Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[YoursTrue]

I have no idea what you are asking.

I hope I can try to define what I am asking without offending you. One definition of evolutionist is as follows: evolutionist
"someone who believes in or supports the theory of evolution"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I hope I can try to define what I am asking without offending you. One definition of evolutionist is as follows: evolutionist
"someone who believes in or supports the theory of evolution"

It is a term mined for it's derogatory affect and I am not an evolutionist. I cannot answer questions for a group for which I am not a part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hope I can try to define what I am asking without offending you. One definition of evolutionist is as follows: evolutionist
"someone who believes in or supports the theory of evolution"

But far too often it is used as a derogatory term by creationists which is why it should be avoided. This is a bit more extreme, but you will never see me use the phrase "creatard". That term does no good at at all. It only angers one's opponents and is a slur all the way around.


By the way the term "atheistic" is used improperly quite often two by creationists. They will call evolution "atheistic". Which is odd, Why don't they call gravity "atheistic". Things fall without God doing anything. Life evolves without God doing anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is a term mined for it's derogatory affect and I am not an evolutionist. I cannot answer questions for a group for which I am not a part.

that is interesting. Similarly I do not adhere to the defiition of myself as a creationist because of the varying and contradictory thoughts of many who say they believe in creation by God. Obviously the thinking of scripture can be different, therefore I do not accept the term 'creationist' for myself even though I believe what the Bible says about God creating the earth and the universe and lifeforms.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is a term mined for it's derogatory affect and I am not an evolutionist. I cannot answer questions for a group for which I am not a part.

OK, well now I wonder, but won't ask you any more questions about that at the moment. Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that is interesting. Similarly I do not adhere to the defiition of myself as a creationist because of the varying and contradictory thoughts of many who say they believe in creation by God. Obviously the thinking of scripture can be different, therefore I do not accept the term 'creationist' for myself even though I believe what the Bible says about God creating the earth and the universe and lifeforms.

But that is pretty much the traditional definition of what a creationist is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

that is interesting. Similarly I do not adhere to the defiition of myself as a creationist because of the varying and contradictory thoughts of many who say they believe in creation by God. Obviously the thinking of scripture can be different, therefore I do not accept the term 'creationist' for myself even though I believe what the Bible says about God creating the earth and the universe and lifeforms.

A creationist rejects science and demands that it be denied by all and that their personal interpretation of the Bible be viewed as works to get into Heaven. Anyone that rejects these believers is not a true believer.

All these threads have as their theme "I love the science that I like and I reject the science that I do not like. I will chastise others that don't blindly follow that belief in lockstep and repeat this denial ad nauseum."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, well now I wonder, but won't ask you any more questions about that at the moment. Thanks.

If you were to ask if I accept the theory as a scientist and a rational person that reviews evidence and draws the best conclusions I can, I would tell you that I accept the theory of evolution. It is the best explanation we have for the evidence. But it is not a belief or part of some belief system. It is knowledge acquired through science that is supported by a continually growing body of evidence. Scientists are not mislead by Satan for coming to rational conclusions.

Considering the behavior I regularly witness, I question where the influence of evil actually lies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, well now I wonder, but won't ask you any more questions about that at the moment. Thanks.

I wonder what some people think they are accomplishing with the methods they choose to use to reject science. I wonder why they worry so much and why they seem so angry and behave in ways that I personally see as rather angry and hateful and not at all indicative of what I think someone filled with the Spirit of the Lord would want to behave.

Multiple threads going into hundreds of pages and what has been accomplished by all of what I see as pointless posturing? Nothing. Nothing useful that I can see. The only support I see comes from others that already believe in similar views of Christianity and share and express an equivalent lack of understanding of science and the facts involved. I don't see any real value in the effort, so disposed, at all. It seems to serve more to drive people away in an intellectual sense. Would Christ want to drive people away? Who might want that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But far too often it is used as a derogatory term by creationists which is why it should be avoided. This is a bit more extreme, but you will never see me use the phrase "creatard". That term does no good at at all. It only angers one's opponents and is a slur all the way around.


By the way the term "atheistic" is used improperly quite often two by creationists. They will call evolution "atheistic". Which is odd, Why don't they call gravity "atheistic". Things fall without God doing anything. Life evolves without God doing anything.

As far as I know, gravity has killed more people than evolution has.

 

[John53]

As far as I know, gravity has killed more people than evolution has.

It hasn't killed me (yet) but it is responsible for many injuries!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It hasn't killed me (yet) but it is responsible for many injuries!

Me too. That evil gravity.

 

[YoursTrue]

A creationist rejects science and demands that it be denied by all and that their personal interpretation of the Bible be viewed as works to get into Heaven. Anyone that rejects these believers is not a true believer.

All these threads have as their theme "I love the science that I like and I reject the science that I do not like. I will chastise others that don't blindly follow that belief in lockstep and repeat this denial ad nauseum."

I don't exactly know what you mean by science. While I am not trained in the sciences*, I would probably enjoy being a lab technician. I have worked for one scientist, a professor, and also worked for a science publication some time ago. I take vaccines and hope they work. When my doctor recommends something I take it seriously. I believe rocks can be dated, but to a limit. Similarly with monuments. And fossils. And now that we're discussing it a bit, I believe that science portrays the fusion of the chromosome leading to 46 chromosomes as a mutation, not design. But that's how I think now, not sure how science looks at that. (P.S. I find science fiction books and movies boring and do not watch them, because I think they're boring.)
*I find the articles as to the fusion of a cell leading to the evolution of man fanciful, even though the thought was put forth by a person degreed in the sciences and considered as a logical possibility. Now if that's what you mean by science, I find it distressing to an extent although I know there's nothing I can do about it, that governments are spending so much time and money exploring outer space instead of providing good education to all, making sure there are no homeless people, stopping crime, etc. among other things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I know, gravity has killed more people than evolution has.

Stupid coconuts:

 

[McBell]

I wonder what some people think they are accomplishing with the methods they choose to use to reject science. I wonder why they worry so much and why they seem so angry and behave in ways that I personally see as rather angry and hateful and not at all indicative of what I think someone filled with the Spirit of the Lord would want to behave.

Multiple threads going into hundreds of pages and what has been accomplished by all of what I see as pointless posturing? Nothing. Nothing useful that I can see. The only support I see comes from others that already believe in similar views of Christianity and share and express an equivalent lack of understanding of science and the facts involved. I don't see any real value in the effort, so disposed, at all. It seems to serve more to drive people away in an intellectual sense. Would Christ want to drive people away? Who might want that?

What I can not wrap my head around is why they think that disproving abiogenesis and or evolution, makes their beliefs magically correct...

Seems to me it far to much black OR white thinking going on.

 

[Aupmanyav]

While I am not trained in the sciences*,
*I find the articles as to the fusion of a cell leading to the evolution of man fanciful,

that is understandable by reading your post.
if there was no fusion, you would not have been born. you were not breathed in your mother's womb by any ghost, but your father inseminated your mother. Insemination - Wikipedia

OK, well now I wonder, but won't ask you any more questions about that at the moment. Thanks.

yeah, always better to keep quite rather than show one's ignorance.

.. even though I believe what the Bible says about God creating the earth and the universe and lifeforms.

if you believe so, then you are a 'creationist'.
wikipedia: Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.

Looking back on this though, does one have to be something like an evolutionist or creationist to understand what it means?

yeah, of course. to be an evolutionist or a creationist, yo

So an evolutionist can believe in creation, is that right?

yeah, some muslims do so. they accept evolution, but say that allah started it, i.e., provided the material and conditions for it.
u have to understand what the word means. one can be apathetic, having or professing no view on such questions and can escape these labels.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionists have to explain from nothing to the existence of the universe to the first living creature to all living things that have ever lived.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is where we agree.

It's also where the both of you argue a strawman.
And not just any strawman.... a strawman that has been pointed out SO MANY TIMES that nobody can take any of you seriously any longer.
SO MANY TIMES that we can only conclude willful ignorance and near-deliberate intellectuall dishonesty.

Why do you insist on doubling down on falsehoods?
What do you hope to accomplish with this behavior?

From my questions and seeing the responses on these boards, I have come to at least two conclusions.

You should have come to only one conclusion: I'm arguing a strawman and I should stop doing it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evolutionists have to explain from nothing to the existence of the universe to the first living creature to all living things that have ever lived.
It is one of the greatest delusions ever.

Here is where we agree.

Since "Goddidit" explains exactly nothing, this is both comically absurd and shows breathtaking double standards, not to mention being scientifically illiterate.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Since "Goddidit" explains exactly nothing, this is both comically absurd and shows breathtaking double standards, not to mention being scientifically illiterate.

God created all things.
I just explained the origin of all things as opposed to evolution which is the theory of nothing.