The science of creationism: where is it?

[BananaSlug]

This footnote shows your fatal misunderstanding and mistake.
Creationism is, in fact, bullet proof. Otherwise, why would it be called creationism?

In my 23 years of being a Christian, my questions that were hard to answer were answered as thus, "God's ways are not our ways". I came to the early realization that this answer really means, "I don't know".

In creationism, we can answer any question according to science as well as any evolutionist can do.

Answer these:
Why are whales most closely related to hippos?
Why are crocodiles more closely related to birds than lizards?
Why do we share so many ERV's with chimpanzees?

When evolutionism get stuck and failed to answer (always), creationism can still continue to quote God's word as the best answer. It was the case, it is the case and it will be the same case.

If science doesn't know the answer it is because we haven't found it yet.

 

[Split Rock]

I really like to know this one, but I do not hold any breath on you:

Why are we so much smarter than ape? (if you think you are an ape, you may include yourself in it, but don't count me in).

ANswer my question first. How did God turn dirt into Adam? If you cannot answer, then Creationism is disproved and I win.

Amy; 6'1"; Watermelon.

I guess creationism is STILL wrong to you, ape.

Sure it is... you are making up answers. I can do that too.

You say "ape" like it is a bad thing... why is that, Mr. Dirt?

 

[Split Rock]

Creationism is, in fact, bullet proof. Otherwise, why would it be called creationism?

That's Deep. Can I quote you on that?

In creationism, we can answer any question according to science as well as any evolutionist can do. When evolutionism get stuck and failed to answer (always), creationism can still continue to quote God's word as the best answer. It was the case, it is the case and it will be the same case.

Too bad "God's Word" (as interpreted by creationists) is never the right answer.

I have said this at least hundred times. How come you still don't get it?

How come you are still posting here pretending to be a real creationist?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

In my 23 years of being a Christian, my questions that were hard to answer were answered as thus, "God's ways are not our ways". I came to the early realization that this answer really means, "I don't know".



Answer these:
Why are whales most closely related to hippos?
Why are crocodiles more closely related to birds than lizards?
Why do we share so many ERV's with chimpanzees?



If science doesn't know the answer it is because we haven't found it yet.

And while he's at it, he can answer:
Why do fish and human embryonic development have more similarities than differences?
The recurrent laryngeal nerve and it's inefficient circuitous path it takes during development?
The appendix?
Poor lumbar skeletal design.

When you get done with those Juvi, I got more.

Eagerly awaiting your response.

 

[Hespera]

This footnote shows your fatal misunderstanding and mistake.
Creationism is, in fact, bullet proof. Otherwise, why would it be called creationism?

In creationism, we can answer any question according to science as well as any evolutionist can do. When evolutionism get stuck and failed to answer (always), creationism can still continue to quote God's word as the best answer. It was the case, it is the case and it will be the same case.

I have said this at least hundred times. How come you still don't get it?

Creationism is bullet proof, sure. Something that has no substance to it whatever is gping to be unaffected by anything. No acid can corrode nor wind blow it away.

"creationists" of course, can copy work and answers from science; they exist as a sort of cuckoo, doing no work themselves.

Then when it suits them, they can start making things up and saying goddidit! Hyperevolution, water canopy... you name it, its real and true coz, they made it up and said it was Good. Claim vague contradictory verses as proof of their ideas; you cant prove god doesnt exist, so that proves their ideas are right.

Im so glad I didnt grow up as a theocreo. What a terrible overburden to try to break thru, its no wonder so few succeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

ANswer my question first. How did God turn dirt into Adam?

God breathed into this "dust of the earth" the breath of life, and this "dust of the earth" became a living soul.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Split Rock]

God breathed into this "dust of the earth" the breath of life, and this "dust of the earth" became a living soul.

Does that answer your question?

Not really. Please explain exactly by what mechanism(s) dirt was transformed into a human being. If you cannot, creationism is disproved and by Juvie's rules I win.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really. Please explain exactly by what mechanism(s) dirt was transformed into a human being. If you cannot, creationism is disproved and by Juvie's rules I win.

That's easy --- in fact, the answer is in your statement.

The molecules would simply disassociate themeselves with each other, segment into their respective atoms; which atoms would then reassemble in their respective places and voila --- Adam.

No Iron present --- too much Nitrogen --- not enough Carbon --- Calcium missing? No problem.

The atoms themselves could disassemble into their respective particles and reassemble.

The way Genesis 1 is worded has it looking like God simply "gave out orders" when it came to making the plant and animal kingdom; but when it came to Adam and Eve, we see God actually using "hands-on" workmanship; and that coincides with the Bible later, where God talks about fashioning us like a potter making a vessel.

 

[Cabal]

That's easy --- in fact, the answer is in your statement.

"Transformation" isn't exactly a specific process.

The molecules would simply disassociate themeselves with each other, segment into their respective atoms; which atoms would then reassemble in their respective places and voila --- Adam.

No Iron present --- too much Nitrogen --- not enough Carbon --- Calcium missing? No problem.

The atoms themselves could disassemble into their respective particles and reassemble.

Weeeell....depends what God was using to begin with. Finite amount of building material will mean finite numbers of subatomic particles / fundamental particles, but if He was using denser elements to make lighter ones then that shouldn't be a problem.

Nice idea though. Bit like -> Universal assembler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hespera]

why bother working with protons and stuff when you can just poof anything into existence fully formed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Universal assembler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I gotta rep you for this Cabal --- I think you know why ---

A universal assembler is a construction machine that manipulates and builds with individual atoms, molecules, or other units, originally studied by John von Neumann who is also known for his work on universal computers.

If it wasn't for AniGeqoti putting that pic on my message board in my profile, this post would have made my day!

 

[Cabal]

I gotta rep you for this Cabal --- I think you know why ---

If it wasn't for AniGeqoti putting that pic on my message board in my profile, this post would have made my day!

Presenting John Von Neumann and the Universal Constructors

Lol, any relation? I have to say, the link completely passed me by!

Alfred and John aside, sound similar to your mechanism?

 

[AV1611VET]

why bother working with protons and stuff when you can just poof anything into existence fully formed.

We're special --- (handcrafted).

 

[AV1611VET]

Presenting John Von Neumann and the Universal Constructors

Lol, any relation? I have to say, the link completely passed me by!

Albert and John aside, sound similar to your mechanism?

Let me compose myself and go read the article ---

(And that's 'Alfred' --- not 'Albert'.)

 

[Cabal]

Let me compose myself and go read the article ---

Sorry for calling you Albert there a second ago also, fix'd nao.

 

[Split Rock]

That's easy --- in fact, the answer is in your statement.

Sorry, but no. You cannot answer my question by repeating it as a statement.

The molecules would simply disassociate themeselves with each other, segment into their respective atoms; which atoms would then reassemble in their respective places and voila --- Adam.

By what mechanism?

No Iron present --- too much Nitrogen --- not enough Carbon --- Calcium missing? No problem.

The atoms themselves could disassemble into their respective particles and reassemble.

By what mechanism?

The way Genesis 1 is worded has it looking like God simply "gave out orders" when it came to making the plant and animal kingdom; but when it came to Adam and Eve, we see God actually using "hands-on" workmanship; and that coincides with the Bible later, where God talks about fashioning us like a potter making a vessel.

By what mechanism?


Since no one can answer my questions to my satisfaction, I hereby declare Creationism in error. By default, Evolution is proven to be true! Yeah! Thank goodness for creationist "logic."

We can all stop posting here now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry for calling you Albert there a second ago also, fix'd nao.

I knew what you meant ---

 

[AV1611VET]

Since no one can answer my questions to my satisfaction, I hereby declare Creationism in error. By default, Evolution is proven to be true! Yeah! Thank goodness for creationist "logic."

We can all stop posting here now.

Whoa --- slow down here!

Gimme time to answer already --- will ya?

By what mechanism?


By what mechanism?


By what mechanism?

The Holy Ghost --- picking apart the atoms and reassembling them.

Either that, or a simple divine fiat will do.

It's not like nature hasn't been obedient to God's commands before, eh?

Like when Jesus stilled the storm?

( Now you may leave --- )

 

[gipsy]

Then, don't.

I think you misunderstood me.

"Why" was my question to you, "Why" did god create the world, "Why" did create god animals. "Why" did he do it.
This is my question I would like to have answered from creationists

 

[juvenissun]

I think you misunderstood me.

"Why" was my question to you, "Why" did god create the world, "Why" did create god animals. "Why" did he do it.
This is my question I would like to have answered from creationists

That is better.

There are some answers around, but you obviously do not accept them. For example: God loves human.

Why? Boy, it is a long story, and it is not very scientific.