled to what I believe, and you're entitled to what you believe.

And speaking of belief, I take it you don't believe in ontological reductionism?

Bit late for that

No, it's not.

This thread is still growing.

I wouldn't call that 'necrofail' -- would you?