Final stumpers for Creationists

jon1101 · May 10, 2002

I concurr that his meathod was brash, but he has some points. Perhaps we could stop nailing him for being 'unoriginal' or whatever the evasion was. Perhaps we could stop dodging his points by talking of his mannors. Perhaps we could stop explaining just how great an impact God has had in our lives, as if that somehow dispelled the given issues with creationism.

And yet all his questions go unanswered...

-jon

P.S. Really, how do questions beg sources?

BigJon · May 10, 2002

Answers to Franc28

1. by useing the word Hypothesis it would imply we guess at what happened in the beginning, well its no guess, God created the heavens and the earth, plants, animals, and humans. source for info: God's Word a.k.a. The Bible

1b. This is a trick question due to the fact there is no legit answer based on the fact that once the world was created its over no predictions to be made

2. The Bible contains neither micro or macro

2b. The Bible routinely speaks of amazing things ( healing, the dead raised, calming of the seas at the spoken voice of Jesus, ect....) that Jesus did to prove he was God's son, and He said He would return so if history isn't enough future events will be.

3. Proof for a flood?

4. a food chain, I'm stronger and I eat you, How is that proof for evolution?

5. & 6. Sorry I snoozed through science

7. Ahhh, protien, work out eat protien get insanely huge.

jon1101 · May 10, 2002

1 by useing the word Hypothesis it would imply we guess at what happened in the beginning, well its no guess, God created the heavens and the earth, plants, animals, and humans. source for info: God's Word a.k.a. The Bible

Any scientific evidence to support your science?

1b This is a trick question due to the fact there is no legit answer based on the fact that once the world was created its over no predictions to be made

WHAT? Asking a theory to make correct predictions is a trick question? Please. One very popular meathod (understatement intended) is to take a theory, make predictions, and check to see if the predictions come true. The fact that creation referrs to something in the past in no way keeps this process from working.

Answers to 2a and 2b contain no scientific basis, only religious sources. The Bible may be perfect and all, but it doesn't do much to establish creationism as a valid science.

3. Proof for a flood?

Explain. I simply do not understand your answer/question/statement or whatever it was.

4. a food chain, I'm stronger and I eat you, How is that proof for evolution?

Once again, I'm having trouble following you. What does a food chain have to do with the hierarchy of species?

No offence, but where are you coming up with this stuff?

-jon

BigJon · May 10, 2002

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity

Any scientific evidence to support your science?

WHAT? Asking a theory to make correct predictions is a trick question? Please. One very popular meathod (understatement intended) is to take a theory, make predictions, and check to see if the predictions come true. The fact that creation referrs to something in the past in no way keeps this process from working.

Answers to 2a and 2b contain no scientific basis, only religious sources. The Bible may be perfect and all, but it doesn't do much to establish creationism as a valid science.

Explain. I simply do not understand your answer/question/statement or whatever it was.

Once again, I'm having trouble following you. What does a food chain have to do with the hierarchy of species?

No offence, but where are you coming up with this stuff?

-jon

creationism, creation and what ever variation you wish to use isnt a science and so there is no need to establish it as such.

creation already happened there is no need to make predictions looking for future results.

and as to the hierarchy of species thing, only 2 reasons why one animal would be superior to another, #1 its bigger and more powerful. #2 it can either eat or kill the other. Hence we have a food chain.

jon1101 · May 10, 2002

creationism, creation and what ever variation you wish to use isnt a science and so there is no need to establish it as such.

Then the debate's over.

and as to the hierarchy of species thing, only 2 reasons why one animal would be superior to another, #1 its bigger and more powerful. #2 it can either eat or kill the other. Hence we have a food chain.

I don't believe the hierarchy is about superiority.

-jon

Jerry Smith · May 10, 2002

Originally posted by BigJon

creationism, creation and what ever variation you wish to use isnt a science and so there is no need to establish it as such.

So you would agree with me that public school science class is the wrong place to teach it? That church (if anywhere) is the right place?

creation already happened there is no need to make predictions looking for future results.

Click to expand...

However, scientific theories require predictions looking for future results. Sometimes those are future happenings, and sometimes they are future findings of fossil remains of past happenings. Evolution does pass the "prediction test".

BigJon · May 10, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

So you would agree with me that public school science class is the wrong place to teach it? That church (if anywhere) is the right place?

Yes, school science class is the wrong place, its more of a historical subject, however science class is also the wrong class to be teaching evolution. Evolution should be reserved for the non sense class.

Jerry Smith · May 10, 2002

Originally posted by BigJon
Yes, school science class is the wrong place, its more of a historical subject, however science class is also the wrong class to be teaching evolution. Evolution should be reserved for the non sense class.

Ok, I know you don't want every school board in the country just to take your word for it, so what do you think they should use to decide whether to include a subject in science class? In exactly what way does evolution not qualify under the rules you think are best?

My own personal ideas are that the schools should teach as much good science as they can (at the appropriate levels for the age groups they deal with) in science classes. That's why I think science class is a perfectly acceptable place to teach evolution. It is just good science all-the-way-around, no matter how many people don't like or understand it.

RufusAtticus · May 10, 2002

TScott,

I see nothing in your Lederman quote that indicates that he believes that "God did it" is the explaination for the big bang. He is mearly stating his opinion that we will never be able to determine what went on in the origin of the universe. That's distinctively different from the claim that God was responsible.

Again, I see nothing in your Townes quote either to indicated that He believes that "God did it" explains the big bang. He just feels that theological explorations of origins are important. There is nothing there to indicate that he feels that the big bang is best described by theology.

Franc28 · May 11, 2002

I think it's obvious you guys cannot answer my questions. You keep *saying* you can, and you keep *saying* that I'm an idiot, but where is your evidence ? These are *basic* questions about Creationism that require answers in order to establish how well it fits the facts.

And here I thought Creation was supposed to be a "science". A "science" which has no evidence, can make no prediction, and does not fit any data !

Thank you for making my point gentlemen.

jon1101 · May 11, 2002

And by the 31st post, no question has yet an answer. . .

-jon

God Fixation · May 12, 2002

Originally posted by Franc28
I think it's obvious you guys cannot answer my questions. You keep *saying* you can, and you keep *saying* that I'm an idiot, but where is your evidence ? These are *basic* questions about Creationism that require answers in order to establish how well it fits the facts.

And here I thought Creation was supposed to be a "science". A "science" which has no evidence, can make no prediction, and does not fit any data !

Thank you for making my point gentlemen.

lol, Excuse me?! I did not see anywhere in this discussion where someone "'said' that you were an idiot" All you accomplished in that single statment was 2 undermine your own witness/accountabilty/and whatever respect you had going for ya and your argument. (my opinion)
God is not a playdough god. He won't fit into whatever mold you attempt to fit Him into. He made all of this to begin with. Perhaps the flaw is in the method you are searching for the answers, not God or creation. God is God, and we are just a bunch of wanna-be's. Why should His creation and method of creating measure up to what we(His creation) think it should? Don't criticize the food if you didn't pay for it Yes I am aware that may take some imagination to apply it but I am sure that you are fully capable of pulling it off. Please excuse my tone if it may seem a bit snappy but I just had my very first day on 'the job' and I am pooped. Good night...

jon1101 · May 12, 2002

Perhaps the flaw is in the method you are searching for the answers, not God or creation.

Or maybe the flaw is in how you're reading the Bible. Until one can point out the specific flaw, the possibility of its existence doesn't matter much. I mean, the universe could have been created last tuesday - to borrow from mac - or there could be a donkey orbitting neptune.

-jon

God Fixation · May 12, 2002

But let's think about this, Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. But on the other hand if you are wrong, you're gonna be regretting it for eternity. Quite a gamble if you ask me.

seebs · May 12, 2002

Originally posted by God Fixation
But let's think about this, Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. But on the other hand if you are wrong, you're gonna be regretting it for eternity. Quite a gamble if you ask me.

Yeah, and if you're wrong, you might be regretting it for eternity; imagine if God *did* use a long, complicated, process to make everything, and the story of literal creation, being fairly hard to swallow, drives someone away from God... isn't that then your fault?

jon1101 · May 12, 2002

But let's think about this, Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. But on the other hand if you are wrong, you're gonna be regretting it for eternity. Quite a gamble if you ask me.

Was this directed at me? I'm a christian, by the way. In fact, I would really like to believe the creationists, but that won't stop me from pointing out bad logic.

-jon

papakapp · May 13, 2002

Originally posted by Franc28
Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions... Evaded by Creationists

1. Is there any evidence for your hypothesis ?
(Creationists usually have evidence against Neo-Darwinism, but disproving Neo-Darwinism does not prove Creationism)

nope

1b. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? Has Creationism ever made a true prediction ?

Click to expand...

nope

2. Where is the physical evidence that evolutionary mechanisms cannot cross the barrier of "biblical kinds" ?
(Creationists routinely claim that "macroevolution" - a made-up term - cannot exist in evolution, while "microevolution" - another made-up term - can exist)?

Click to expand...

there is none

2b. Where is your evidence of God ?
(Creationists also routinely claim the existence of a supernatural Creator as scientific fact, but without evidence)

Click to expand...

sorry, can't prove that

3. Explain why we have plentiful evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
(The mere existence of one transitional form, let alone the dozens that we have, disproves Creationism))

Click to expand...

Ahem, we have millions of fossils scattered all over the earth. each fossil would need literally billions of transitional forms from one to the next. I will agree that the conditions that are required to create a fossil are unique, but it is preposterous to make the assumption that because we found 50,000 dinosaur fossils and 20,000 bird fossils that one evolved into the other unless we can also produce countless fossils of transitional forms.

4. Explain why we observe a nested hierarchy of species which is true both at the phenotypical and molecular level.

5. Explain phenotypical and molecular vestigial structures.

Click to expand...

okay, for question 4 and 5 you are going to have to explain them a little better or else I will just assume you cut and pasted the whole thing

6. Explain suboptimal anatomical functions.

Click to expand...

Example, please?

7. Explain protein and DNA redundancy.

Click to expand...

see question 4 and 5

If you think that people become christians because they have these questions explained to them, you are very mistaken.
People do, however becomed calloused to christianity because of questions like this. (I am thinking of college campuses, mostly)

Ayway, if you are trying to shake somebodys faith I suggest you set out to prove not that creation is a myth, but that God does not change lives.
good luck

papakapp · May 13, 2002

Cancer to inequity:
I'm new here and I assume you have been asked this a thousand times but I don't feel like checking archives so I'll ask it again:

IF you are a christian who believes in evolution then why in Genesis 1:31a ("God saw all that he made, and it was very good") does God call the earth very good? Adam and Eve would be standing on top of billions of years of dead animals and death and disease and misfits would have been part of Gods plan to bring Man into the world.

I don't see how the evolution model can fit with the creation account

(Keep in mind that I am ignoring the obvious, literal translation of Genesis 1 for the sake of this argument.)

God Fixation · May 13, 2002

Originally posted by seebs

Yeah, and if you're wrong, you might be regretting it for eternity; imagine if God *did* use a long, complicated, process to make everything, and the story of literal creation, being fairly hard to swallow, drives someone away from God... isn't that then your fault?

This is my conviction, and yes I will be accountable for it. Just like every other human will be accountable for what they did with His Son. Whether they accept Him or not is not my reposibility. I'm just the mail man I can't stand around and make sure they open the package. I am content in the knowledge that I am doing my part in spreading the word, thus the attempted guilt trip is not working

mac_philo · May 13, 2002

Originally posted by papakapp
Cancer to inequity:
I'm new here and I assume you have been asked this a thousand times but I don't feel like checking archives so I'll ask it again:

IF you are a christian who believes in evolution then why in Genesis 1:31a ("God saw all that he made, and it was very good&quot does God call the earth very good? Adam and Eve would be standing on top of billions of years of dead animals and death and disease and misfits would have been part of Gods plan to bring Man into the world.

I don't see how the evolution model can fit with the creation account

(Keep in mind that I am ignoring the obvious, literal translation of Genesis 1 for the sake of this argument.)

Hi papakapp,

You seem to have some misconceptions about evolution. Evolution does not procede from misfits to humans, or from imperfection to perfection. So that's a rather bad analogy. Evolution does not have a teleology--it is not goal oriented. If a species goes extinct because of environmental changes, that doesn't mean it was a 'misfit.' It may have been an ingenious, efficient species.

As for death--there is no life without death. I don't see how that's relevant.

Final stumpers for Creationists

Well-Known Member

Insanely Huge

Well-Known Member

Insanely Huge

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Insanely Huge

Fish out of water

PopGen Grad Student

Member

Well-Known Member

~*G-o-d Chaser*~

Well-Known Member

~*G-o-d Chaser*~

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

a waterdrop going over niagra falls

a waterdrop going over niagra falls

~*G-o-d Chaser*~

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

~G-o-d Chaser~

~G-o-d Chaser~

~G-o-d Chaser~