The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Shermana]

That's like saying "there's no evidence of no spaghetti monster until you've been to every single galaxy". I am not "blowing smoke", I am offering a legitimate rebuttal to the OP, that states that Biblical "Creationism" is only concerned about proving the Bible. I'm saying there's a reason why they don't buy the whole story when milksweat is the best explanation for lactation, which is why I am focussing on this issue, as well as the base pairs and the chromosomal fusion. There are gaping gaps in the story, and that's the reason why many people don't buy it, as well as in Astronomy with issues like Venus's rotation and Mercury's density and magnetic field. The fact is, macro-theory is filled with things that contradict itself. The idea is that order comes from disorder, but how? Doesn't matter apparently. It just did.

This OP is basically a smear at Creationists without considering that maybe there's a reason why they look with suspicion to theories from people who have a direct bias against them, a lot of scientists can't even tell Chinese fakes or it wouldn't be such a huge industry over there but that's another story.

The point is, Creationists have a valid reason to denounce evolution, and it's not merely just to prove the Bible correct, people of any belief should be concerned about the Truth and not just Conjecture. Isn't that what they are accused of? Do you want them to buy the milksweat story and force it down?

Also, it appears that link IS the whole study on Painted wolf's cited quote, perhaps she can explain to everyone reading a concise way of summarizing what results were obtained regarding its origins with the mice.

 

[outhouse]

This OP is basically a smear at Creationists

Op doesnt have to do anything, creationist take care of that on their own

The point is, Creationists have a valid reason to denounce evolution

religious brainwashing???

creationist have no valid replacement hypothesis let alone any theory at all.

creationist have ZERO evidence to base belief




you want people to believe your ranting then you need to come up with another hypothesis on how every living thing came to be the species they are today.

Then watch us tear it down to shreds in seconds with reason and logic and education

 

[Shermana]

Op doesnt have to do anything, creationist take care of that on their own




religious brainwashing???

creationist have no valid replacement hypothesis let alone any theory at all.

creationist have ZERO evidence to base belief




you want people to believe your ranting then you need to come up with another hypothesis on how every living thing came to be the species they are today.

Then watch us tear it down to shreds in seconds with reason and logic and education

Well we have proof of NASA interaction with Aliens

[youtube]C9runNgtTb0[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Top Secret UFO Nasa Tapes‬‏

And that's a whole threadsworth of material I could provide links for, so how about some super advanced beings came and made mankind in a lab?

 

[outhouse]

why is your belief better then what is taught in EVERY major university around the world???

even religious university's teach evolution! all of it!

 

[outhouse]

Well we have proof of NASA interaction with Aliens

[youtube]C9runNgtTb0[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Top Secret UFO Nasa Tapes‬‏

And that's a whole threadsworth of material I could provide links for, so how about some super advanced beings came and made mankind in a lab?

you have gone off the deep end

it has nothing AT ALL to do with evolution



what do you think folks POE???

 

[Shermana]

you have gone off the deep end

The "Ancient Astronaut" theory is held by millions worldwide, and if you think there's NO evidence of UFOs at this point in time, well let the reader decide if I've gone off the deep end for showing a history channel advertisement. (And of course, it can't be true if its on HC, right?). The evidence of interaction with superior-intelligence beings is hardly questionable at this point. Why is it so much of a stretch to say that they may have had something to do with bridging the gaps?

As for why this theory is not taught in Universities, it kind of is in Religious schools and universities, who at least teach what the Secular Theories are. We can get into Astrophysics too and issues like Mercury's density and (young) magnetic field. Creationism and "Ancient Astronaut" Theory are just a few steps apart.

 

[outhouse]

The "Ancient Astronaut" theory is held by millions worldwide, and if you think there's NO evidence of UFOs at this point in time, well let the reader decide if I've gone off the deep end for showing a history channel advertisement. (And of course, it can't be true if its on HC, right?)

As for why this theory is not taught in Universities, it kind of is in Religious schools and universities, who at least teach what the Secular Theories are. We can get into Astrophysics too and issues like Mercury's density and (young) magnetic field.

Ancient alien crackpots have ZERO scientific backing and is pure pseudoscience

atleast you admit what you follow




your university remarks are a weak attempt at backpeddling at best



maybe you want to tell little children who will compete in science with other countries that evolution is all false and aliens did it

 

[Shermana]

Ancient alien crackpots have ZERO scientific backing and is pure pseudoscience

atleast you admit what you follow




your university remarks are a weak attempt at backpeddling at best



maybe you want to tell little children who will compete in science with other countries that evolution is all false and aliens did it

It gets better, what you call "Aliens" I call "Angels", or what the ancients called "gods" in the lower case g. Regardless though, the gaps of macro theory such as the several I've pointed out in preceding posts are far too gaping for any serious thinking person to accept unquestionably.

 

[McBell]

No, if you can't back your claims, then there is no research to begin with. The research doesn't exist. What you are saying is "You want people to prove what doesn't exist to you? Do your own research!"

The fact is, there is NO research to back your claims. If you want to believe in such things, that's fine, but the burden of proof is on the one claiming. l claim that there is no evidence for Macroevolution or sweat turning into Milk, or that the Fusion of Chromosomes in Chimps was possible on its own. I claim you CANNOT PROVE IT. Why? Because the proof does not exist. You Macroevolutionists accuse Theists of believing in things that they cannot prove.

Oh...wait...looks like you do too.

You cannot just accuse someone of saying "You want US to do your research for you?" Well that's what you call a COP OUT. Because there is NO research on the matter to prove anything. Hope that makes sense.

So in the end, Macroevolution relies on a bunch of GAPS and "We don't know but it sounds right". I've done the research,l I doubt you would even know where to begin in trying to prove that milk came from sweat.

Like I said, let the reader decide if milk comes from sweat and if there's sufficient evidence for it. Nonetheless, Macro-evolutionists are quick to shout "There's so much evidence you want us to do your research for you" but they can't actually produce anything solid when pressed.

Lamarckian Microevolution has been proven, but confusing that with Macroevolution is a major fallacy, and dishonesty at worst.

LIke I already said, I have not the time nor the patience to teach you enough about what evolution actually is for you to have an intelligent conversation on the subject.

 

[YmirGF]

On a lighter note, here is a sample of the Muslim view of creation. It's always worth a good chuckle.

Adam and Eve or Evolution? - Islamic Creed - counsels - OnIslam.net

 

[outhouse]

I've pointed out in preceding posts are far too gaping for any serious thinking person to accept unquestionably.

your education in evolution???

 

[Shermana]

your education in evolution???

Well, not just MY "education of Macro-evolution" but the theory as a whole, anyone's "education" on the subject should cause them to raise some questions and call Shenanigans on a couple of explanations, as it relies on more crater-sized gaps than any other field of science I can think of, with the exception of things like asteroids hitting venus perfectly on the pole to reverse rotation.

Thus the point of my response to the OP, Creationists don't necessarily want to use it to declare the Bible true, they just don't like buying wholesale theories from some guy in a lab coat that has no evidence whatsoever and forces them to think that milk comes from sweat glands and that base pairs "evolve" on their own despite evidence to them only leading to defect.

 

[Skwim]

That's like saying "there's no evidence of no spaghetti monster until you've been to every single galaxy".

If you really mean, "there's no evidence of no spaghetti monster . . . ." then there must be evidence for some spaghetti monster (the double-negative thing). On the other hand, if you meant to say, "there's no evidence of a spaghetti monster until you've been to every single galaxy," then that's exactly the kind of examination you've claimed when you used the words "absolutely" and "whatsoever."

ab·so·lute·ly
adv.
 1. Definitely and completely; unquestionably.

whatsoever
adj
 1. (postpositive) at all: used as an intensifier with indefinite pronouns and determiners
​

You, Shermana, set up the degree of evidence examined as one of unquestionable completeness. Not me or anyone else.

Shermana: "there is "absolutely no basis whatsoever in terms of actual evidence."
​

I am not "blowing smoke"

Then I take it that you're going with option A)

I, Shermana, have examined every piece of actual evidence regarding lactation came from sweat glands, and have found absolutely no basis for the assertion.

​

Gotta say that's quite an undertaking for such a trivial point, but whatever cuts your cheese I guess.

 

[Shermana]

Well, you can believe that there's evidence somewhere, until then, I'm claiming thar be none

 

[Skwim]

Well, you can believe that there's evidence somewhere, until then, I'm claiming thar be none

Words-they are cheap aren't they.

 

[Skwim]

double post

 

[CaptainBritain]

Well, you can believe that there's evidence somewhere, until then, I'm claiming thar be none

A few appropriate google search terms might help you on your way, I am going to look at you as though you are honestly unaware of anything as stupid as that might make me look.

You have not looked at even one percent of the internet, the evidence you seek exists in the 99 percent you have not looked at.

You can find a great many links to evidence yourself within 10 minutes without us running and doing your bidding like its our job to educate you, if your questions and requests for evidence were related to the OP it would be different, my suggestion is if you cant be bothered to do your own research then start a thread on the topic.

peace.

This is what a conversation with a creationist is like.

Man walks into a library and strolls over to the librarians counter,
she notices him and says "can I help you Sir"?

The man says "I would like a cheeseburger, large fries and a diet root beer please"

The librarian is taken aback, pointing to all the books she says "This is a library Sir"

The man leans towards her ear and whispers "I would like a cheeseburger, large fries and a diet root beer please".

Heard this on youtube, sums up every conversation ive had with them just about.

 

[Amill]

Otherwise, it's clear as day that Macro-evolution is one big theory squarely aimed against the Bible that wouldn't hold water if it wasn't so implicit in an anti-Bible agenda.

Then why do 10s of millions of bible believing Christians not see this agenda, and still feel that the theory has evidence to support it? According to surveys most evolutionists in the US are religious...

How exactly is it clear as day?

 

[CaptainBritain]

Then why do 10s of millions of bible believing Christians not see this agenda, and still feel that the theory has evidence to support it? According to surveys most evolutionists in the US are religious...

How exactly is it clear as day?

Most evolutionists in the World are Christian by demographic, more Christian evolutionist than Atheist ones.

There are far more muslim and hindu creationists than christian ones.

You are quite right, Christian creationist are indeed a slim minority,

Catholic Church, Anglican, Methodist Union and Eastern Orthodox plus many others accept the theory as fact, creationism is a largly American phenomena, but an no disrespect America does love snake oil, look how well the book of mormon and the moonies took off, waco etc, just a national quirk like us Brits go for spanking and sodomy lol

 

[Shermana]

A few appropriate google search terms might help you on your way, I am going to look at you as though you are honestly unaware of anything as stupid as that might make me look.

You have not looked at even one percent of the internet, the evidence you seek exists in the 99 percent you have not looked at.

You can find a great many links to evidence yourself within 10 minutes without us running and doing your bidding like its our job to educate you, if your questions and requests for evidence were related to the OP it would be different, my suggestion is if you cant be bothered to do your own research then start a thread on the topic.

peace.

This is what a conversation with a creationist is like.

Man walks into a library and strolls over to the librarians counter,
she notices him and says "can I help you Sir"?

The man says "I would like a cheeseburger, large fries and a diet root beer please"

The librarian is taken aback, pointing to all the books she says "This is a library Sir"

The man leans towards her ear and whispers "I would like a cheeseburger, large fries and a diet root beer please".

Heard this on youtube, sums up every conversation ive had with them just about.

Sorry to break it to you, but telling me to type in google doesn't disprove all the things I've said, neither does telling me to go the library.

In fact, it makes it look like....you can't find it on the internet, and you're just saying "Go find the answer somewhere" as if you don't have to actually debate with sources. Do you think no one else has said this to me before? Do you think you're offering me some kind of new insight by totally ignoring everything I said and telling me to go look it up? Yeah, that's an effective debate tactic, just ignore what I say and tell me to go look it up. Nice. The fact is, the stuff is not there. There is no proof. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. Your lecture is nice but it doesn't actually support the claims made by your side of the argument, and it further proves my rebuttal to the OP that Macro-evolutionists are more concerned about the anti-Creation implication than the how, where, when, and why.

I'll bet you wouldn't even know where to begin researching how bats developed flight. You'd just say "Go research it, it's not my job to back up our silly claims like bats developing flight!"

Not like Theists are accused of blindly believing things of course.

Your job is to BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. If you cannot BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS, then that's YOUR PROBLEM. It's not my job to find the proof for your gaps. If you want to believe that lactation came from sweat glands, without any proof, that's your business. But saying it's not your job to back up claims for your side...is as copout as it gets. I dare you to find a single source, and telling me it's "Not your job" doesn't exactly count as proof.

Let's put it this way, I am claiming that you CANNOT find the evidence with 10 minutes of searching, and that it doesn't exist, and you are simply hoping to dismiss the requests for evidence for Macro-evolutoinist claims.