Creationists: Where the hell are you?

[RitalinO.D.]

I bet not a single one of you actually tried to look for scientific proof of God

Because there isn't any

and lets say he knows approximately 0.5% of about the universe

Why does it have to be a he?

your agnostic because you can't prove God does not exist.

That doesn't make you agnostic

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Why not?]

Wow, an open minded bunch you guys are.

And oddly enough I saw no comments on what about my statement is false.
All I saw were remarks about irrelevant things such as "ex-spelled" and "why does it have to be a he".

Just goes to show if anyone offers evolutionists a logical idea they rejected it even before they begin to think about it.

I thought scientific thinking, which I presume you all claim to have, requires an open mind.

 

[McBell]

Just goes to show if anyone offers evolutionists a logical idea they rejected it even before they begin to think about it.

How about you present a logical idea and see what happens?

If you think post #16 contains a "logical idea" then you would do good to take an introductory class in logic.

 

[Why not?]

Please, enlighten me on how my previous statement was not logical.

 

[McBell]

Besides it having nothing to do with creationism, you have done nothing but make unsubstantiated claims, and your argument is nothing more than a desperate attempt at number manipulation.

 

[Oneatatime]

Wow, an open minded bunch you guys are.

And oddly enough I saw no comments on what about my statement is false.
All I saw were remarks about irrelevant things such as "ex-spelled" and "why does it have to be a he".

Just goes to show if anyone offers evolutionists a logical idea they rejected it even before they begin to think about it.

I thought scientific thinking, which I presume you all claim to have, requires an open mind.

To be openminded is to be willing to consider ideas including those which are in opposition to your own. This does not mean that once you have considered an idea that you are required to accept it. In my experience those who accuse others of being close-minded usually do so because they have failed to convince others that their idea is a good one or just don't understand what the term means. They often fail to appreciate that for many people this isn't the first time that they've been exposed to the idea and so when they hear it again without any additional compelling evidence its not suprising that they dismiss it out of hand.

As the vast majority of us has been repeately exposed to the same religous ideas throughout our lives and found them unconvincing so when a religious person puts them forward again its not suprising that these ideas are dismissed out of hand. It doesn't help that some of these religious individuals copy & paste from religious sites the same material that has been copied & pasted countless time before and found lacking.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

So what are you saying Madman? You hate creationists, but you want them to talk to you.

Yes I think he wants to see more savage gang violation of creationist hypothesis.

You do not believe their crap beliefs but you want to argue with them. You're a real piece of work, pal.

Crap is a strong inelegant word...it's to the point though.
I would have said misguided or delusionary even, if riled.

Here this may keep you occupied for a while.

In summary.
By way of an analogy my overweight hairy old balding & bearded father would be a more convincing woman wearing lipstick, a rather revealing pink dress and fishnets.

New Hope.

What is it about genetics you find so confusing?
What I am saying is why do you ignore evidence like the molecular clock or DNA comparison?

Why does the fact that humans have some of the same codons (gene sequences for amino acids) as Lettuces and Fruit flies and almost all of them shared with Mr Chimpanzee not faze you?

 

[Why not?]

All I heard was,...I dont care, I dont care,I dont care.
Take lines from my statement and I want to exactly what you say, this is not true.
And if it isnt, WHY NOT.

Just oppose my view properlywould ya, not say every opinionated view you have.

 

[Gunfingers]

Okay, I'll bite.

Its funny how the tables turned when dealing with God vs. man. Comparing the times when the earth was flat and at the center of the universe and and any one would laugh at. Now Any one who states there is a God is considered illogical and stupid. Where scientists were discredited for declaring the earth was round where now the same goes for scientist stating that creationism is a major possibility (watch ex- spelled, good movie). Ever stopped and thought about if this is the exact same case as the earth being flat?

For one, it's a myth that Columbus was the first to figure out the Earth was round. The greeks figured that out thousands of years ago. Second, Heliocentricism was not something that got people mocked as stupid or illogical, it was something that got people thrown in jail, or worse. Basically, it's an extremely bad comparison. Galileo was faced with religious persecution for learning something about our solar system that ran against what the church taught. Evolution Deniers, on the other hand, get laughed at for denying basic biological facts because it runs against their religious beliefs. You're not Galileo in this metaphor, my friend, you're the church.

There is an unconceivable amount of evidence but no one ever seems to go looking for it, just the opposite, they try to find something to disprove information that dont even know about and dont want to see because the present day way of thinking is that man made God and killed him, now man is God.

We're talking about the theory that all life on earth has a single common ancestor, and that diversity in species is the result of changes in allele frequencies over subsequent generations. Why are you talking about god?

I am presently not caring of facts right now because everyone seems to no care either.

We already know you're apathetic about facts. We could tell as soon as you came in and started telling us there's no such thing as evolution. Nor do we care what facts you think you have that prove God. Take that to one of the other Religious Debates subforums, because we don't care about that in EvC.

Sure some of the research on that page is kind of retarded, but you clearly have not looked at it with an open mind and have done your research. I bet not a single one of you actually tried to look for scientific proof of God, and if you did, clicked on all the links that wanted to disprove him.

Research on what page? The only link in this thread is the one Newhope posted claiming that evolution is false. We've gone through a half-dozen threads with Newhope explaining why evolution is not false, and why she doesn't make sense and is a crazy person. This isn't a matter of open-mindedness. It's a matter of fact. Evolution is a fact.

What people don't see because of their life like ego is that God is not in the grave everyones jumping on.

What fundies don't see, because of their weird obsession with a nonexistent dichotomy between accepting biological reality and believing in god, is that we're not advocating that god is dead. We're advocating that belief in god not be used to hinder science.

Now lets screw proof for a second because thats what seems to be the trend hear.

Yes, screw proof, because we're not talking about math or philosophy. We're talking about science, and science deals only in empirical evidence, never proof.

Lets look at this from a open minded point of view. Lets say we take the smartest most intellectual genius of all time, and lets say he knows approximately 0.5% of about the universe, and thats being generous, what are the chances God exists in that 99.5%. The odds say pretty dang good. So now, logically, your not all atheists, your agnostic because you can't prove God does not exist. And lets say, just by chance in this 99.5% God does exist and he is all loving and amazing as the Bible describes (and if you say, the bible says nothing of the sort, well someone really has not read a single page of the Bible now has he) would you want to get to know him. Well only an idiot would say no. So your not agnostic, your seekers.

Let's take the believingest, most devout evengelical, and let's say he know approximately .5% of the universe. What are the chances that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in that 99.5%? The odds say pretty dang good. So now, logically, you're not a christian, you're a pastafarian because you can't prove the FSM does not exist.

And for the record I've read most of the old testament, and I feel confident in saying that it does not describe a loving or amazing deity.

Never thought of it that way now have you.

Believe it or not we've all heard this a thousand times.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Wow, an open minded bunch you guys are.

And oddly enough I saw no comments on what about my statement is false.
All I saw were remarks about irrelevant things such as "ex-spelled" and "why does it have to be a he".

Really?

I'll take that bet.
I spent many years attempting to justify my belief in God with evidence.
There is none.
And those with faith should not feel the need to manufacture any.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Of course, there are those here who provide constant comic relief. As noted in the above example.

(Paluxy Footprints and Dino Art... ROFLMAO)

Totally agree.....:yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I thought scientific thinking, which I presume you all claim to have, requires an open mind.

I have an open mind. I just need a creationist to explain to me "how" is it scientifically possible to take genetic material from a man and make a woman. Are you up for the challenge....?

 

[ninerbuff]

Lets look at this from a open minded point of view. Lets say we take the smartest most intellectual genius of all time, and lets say he knows approximately 0.5% of about the universe, and thats being generous, what are the chances God exists in that 99.5%. The odds say pretty dang good. So now, logically, your not all atheists, your agnostic because you can't prove God does not exist. And lets say, just by chance in this 99.5% God does exist and he is all loving and amazing as the Bible describes (and if you say, the bible says nothing of the sort, well someone really has not read a single page of the Bible now has he) would you want to get to know him. Well only an idiot would say no. So your not agnostic, your seekers.

Never thought of it that way now have you.

No way to prove that god doesn't exist. But like you said look at it from an open minded view. If the stories of Egyptian gods, mythological gods, and other gods are pretty much considered fictional, then why in a logical sense should the biblical god be any different? Don't think with your heart, emotion or ties to religion, but from an objective point of view with comparison to all gods (and others) I mentioned. What actual proof shows that the biblical god exists and while the others are fictional? BTW, the bible isn't proof.

 

[Why not?]

Wow, Im sorry if I if was blasfeming your faith but something as to give.
You say its fact huh, when is evolution called fact?

Any retard who has taken up to a grade 8 education can tell you that evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. blah.blah blah. Who cares. So if microevolution is fact, how is macroevolution determined to be fact. Sure its seen in plants but can someone seriously tell me that its the same thing from a single cell organism becoming the thousands of times more complicating being, which is a human. A scientific theory is a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions. So I wonder what macroevolution is?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Any retard who has taken up to a grade 8 education can tell you that evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. blah.blah blah. Who cares. So if microevolution is fact, how is macroevolution determined to be fact.

2
2.25 (Micro)
2.30 (Micro)
2.45 (Micro)
2.50 (Micro)
2.65 (Micro)
2.75 (Micro)
2.90 (Micro)
3

3 is the Macro of 2.
Get it?
3 is no longer 2.
3 is different from 2.

(OMG!! Speciation!!)

 

[Why not?]

No way to prove that god doesn't exist. But like you said look at it from an open minded view. If the stories of Egyptian gods, mythological gods, and other gods are pretty much considered fictional, then why in a logical sense should the biblical god be any different? Don't think with your heart, emotion or ties to religion, but from an objective point of view with comparison to all gods (and others) I mentioned. What actual proof shows that the biblical god exists and while the others are fictional? BTW, the bible isn't proof.

First of all how old is the Egyptian civilization, now how old is the abrahamic, or hebrew religion. How long has the biblical God lasted, why are they still around and not greek, egyptian, roman. So you tell me how come the biblical God has mithstand the test of time rather than all these other ten times for powerful, inlfuencial religions.

Why isnt the bible proof?
Can you agrue its not historically accurate regarding abraham to moses to Jesus?
Can you say its morals are completely unreasnable?
so why cant it be used?

 

[Why not?]

2
2.25 (Micro)
2.30 (Micro)
2.45 (Micro)
2.50 (Micro)
2.65 (Micro)
2.75 (Micro)
2.90 (Micro)
3

3 is the Macro of 2.
Get it?
3 is no longer 2.
3 is different from 2.

(OMG!! Speciation!!)

OOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!!



.......so you havent passed grade 8

 

[tumbleweed41]

OOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!!



.......so you havent passed grade 8

Do you have an intelligent response, or will you continue to rely on irrelevant insults?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Can you agrue its not historically accurate regarding abraham to moses to Jesus?

Yes

Can you say its morals are completely unreasnable?

Yes

so why cant it be used?

Because it is historically and scientifically inaccurate. It contains moral standards irrelevant to the 21st century. And it was written down by men ignorant of modern life.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Any retard who has taken up to a grade 8 education can tell you that evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. blah.blah blah. Who cares.

Apparently not since you seemed to not know what all Evolution says.

So if microevolution is fact, how is macroevolution determined to be fact.

Because microevolution is fact. That's why.

Honestly, biologist never coined the term "macroevolution" but even so...you can't have macroevolution without microevolution.