Gharib
I want Khilafah back
What a racist comment. I guess it suits you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolutionists - What do you know about Creationism?
- Thread starter Gharib
- Start date
What a racist comment. I guess it suits you.
Caladan excuse me for butting in. But a belief in creation is absolutely essential for the everlasting salvation of their souls. They can't allow themselves to even look at ToE much less study or understand it, on penalty of eternal punishment. Just weigh it up, eternal punishment vs knowledge. The fix is in.
A Troubled Man
Active Member
:slap: No. Nice try though.
Lets see the "essentially identical changes" of the following example.
1. Micro evolution - Monkeys hair clolour turns lighter during summer and darker during winter.
2. Macro evolution - Monkey turns to human?
Well, at least we now know the reason you made this thread, to be intellectually dishonest and cause conflict.
First of all, you quoted me on something I never said: "essentially identical changes" and secondly, you claimed to not know anything about biology and evolution, hence have no idea what the process of evolution entails, and lastly, said I was wrong about how the processes of micro and macro evolution are identical with time being the only relevant difference when I was in fact correct.
Terrible behavior.
Where did I mention race and just quietly sarcasm.
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
My friend you are the one with nothing worthwhile to say. You jumped in and responded to a post without knowing what was going on. If you had bothered to read some older posts you would have seen where I was the person to mention that we are made from water.
You coming in and telling me that my statement is wrong and that we do contain water is just not worth my serious time.
A Troubled Man
Active Member
Typical, you start a thread with the reason to provoke others into conflict and then play the race card when others respond in kind.
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
Good move, you don't have other things to accuse me of?
Go ahead that's OK. I'm to blame for your lack of understanding and lack of knowledge.
A Troubled Man
Active Member
Feel free to drag others to follow you down that rat hole, I'm not biting.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by shawn001
Your using science?
What are all life forms on Earth made out of, what element? Do you know and if you don't know look it up and where it actually came from. I would be interested in your answer.
First that we are made up of water is as much a fact as we evolved at this point.
Second all life forms on earth are carbon bsed, that is the element were based on. So look up where the element carbon comes from? How was it made?
Next what was the surface of the earth like when the earth first formed and where did the moon come from? You can look those up as well.
Your using science?
What are all life forms on Earth made out of, what element? Do you know and if you don't know look it up and where it actually came from. I would be interested in your answer.
First that we are made up of water is as much a fact as we evolved at this point.
Second all life forms on earth are carbon bsed, that is the element were based on. So look up where the element carbon comes from? How was it made?
Next what was the surface of the earth like when the earth first formed and where did the moon come from? You can look those up as well.
Oh still no support for this libel. OK
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
How about instead we return to the issue at hand - rather than attempting to turn this into a discussion of evolution, because this topic is not about science! There is no need to turn this into an creation vs evolution thread, although this is the location of the thread. There are enough of those threads arguing one over the other - this is not the purpose of this thread.
The topic is about identifying the level of awareness of those who hold evolution to be true - about alternative positions, in particular creation or design of life by some supernatural cause (with a not insubstantial inference that it was the level of awareness of the Abrahamic traditions' various creation accounts that were to be the focus of the discussion). Since it IS in the debate section however, perhaps one might debate the purpose of having different levels of awareness and the pros and cons, or the potential limitations of not being aware of alternative arguments and positions - or even the undue influence the Abrahmic creation accounts have on the issue of Creationism (and it's perceived importance) given that there are a multitude of other different creation stories.
The topic is about identifying the level of awareness of those who hold evolution to be true - about alternative positions, in particular creation or design of life by some supernatural cause (with a not insubstantial inference that it was the level of awareness of the Abrahamic traditions' various creation accounts that were to be the focus of the discussion). Since it IS in the debate section however, perhaps one might debate the purpose of having different levels of awareness and the pros and cons, or the potential limitations of not being aware of alternative arguments and positions - or even the undue influence the Abrahmic creation accounts have on the issue of Creationism (and it's perceived importance) given that there are a multitude of other different creation stories.
Last edited:
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
I'm no more an 'evolutionist' than I am a 'gravitationalist' or a 'germist', so I reject your use of the term from the start.
Also, there is nothing to know about creationism.
In order to obtain knowledge you need empirical testable claims which are then determined to be more or less likely based on evidence, and creationism has neither.
It's like being a theologist is nonsense because it is a study that contains no knowledge.
McBell
Unbound
Problem is that none of the creationists can explain what it wrong with the non-creationists versions of what creation teaches.
When all you hear is "no, you do not know anything about creation" and that is it, no explanations about what they got wrong or why, not even a link that might hint to it.
And before the creationists start with the bold faced lie that evolution is never explained to them, I call every single thread on this forum that was started about evolution and or ended up about evolution as proof that any claim of "evolution is not explained" is a bold faced lie.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
How was race involved in his comment? :sarcastic
McBell
Unbound
Further more, you got a member who jumps up and down screaming that merely reading about all the various different creation stories does not mean you "studied" creation, that merely reading the Bible does not mean you "studied" creation, yet absolutely refuses to reveal where he got his great creation learning from, what he "studied" to learn about creation, what would be considered "studying" creation......
McBell
Unbound
Seems pretty clear to me that said comment is a direct to the heart jab about coming in last place in the three legged race tournament in last years company picnic.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
In the recent thread about humans being animals, it has become apparent (to me at least) that evolutionists have no idea about what creationism teaches.
When a creationist rejects evolution, then the creationist is ignorant of evolution that's why he rejects it. And actually anyone who does rejected is labeled as being ignorant of evolution.
Well I have a question, how much do you as an evolutionist know about creation to come to the conclusion that it isn't true?
Having read the Bible or OT and NT doesn't count as having studied creation. It just counts as having read the Bible.
I particularly enjoyed Hesiod.
Far better than the Scientologists and Raelians versions of creation.
Are you familiar with Hesiod? Not just reading the Theogony but living it, breathing it or whatever else it is you claim one must do to understand it's cosmogony.
Do you give it any credence at all? Would you reject it based on empirical grounds or because it's not Abrahamic creationism?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
awe man, apparently my answer didn't count.
wa:do
wa:do
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
@Mestemia - I understand, however while I also hold that evolution is true, I believe that it IS important to be aware of the alternative arguments for any topic where possible; and to understand what they are attempting to claim. For me personally I have learned enough about those that I have been exposed to that I reject a literal interpretation, though I acknowledge the potential that a very metaphorical interpretation is possible (or at times at least unfalsifiable) - because I accept them at a metaphorical level I believe this to be sufficient, however when introduced to new creation accounts I do attempt to understand them.
It would certainly help to guide the thread in a constructive manner if some sort of benchmarks or standards by which to evaluate how much 'do you know about Creationism', sources of that knowledge and so forth.
It would certainly help to guide the thread in a constructive manner if some sort of benchmarks or standards by which to evaluate how much 'do you know about Creationism', sources of that knowledge and so forth.
McBell
Unbound
Seems to me that some people will continue to go on and on about how you do not understand creation because you reject it.
Or simply because you accept evolution.
for some people, merely accepting evolution means (to them anyway) that you cannot possibly understand creation.
because the only reason (to them any way) for someone to reject creation and or accept evolution is because they do not understand creation.
So it seems that it is not about evidence, or truth, or facts, it is about their own deep seated need for a god.