YART - What is teh stance for Creationists

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
No kidding. What's the deal with the panda? It can only eat one thing and hates mating. Sounds like a real winner.

Clearly God wanted environmentalists to have a big cuddly animal to use as their mascot.

"I'll make this thing insanely cute, but it won't eat or fuck, so it's destined to be endangered. Perfect!"

Then he went on to create giant squid so mariners could tell stories that no one would be believe. Because that's how God rolls... ladies.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I'd at least give many of the religios nuts some credit for saying that evolution is real and that it happens and that God let it happen but they still think the earth and everything else is only like 5000yrs old.

Yeah...but thats 5000 God years...which is billions of years to you and me.

Think of the earth is like a crock pot...somebody fills it with ingredients and gives it the spark of life....

Oh damn here we go with these "god" years.............

Lighten up.

Because it's ridiculous. These God years don't exist. Humans according to the bible started when life started but we are not that old. Simple fact.

 

[Crono]

Genetic differentiation and speciation in initial hundreds of years after fall due to radiation and exposure to an environment that went from perfect stability to instability. In other words, rapid evolution (or microoevolution) from supertypes rather than abiogenesis and later evolution as predicted by modern evolutionary theory.

P.S. No one can observe/test either creationism or macroevolution in the past, because no one lived for thousands or millions/billions of years necessary to witness either. You can tell stories about both, but they require faith in order to believe. There are no experiments to conduct millions of years of evolution, nor is there a time machine to witness God creating the universe.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Barfo
Some bearded dude wished it and they appeared suddenly?

if you are not going to make serious discussion, just stop trolling.
idiots like you make the real christians look bad.

:roll:

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Crono
Genetic differentiation and speciation in initial hundreds of years after fall due to radiation and exposure to an environment that went from perfect stability to instability. In other words, rapid evolution (or microoevolution) from supertypes rather than abiogenesis and later evolution as predicted by modern evolutionary theory.

P.S. No one can observe/test either creationism or macroevolution in the past, because no one lived for thousands or millions/billions of years necessary to witness either. You can tell stories about both, but they require faith in order to believe. There are no experiments to conduct millions of years of evolution, nor is there a time machine to witness God creating the universe.

Your theory would leave behind very observable effects indeed. This radiation would leave several clues for us to find.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: dainthomas
No kidding. What's the deal with the panda? It can only eat one thing and hates mating. Sounds like a real winner.

Clearly God wanted environmentalists to have a big cuddly animal to use as their mascot.

"I'll make this thing insanely cute, but it won't eat or fuck, so it's destined to be endangered. Perfect!"

Then he went on to create giant squid so mariners could tell stories that no one would be believe. Because that's how God rolls... ladies.

yea like those giant jellyfish off the coast of Japan magically appearing there just to spite the fisherman

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Crono
Genetic differentiation and speciation in initial hundreds of years after fall due to radiation and exposure to an environment that went from perfect stability to instability. In other words, rapid evolution (or microoevolution) from supertypes rather than abiogenesis and later evolution as predicted by modern evolutionary theory.

P.S. No one can observe/test either creationism or macroevolution in the past, because no one lived for thousands or millions/billions of years necessary to witness either. You can tell stories about both, but they require faith in order to believe. There are no experiments to conduct millions of years of evolution, nor is there a time machine to witness God creating the universe.

Your first paragraph seems like a bizarre coping mechanism to shoehorn every species on the planet into a few species found in the garden of eden, and after the fall there was radiation that caused rapid macroevolution on a global scale to every species simultaneously? Interesting...

Your second paragraph makes considerably more sense. But, when we are left with a mystery, the deductive process has us examine evidence and tailor our story to fit what we find. God is an inductive thought process. You come up with the story (God creating man in the garden of Eden), and then fit the evidence you find to the story (massive radiation causes rapid global speciation). That's not logical. Is evidence that evolution exists on a small scale more likely to suggest that evolution exists on a large scale or that God irradiated the planet to speed everything up for a brief window in history? Why is macroevolution a concept that can't coexist with God? Why should we believe the timeline of men from thousands of years ago who insist that the Earth is an age that contradicts every estimate our modern technology and science have put forward?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Crono
Genetic differentiation and speciation in initial hundreds of years after fall due to radiation and exposure to an environment that went from perfect stability to instability. In other words, rapid evolution (or microoevolution) from supertypes rather than abiogenesis and later evolution as predicted by modern evolutionary theory.

P.S. No one can observe/test either creationism or macroevolution in the past, because no one lived for thousands or millions/billions of years necessary to witness either. You can tell stories about both, but they require faith in order to believe. There are no experiments to conduct millions of years of evolution, nor is there a time machine to witness God creating the universe.

Your theory would leave behind very observable effects indeed. This radiation would leave several clues for us to find.

Not to mention the bewildering idea of "perfect stability" of DNA-based life. I'm wondering what a "supertype" could be as well.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Clearly God wanted environmentalists to have a big cuddly animal to use as their mascot.

"I'll make this thing insanely cute, but it won't eat or fuck, so it's destined to be endangered. Perfect!"

Then he went on to create giant squid so mariners could tell stories that no one would be believe. Because that's how God rolls... ladies.

yea like those giant jellyfish off the coast of Japan magically appearing there just to spite the fisherman

That was Poseidon. He got wind that the Japanese fishermen had killed Polyphemus, and you know how Poseidon can be when he gets angry. BAM, giant jellyfish.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Barfo
Some bearded dude wished it and they appeared suddenly?

if you are not going to make serious discussion, just stop trolling.
idiots like you make the real christians look bad.

no, I think he has a good grasp on Biblical Creationism.

 

[skim milk]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: h8red

What is teh stance for Creationists

Dominance

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Creationists don't think about such things. The logic necessary clashes with what the big book of fairy tales says about the invisible man in the sky. They ignore the hows and the whys because the bible doesn't say that intelligence is good.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Creationists don't think about such things. The logic necessary clashes with what the big book of fairy tales says about the invisible man in the sky. They ignore the hows and the whys because the bible doesn't say that intelligence is good.

the irony of you demonstrating the same narrow-minded, ignorant thinking you claim to oppose is quite amusing

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
No kidding. What's the deal with the panda? It can only eat one thing and hates mating. Sounds like a real winner.

sigworthy.

Originally posted by: Crono
No one can observe/test either creationism or macroevolution in the past, because no one lived for thousands or millions/billions of years necessary to witness either. You can tell stories about both, but they require faith in order to believe.

I never saw a live dinosaur either. I need faith to believe those bones in a museum are from real animals that once existed and not planted around the globe by a cabal of atheist anti-religious zealots determined to pull a fast one on humanity. I mean, I can't prove that that isn't the case.

Saying you need faith to believe something is a useless statement, since we need faith to believe in anything, even first hand experiences. All that matters is what is more likely or is the best possible explanation. Of the two options you reference, one was conjured from imagination and has zero basis other than an asserted supernatural cause. The other is based on scientific deduction, observation, extrapolation, and logic.

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Creationists don't think about such things. The logic necessary clashes with what the big book of fairy tales says about the invisible man in the sky. They ignore the hows and the whys because the bible doesn't say that intelligence is good.

the irony of you demonstrating the same narrow-minded, ignorant thinking you claim to oppose is quite amusing

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy or Leprechauns? No? Narrow-minded bigot!

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Creationists don't think about such things. The logic necessary clashes with what the big book of fairy tales says about the invisible man in the sky. They ignore the hows and the whys because the bible doesn't say that intelligence is good.

the irony of you demonstrating the same narrow-minded, ignorant thinking you claim to oppose is quite amusing

No, he's correct. Being correct and critical of people who are completley ignoring the fossil record and even the story within their own DNA isn't close minded. It's the way to be.

 

[darkxshade]

This is my theory

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: darkxshade
This is my theory

God doesn't need to fap. He's got that immaculate ejaculation thing going for him.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Creationists don't think about such things. The logic necessary clashes with what the big book of fairy tales says about the invisible man in the sky. They ignore the hows and the whys because the bible doesn't say that intelligence is good.

the irony of you demonstrating the same narrow-minded, ignorant thinking you claim to oppose is quite amusing

No, he's correct. Being correct and critical of people who are completley ignoring the fossil record and even the story within their own DNA isn't close minded. It's the way to be.

he said they don't think about such things

this is clearly false because they have written many books and articles on such things

also they do not igore the fossil record or the 'story within their own dna'

just because you aren't familiar with their position doesn't mean they haven't put thought into it

perhaps you should educate yourself more before making such blanket statements?

there are intelligent arguments against creationism, but the only thing the responses here display is their own hypocritical ignorance

 

[BZeto]

There's a difference between microevolution (minor variations within species) and macroevolution (major variations between species). The former is observable and verifiable and the latter is not. There is no evidence anywhere that one species has evolved into another.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Leros
Christianity FAQ

Q: <Insert question>

A: God is all powerful. He can do anything.

Q: <Evil exists?>
A: BLARGL!!!!

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
I've never seen a creationist publication contest subspeciation. It would be dumb to deny an observed process.

God created initial life forms, an indeterminate number of species, and since then new species have branched off, but always variations on their kind, not new animal kingdoms.

Well he's pretty crappy at his job seeing as how almost every creature he created has gone extinct.

And this genetic replication process is pathetic.
Let's see, the birth defect rate is about 2-3%. Our manufacturing processes aim for a defect rate of <0.01%. Our genetic code has some viral code embedded in it. Many critical organs lack redundancy and failsafes, and do not always sound warnings of severe impending problems until death is a serious risk. Maintenance and servicing of internal components is difficult and may result in death.

If that's "intelligent" design, I suggest that God have his intelligence re-evaluated.

Originally posted by: BZeto
There's a difference between microevolution (minor variations within species) and macroevolution (major variations between species). The former is observable and verifiable and the latter is not. There is no evidence anywhere that one species has evolved into another.

Yup, there is a single difference between the two: Time. Nothing more.
Macroevolution hasn't been observed because we don't live long enough. Change the definition of "species" to something different, and you'll get to see macroevolution.

Lots of microevolution over a long time = macroevolution.

 

[Safeway]

The stance is shaky, at best.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Lots of microevolution over a long time = macroevolution.

micro = rearranging existing genes
macro = new genes

fundamentally different

look, it's obvious that nobody here has enough knowledge to discuss the issue intelligently

why don't y'all do some research and then come back when not entirely clueless about what each side believes

creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.icr.org

evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org

 

[Synomenon]

Originally posted by: Safeway
The stance is shaky, at best.

He has to keep still for a very long time to keep his dominance. After awhile, the muscles in his legs start getting fatigued, thus making him shaky.

 

[jpeyton]

The concept of "God" throughout history has always been used to fill gaps in our knowledge. A few thousand years ago, "God" (not necessarily your God, but one of many thousands of Gods invented by humanity throughout time) was credited with the motion of the sun and the stars in our daily cycle.

Fast forward a few thousand years, and early astronomers credited the motion of sun/stars to physics, but struggled to account for all the variables that kept us in perfect orbit. Thus "God" again was used to fill the knowledge gap, using his divine powers to keep our solar system in balance.

Fast forward a few hundred years, and modern astronomers used advances in mathematics and physics to perfectly describe the motion of all bodies in our solar system using physics. The knowledge gap had been eliminated, and thus God was also eliminated from the equation.

You can repeat this observation in any area of science throughout history. How does a bird fly? Why do the monsoons come once a year? How did species evolve? Etc.

Creationists may not realize it, but you're also athiests. You don't believe in Zeus, or Vishnu, or the Great Eagle Spirit, or in any thousands of Gods from hundreds of major religions that have existed throughout human history. Many of those long forgotten religions were around longer than your religion. And in another 500 years, your religion will likely be replaced as well. People in the future will look at your God with the same sense of wonder that we look at ancient Egypt's Anubis.

Carlin on UFOs vs. God

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Why do the monsoons come once a year?

Because you touch yourself at night.