Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[tumbleweed41]

I believe that God created all life, because of the mountain of scientific evidence in favor of direct creation, and the mountain of scientific evidence against evolution. Despite the propaganda machine that churns relentlessly, claiming over and over "evolution is a fact", all around us plants and animals and our own bodies keep shouting "Design! Intelligence! Unfathomable complexity! Wisdom! Power!"
As Romans 1:20 declares: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship."

Ah, the Great Conspiracy Argument..

Apparently the "mountains of evidence" in support of Creationism is being suppressed by the scientific community worldwide.

 

[McBell]

I believe that God created all life, because of the mountain of scientific evidence in favor of direct creation, and the mountain of scientific evidence against evolution. Despite the propaganda machine that churns relentlessly, claiming over and over "evolution is a fact", all around us plants and animals and our own bodies keep shouting "Design! Intelligence! Unfathomable complexity! Wisdom! Power!"
As Romans 1:20 declares: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship."

And yet, even with all your hooting and howling about all the alleged scientific evidence for creation, you do not present any even when flat out asked.

You make lots of bold unsubstantiated claims then hide behind your Bible when asked to support them.

 

[camanintx]

1) The origin of life is certainly relevant to how the various species of plants and animals came into being. Evolutionists ignoring the question as having nothing to do with evolution, do so simply because they have no answers.

How is the origin of life relevant to evolution? Whether the first life on Earth was spontaneously generated, was seeded by advanced aliens or was created by God, evolution says that the process of mutation and natural selection will cause life to change over time and can therefore explain the diversity of species we see today. Your attempts to confuse the issue is like arguing that we can't explain what causes gravity therefore the apple didn't fall on Newton's head.

 

[McBell]

1) The origin of life is certainly relevant to how the various species of plants and animals came into being. Evolutionists ignoring the question as having nothing to do with evolution, do so simply because they have no answers.

Look up abiogenesis.

2) The Bible clearly teaches that God created the birds, plants, and animals "according to their kinds." (Genesis 1:21-25) The Bible also says that "God
proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul." (Genesis 2:7) Other Bible writers confirmed that God created the first man and woman. (1 Corinthians 15:21,22)
Those who reject the Bible's creation account are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ, who believed and taught what Genesis recorded. (Matthew 19:4,5) The teaching of evolution is in direct conflict with why Christ came, to give his soul a ransom to cover our sins. (Matthew 20:28, 1 Corinthians 15:22) The implication of this should be clear. The thousands of sects calling themselves "Christians", all teachings different doctrines, and many espousing evolution, are not following the Christ. (Matthew 7:21-28) Not just their teachings belie their claims, but their conduct as well.

​

Define "kind" in a meaningful, useful outside of creationist strawmen way.
Preferably without the sermon attachment.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

There is no real "smoking gun" when it comes to showing the fact of evolution. The fact of evolution comes not with the evidence itself, but from the way creationism has done nothing to help us. The evidence is clear in favor of evolution, and this not just from biology, but from geology as well. Look at what biological evolution has given to us: great advances in genetics and medicine, to name just a few. What has creation given? Nothing. Not only that, but the arguments used in favor of creationism are not in the least bit scientific. Other than the religious, which is a ridiculous argument to base science on in the first place, especially such a flawed and erroneous religion based on a book that can hardly be comprehended, creationists resort to attacks on science, the scientific community, scientists, those who accept the fact of evolution, conspiracy theories, and other such nonsense, which shows that they have no real argument at all. It's things like these that helped lead me from creationism to accepting the fact of evolution. And all this on top of the science. And this while I was still a Christian. After leaving Christianity, I realized just how non-scientific creationism actually was.

But it comes down to this: if you want to believe that a deity created the world using his magical power, fine. But don't try to pass it off as science when there is absolutely no scientific evidence for it, in fact, the science speaks against it. Don't try to force it onto people who don't want to believe it, who would rather accept science over faith, and who have no use for faith to begin with. Creationists act as if this is the smoking gun that proves the existence of god, which is far from the case. Even if evolution weren't true, which by now we know is not the case, then that still doesn't prove god or creationism. You can't prove creationism by creating straw men against evolution. But again, this just shows the lengths that creationists will go to to force faith onto people who don't want it or need it.

All I've seen in these debates on creationism vs. evolution on this site is people offering all kinds of evidence for evolution, yet creationists have offered nothing. All they have done is attack evolution, and those who accept it, and use the debate as another means to try to force their faith onto people. This is a desperate act. Science and secularism is pushing forward, precisely because faith is an outdated concept. It's no longer needed. And that's all creationism is, is faith. Nothing more, it's not science, it's not logical, it's not rational, it's just faith. Why not accept Shiva as the creator god? Or Amaterasu? Or Chronos? I hope you see where I'm going with this. It gets old seeing creationists offer no science, no evidence, no nothing whatsoever for their beliefs. We're just supposed to take it on faith, and it's frustrating. You believe in creationism, fine. You want us to believe in it, prove it. No attacks, no straw men, no conspiracy theories, no faith, just science.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

And all the unsolvable gaps like whales having their fins develop from hooves.

It's quite a laundry list of objections.

I was in a museum of natural History in New York. They had a display of what you are talking about exactly. It took my breath away. I could see the slow development of legs turning into fins over a very long period of time. With full whale skeletons. It was amazing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

our own bodies keep shouting "Design! Intelligence! Unfathomable complexity!

Why do most male mammals have nipples considering they're not needed?

Why do we have wisdom teeth if we, the human primate, do not need them yet our closest relative, the non-human primate, does utilize these teeth?

The human body is extremely flawed in comparison to most species on the planet.

 

[shawn001]

I was in a museum of natural History in New York. They had a display of what you are talking about exactly. It took my breath away. I could see the slow development of legs turning into fins over a very long period of time. With full whale skeletons. It was amazing.

"Whales "cetaceans" are mammals like us. Despite that "fishy" lifestyle, their physiology clearly reveals their mammalian features. How did this occur? How did whales evolve? What did they evolve from? The evidence of whale evolution is clear. The list of new fossil species exhibiting transitional features continues to grow. If you are ever asked for an example of "transitional fossils", this list is a great place to start."

Indohyus
Pakicetus
Rodhocetus
Nalacetus
Ichthyolestes
Gandakasia
Ambulocetus
Himalayacetus
Attockicetus
Remingtonocetus
Dalanistes
Kutchicetus
Andrewsiphius
Indocetus
Qaisracetus
Takracetus
Artiocetus
Babiacetus
Protocetus
Pappocetus
Eocetus
Georgiacetus
Natchitochia
Dorudon
Ancalacetus
Zygorhiza
Saghacetus
Chrysocetus
Gaviacetus
Pontogeneus
Basilosaurus
Basiloterus

Whale Evolution - YouTube

Whales evolved, as of course did all life on earth and still is evolving.

 

[shawn001]

And do you believe that living organisms and their properties are not evidence?

As to why we should consider what the Bible says, the Bible claims to be the Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)And while evolution has no answers as to how life began, and how life developed, I believe the Bible has clear answers to these fundamental questions, and many more. (Psalm 36:9)

" I believe the Bible has clear answers to these fundamental questions, and many more."

No it doesn't, its another "god did it", but in no way says how 'god did it", evolution shows how things evolved.

It also says the earth was created on day one and the sun day four. Do you believe that Rusra? Did the earth form before the sun on day one and the sun on day four?

 

[rusra02]

Not by their mere existence, no. Living organisms contain within them lots of evidence for evolution - the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the GULO pseudogene and the vestigial nictitating membrane in human eyes come quickly to mind - but these are evidence only insofar as they are markers of past changes. To point as you have to, say, cetacean echolocation and say "The very fact that this exists is evidence of creation" is futile.

So the mere existence of a house does not prove it had a builder? The marvel of a seeing eye, or a hearing ear proves nothing? That cetacean echolocation does not prove intelligent design? What about a piece of wood with the name "Mary" carved in it? Ignoring such evidence will not make it go away. I and millions of others find it completely convincing, especially since the ToE cannot explain it satisfactorily.

It has been pointed out to you (many times) that the theory of evolution does not address the issue of how life began: if you want to argue about that, you must address theories of abiogenesis; as to how life developed, that is exactly what ToE does address, with magnificent success.

So how life began is completely irrelevant to whether life evolved or not? Calling it a different theory may satisfy ToE adherents, but it's merely a ploy to ignore the fundamental question at the base of the ToE.

You are entitled to believe what you wish; you cannot, however, expect those beliefs to carry any evidential weight with those who do not share them.

Agreed, but this is a religious forum, where beliefs are shared. The evidence against evolution is manifest and the evidence for creation is also manifest.

 

[rusra02]

If you want to help explain science/ToE to others, mocking their beliefs is no way to do it and will most likely just alienate people.

When a person does not have answers to defend their position, mocking and ridicule are tools to deflect this. Up and down the evolution establishment, such conduct is frequent, as evidenced by some posts in this forum. Worse yet, honest scientists who dare question the ToE are apparently disciplined, losing jobs, etc.(Yes, I know evolutionists deny this, but examine the facts for yourself.) Leading evolutionists claim that anyone who doesn't accept the ToE is either stupid, crazy, or ignorant. All such conduct, despicable as it is, keeps many people from examining the facts for themselves.

 

[rusra02]

And yet, even with all your hooting and howling about all the alleged scientific evidence for creation, you do not present any even when flat out asked.

You make lots of bold unsubstantiated claims then hide behind your Bible when asked to support them.

The evidence has been presented. You choose to ignore it. So be it. One more time, with feeling, the evidence for Creation is all around us, in all living things. Scientists routinely plagiarize the design patterns and ingenious structures found in living things, because the design genius found in nature can be copied for man's benefit. Yet, seldom does any such copycat give credit to the Patentholder, God. The thought at Isaiah 29:16 comes to mind: "The perversity of you men! Should the potter himself be accounted just like the clay? For should the thing made say respecting its maker: "He did not make me"? And does the very thing formed actually say respecting its former: "He showed no understanding"?

​

​

 

[rusra02]

" I believe the Bible has clear answers to these fundamental questions, and many more."

No it doesn't, its another "god did it", but in no way says how 'god did it", evolution shows how things evolved.

It also says the earth was created on day one and the sun day four. Do you believe that Rusra? Did the earth form before the sun on day one and the sun on day four?

The Bible doesn't say the earth was created on day one and the sun day four.

Only recently have scientists discovered how amazingly complex is the living cell. Do you expect God to give us the complete details of how he created life, including the intricate workings within a single cell? What level of "How" are you looking for? Genesis chapters 1 and 2 answer the "how" question simply and directly.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

One more time, with feeling, the evidence for Creation is all around us, in all living things.

Evolution explains perfectly well how living things came to possess the features they do. To make a jump from "this is complex" to "God exists" is shoddy logic.

 

[rusra02]

Evolution explains perfectly well how living things came to possess the features they do. To make a jump from "this is complex" to "God exists" is shoddy logic.

That's just the point. Evolution does not 'explain perfectly well' how living things came to possess the features they do. As Michael Denton explained in his book "Evolution-A Theory in Crisis"; "the overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago...Nothing could be further from the truth." (p.77)

​

​

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Leading evolutionists claim that anyone who doesn't accept the ToE is either stupid, crazy, or ignorant. .

Not just leading evolutionists.

If you deny it, you are at least one of the three.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

That's just the point. Evolution does not 'explain perfectly well' how living things came to possess the features they do. As Michael Denton explained in his book "Evolution-A Theory in Crisis"; "the overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago...Nothing could be further from the truth." (p.77)

I understand how evolution explains these things even if you don't.

All you've shown is what Michael Denton thinks. But just because someone has written a book isn't evidence. Post a specific argument if you've actually got one.

 

[McBell]

The evidence has been presented. You choose to ignore it. So be it. One more time, with feeling, the evidence for Creation is all around us, in all living things. Scientists routinely plagiarize the design patterns and ingenious structures found in living things, because the design genius found in nature can be copied for man's benefit. Yet, seldom does any such copycat give credit to the Patentholder, God. The thought at Isaiah 29:16 comes to mind: "The perversity of you men! Should the potter himself be accounted just like the clay? For should the thing made say respecting its maker: "He did not make me"? And does the very thing formed actually say respecting its former: "He showed no understanding"?

Stop with the blatant dishonesty already.
You said SCIENTIFIC evidence, I said SCIENTIFIC evidence and then when it comes down to actually producing said SCIENTIFIC evidence you try to move the goal posts to plain evidence.

I do not know which is sadder.
That you are so blatantly dishonest or that your god honours such blatant dishonesty.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The Bible doesn't say the earth was created on day one and the sun day four.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

-------------

14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Care to try again?

 

[camanintx]

So the mere existence of a house does not prove it had a builder? The marvel of a seeing eye, or a hearing ear proves nothing? That cetacean echolocation does not prove intelligent design? What about a piece of wood with the name "Mary" carved in it? Ignoring such evidence will not make it go away. I and millions of others find it completely convincing, especially since the ToE cannot explain it satisfactorily.

When that house has all the earmarks of a cave carved out of rock by natural forces, it's not necessary to posit a builder.

The Cave House - For Sale - Jean Noreen - Bisbee Realty - (800) 728-8537

Humans are predisposed to see patterns where none really exist. Does the image of an indian wearing an iPod prove that this hill has a designer?

Indian with an iPod in Google Earth | Mighty Optical Illusions

So how life began is completely irrelevant to whether life evolved or not? Calling it a different theory may satisfy ToE adherents, but it's merely a ploy to ignore the fundamental question at the base of the ToE.

Is Newton's Theory of Gravity any less correct because it doesn't explain how gravity came to be? Evolution is about how one living organism changes into another living organism. It does not concern itself with how the first living organism came to be.