The Strange Thing about Creationism

[tumbleweed41]

strange thing about creationism....

seems to be more about feeble attacks on biology than about providing evidence for creationism...

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe the strangest thing about creationism is the creationists. I have yet to meet one who advocates creationism in an intellectually honest manner.

 

[waitasec]

Maybe the strangest thing about creationism is the creationists. I have yet to meet one who advocates creationism in an intellectually honest manner.

maybe their intellectual capacity is blocked by believing they already have the answer. strange thing indeed.

 

[idav]

Maybe the strangest thing about creationism is the creationists. I have yet to meet one who advocates creationism in an intellectually honest manner.

They won't just come right out and say that speciation requires some sort of supernatural intervention. They could just say aliens did it every time a speciation event occurs if they don't want to blame it on magic.

 

[Jose Fly]

maybe their intellectual capacity is blocked by believing they already have the answer. strange thing indeed.

What bothers me the most is the dishonestly that is at the very core of creationism. They deny evolution and believe in creationism because it's a key part of their religion. Fine. Why not just leave it at that? But no, they take it another step further and try and pretend that their position is actually science-based.

That is the fundamental lie behind most forms of creationism, and IMO is the mother lie from which all other creationist lies are spawned.

 

[madnessinmysoul]

I actually don't do so and when I think about an idea I search for evidence for it.

And there is no evidence for creationism of any sort.

Simply, I believe in creation as I see that every complicated thing must have a great designer

Except in the case of biological entities, in which case we have discovered, tested, and verified the idea that variance within population genetics when interacting with various outside factors can lead to overall changes in allele frequency which accumulate over successive generations to lead to incredibly great change.

and it's very strange to believe any other alternative.

No, it really isn't. It's strange to claim a religious belief supersedes scientific examination.

How can something come out of nothing?

I find it odd when creationists ask this of non-creationists, as it is actually the creationist that claims that their deity created out of nothing, ex nihilo. Non-creationists do not claim that something came from nothing, this is just a tired old straw man that is seen from every sort of creationist of every sort of religion on every sort of website.

And how can random mutation lead to great product?

Well, if it's a beneficial mutation, like it increases insulation in a creature that lives in a cold climate, it increases the possibility that the organism will reproduce.

Actually, I can just put it incredibly simply:
Evolution

It's something that appears like a phantom or an imaginary movie that has no relation to reality or valid conclusive evidences.

I'm sorry, but evolution has a lot of evidence to support it.

 

[outhouse]

I actually don't do so and when I think about an idea I search for evidence for it. Simply, I believe in creation as I see that every complicated thing must have a great designer and it's very strange to believe any other alternative. How can something come out of nothing? And how can random mutation lead to great product? It's something that appears like a phantom or an imaginary movie that has no relation to reality or valid conclusive evidences.

thats all due to a lack of education in biology

no one has ever said something came from nothing, that is a ignorant statement

 

[outhouse]

What's supposed to give out? You can see that the whole world with its all systems and all circumstances must be created at the same time and in the most efficient way. This can't be explained by gradual transition.The ozone , the water, the land , the whole systems must be present collectively at the same time to provide life for the creations and in the best efficacy as any slight change in the rules of nature would lead to a calamitous effect on living cells and organisms.

In addition, you can hardly say that original complicated cell was created by random chance as the whole cell components must be present at the same time and in their greatest complexity and efficacy for life to maintain. Even the most primitive unicellular organisms have very complicated systems that are more complex that a current industrialized city.

you have not stated one thing, that resembles reason logic or reality. It is however a baseless poor opinion due to not having a proper educatiomn in the field at hand.


what you cannot see in your own mind, you replace with magic

 

[waitasec]

What bothers me the most is the dishonestly that is at the very core of creationism. They deny evolution and believe in creationism because it's a key part of their religion. Fine. Why not just leave it at that?

insecurity

But no, they take it another step further and try and pretend that their position is actually science-based.

That is the fundamental lie behind most forms of creationism, and IMO is the mother lie from which all other creationist lies are spawned.

insecurity....breeds ugly behavior.

 

[David M]

you really dont have a clue do you????


it didnt, its only your ignorant comment

water had been around for almost a billion years before life was known.

lightning was here longer, thuis ozone was here before life.


once again you fail

You are wrong here Outhouse, the early earth had very little free oxygen in its atmosphere and thus would have much less ozone. During this period there was life in the oceans. Before the oxygen producing bacteria evolved there would probably not have been a significant ozone layer.

 

[Jose Fly]

So hmmm.....why don't you get a sunburn when you're swimming below the water's surface?

 

[idav]

You are wrong here Outhouse, the early earth had very little free oxygen in its atmosphere and thus would have much less ozone. During this period there was life in the oceans. Before the oxygen producing bacteria evolved there would probably not have been a significant ozone layer.

The moss that would have produced the oxygen needed water and sunlight. Why would sunlight not allow life when it is such a basic component of life being possible? I'm sure it was hot as heck but life spawned anyway.

 

[outhouse]

You are wrong here Outhouse, the early earth had very little free oxygen in its atmosphere and thus would have much less ozone. During this period there was life in the oceans. Before the oxygen producing bacteria evolved there would probably not have been a significant ozone layer.

I dont think you can see me as wrong since I stated about .9B years and never indicated it "wasnt" a proccess.

yes in the beginning if i was stateing the earliest part when the planet cooled before water I would agree.

900,000 years howver is one hell of a long time when water is H2o



please get back to me on this because unlike other people in this post, if im found to be wrong. I would like to correct myself

 

[outhouse]

I might add bacteria producing the earths o2 is a hypothesis at this point. I believe

 

[outhouse]

I also understand anerobic bacteria very well

doesnt mean it built the atmosphere

 

[Shermana]

They won't just come right out and say that speciation requires some sort of supernatural intervention. They could just say aliens did it every time a speciation event occurs if they don't want to blame it on magic.

I said "The Great Spirit" several times.

The moss that would have produced the oxygen needed water and sunlight. Why would sunlight not allow life when it is such a basic component of life being possible? I'm sure it was hot as heck but life spawned anyway.

Well you see, intense UV sunlight without an Ozone would rip the DNA apart, quite simple.

I might add bacteria producing the earths o2 is a hypothesis at this point.

You're right, it is a Hypothesis and not even a Theory since no tests have confirmed CB (or BGA for Bluegreen Algae) it would be able to survive, and most likely no test ever will.

So hmmm.....why don't you get a sunburn when you're swimming below the water's surface?

Because there's an Ozone layer. But it often happens. The BGA didn't have this luxury.

http://www.wisegeek.com/can-i-tan-underwater.htm

The tanning difference in various types of water is as a result of light absorption. The light from the sun, specifically the UVA rays, is naturally absorbed in every type of water, allowing you to tan underwater. However studies have shown that the absorption is minimal in clear bodies of water. UVA light is strong and may cause a sunburn underwater instead of an underwater tan. Most tanning experts agree that the deeper the water, the more light that is absorbed and thus the less UVA rays that will reach the surface of a swimmer’s skin to cause a tan underwater or a sunburn underwater, but water does not provide full protection from the sun. The UVA and UVB rays from the sun can still cause great harm to the skin.

 

[outhouse]

The atmosphere - origin and structure


Photochemical dissociation - breakup of water molecules by ultraviolet

• Produced O2 levels approx. 1-2% current levels
• At these levels O3 (Ozone) can form to shield Earth surface from UV

 

[outhouse]

Now im not discountion that cyano didnt play a role in helping to put o2 in our atmosphere.

But when we know exactly how water came to cover 2/3 the planet I think we will know more about our early atmosphere.

 

[outhouse]

I said "The Great Spirit" several times.

Well you see, intense UV sunlight without an Ozone would rip the DNA apart, quite simple.

You're right, it is a Hypothesis and not even a Theory since no tests have confirmed CB (or BGA for Bluegreen Algae) it would be able to survive, and most likely no test ever will.
Because there's an Ozone layer. But it often happens. The BGA didn't have this luxury.

Could you quit spewing grabage out???

your unvalid opinion is nothing more then a weak attempt at prosthelytizing


you dont understand the first thing about biology to quote anything.

im not much better but im willing to learn and see right through your horse pucky

 

[idav]

I said "The Great Spirit" several times.

Ok but would love to hear how they were involved.

Well you see, intense UV sunlight without an Ozone would rip the DNA apart, quite simple.

Well the first forms of photosynthesis would not have produced oxygen and would have been able to withstand the sun for obvious reasons.