The Ultimate Challenge To Creationists

[Aman777]

And also by using only verifiable physical evidence.

Dear Kyyptid, I am still waiting for ANY Evol evidence of ANY kind. What you seek is evidence of this Earth and NOT the Earth where Humans had our origin. It's too bad that your Scientific knowledge is limited to Planet Earth. This distorts your Evol thinking because it is contrary to God's Truth which shows that Adam's world was "clean dissolved" in the Flood.

It's also WHY the ToE is so incomplete since it has REJECTED God's Truth and left itself out on a limb, since it has been teaching it's "beliefs" as Facts.The last Great Debate, of the last days, is over this Fact. Read all about it in 2Pe 3:3-7. This information shows that most Evols are nothing more than Scoffers of the last days. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

In other words: "I'm not up to the challenge, so I'll try to move the goalposts."

They sure do like to... "beat around the burning bush." *ba-dum-tsss* :drums:
I'll be here all week you guys.

 

[Viker]

Dear Kyyptid, I am still waiting for ANY Evol evidence of ANY kind. What you seek is evidence of this Earth and NOT the Earth where Humans had our origin. It's too bad that your Scientific knowledge is limited to Planet Earth. This distorts your Evol thinking because it is contrary to God's Truth which shows that Adam's world was "clean dissolved" in the Flood.

It's also WHY the ToE is so incomplete since it has REJECTED God's Truth and left itself out on a limb, since it has been teaching it's "beliefs" as Facts.The last Great Debate, of the last days, is over this Fact. Read all about it in 2Pe 3:3-7. This information shows that most Evols are nothing more than Scoffers of the last days. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

:areyoucra

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

" Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4) Design is perceived by the things made. The evidence of design in living things is readily apparent, except to those who choose to ignore it. I believe it is as Romans 1:20,21 states: "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [those who deny God] are inexcusable. *For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened."

Who constructed God?

 

[Gilad]

I don't know about others but I am for one tired of fanatical evoluionists and creationists. I find the patronising sneering of many supporters of the evolutionary theory tiresome. I should think that the discovery of blood collagen in dinosaur bones, the discovery of unfossilised dinosaur bones, and the facts that pigs share more dna with humans than monkeys things to make us pause and question the present day ideas as proposed by the scientific philosophy of macro evolution, among many other reasons. Nor do I find shouting Bible verses at people an effective way to present a theory. Yes I believe in God. Yes I believe God created the universe. How he did it is another question for me. Could he have done it through the ideas presented in Darwinian evolution. Possibly. I am open to that if the evidence convinced me. However I am not convinced and as the years pass I am less and less convinced. I have a good friend who is a Geo-physicist and he also doesn't accept the evolutionary theory anymore. Nor do I think that the primary purpose of Genesis 1 is a fundamentalist science text of creation. Do I believe in the scientific method. Yes I do believe in proposing hypothesises and testing them. However origins are more difficult and is much more problematic as science can only test what is here today in todays conditions and then speculate what might have happened in the past. I am also concerned when I see that using evolutionary dating methods to evaluate genetic studies in human dna has distorted the evidence and the actual germ -line dates are radically different from the evolution based ones. And this then distorts one's perception of archeology and history. Of course my understanding of life, its meaning and the purpose of the Universe is not limited to the scientific methodology of the physical sciences, as mathematics and logic/ reason are others areas of learning and understanding that I take into account as well as the arts, music and the metaphysical. However I can respect the journey of each person and his sincerity in his beliefs whether they agree with mine or not. I am interested in the truth and I respect that others are also on the search for the truth so I don't want to demonise them nor do I want to be branded and patronised as some kind ignorant Appalachian hillbilly because I don't accept Darwinian Evolution.

 

[Parsimony]

Dear Kyyptid, I am still waiting for ANY Evol evidence of ANY kind. What you seek is evidence of this Earth and NOT the Earth where Humans had our origin. It's too bad that your Scientific knowledge is limited to Planet Earth. This distorts your Evol thinking because it is contrary to God's Truth which shows that Adam's world was "clean dissolved" in the Flood.

It's also WHY the ToE is so incomplete since it has REJECTED God's Truth and left itself out on a limb, since it has been teaching it's "beliefs" as Facts.The last Great Debate, of the last days, is over this Fact. Read all about it in 2Pe 3:3-7. This information shows that most Evols are nothing more than Scoffers of the last days. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

No, no, no, don't you remember the OP? Don't mention evolution when presenting your case for creationism.

and the facts that pigs share more dna with humans than monkeys

Source please.

 

[Gilad]

The study I originally read has moved. I think I have found where it moved.


I am sorry apparently I can't give you a link until I have made 15 posts

It is on genome.gov called Porcine Sequencing White Paper.


-
1
-

 

[Parsimony]

The study I originally read has moved. I think I have found where it moved.


I am sorry apparently I can't give you a link until I have made 15 posts

It is on genome.gov called Porcine Sequencing White Paper.


-
1
-

I think I've found it. Is this it? I'll read through it, but you are free to paste the relevant quote from the document if you feel so inclined.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't know about others but I am for one tired of fanatical evoluionists and creationists. I find the patronising sneering of many supporters of the evolutionary theory tiresome. I should think that the discovery of blood collagen in dinosaur bones, the discovery of unfossilised dinosaur bones, and the facts that pigs share more dna with humans than monkeys things to make us pause and question the present day ideas as proposed by the scientific philosophy of macro evolution, among many other reasons.

Buddy, those are all long dead creationist hoaxes. No unfossilised dino bone was ever found, nor 'blood collagen'. What was found were 'fragments of unmineralised collagen' which were later found to be liley to be a contamination. Pigs do not share more DNA with us than monkeys - another ancient ajd long dead creationist hoax and macro evolution was proven by direct observation of speciation more than a century ago. People are right to sneer at such silly, baseless hoaxes.

. Nor do I find shouting Bible verses at people an effective way to present a theory. Yes I believe in God. Yes I believe God created the universe. How he did it is another question for me. Could he have done it through the ideas presented in Darwinian evolution. Possibly. I am open to that if the evidence convinced me. However I am not convinced and as the years pass I am less and less convinced. I have a good friend who is a Geo-physicist and he also doesn't accept the evolutionary theory anymore.

Shame he isn't a biologist, evolution is biology, not geology.

Nor do I think that the primary purpose of Genesis 1 is a fundamentalist science text of creation. Do I believe in the scientific method. Yes I do believe in proposing hypothesises and testing them. However origins are more difficult and is much more problematic as science can only test what is here today in todays conditions and then speculate what might have happened in the past. I am also concerned when I see that using evolutionary dating methods to evaluate genetic studies in human dna has distorted the evidence and the actual germ -line dates are radically different from the evolution based ones. And this then distorts one's perception of archeology and history. Of course my understanding of life, its meaning and the purpose of the Universe is not limited to the scientific methodology of the physical sciences, as mathematics and logic/ reason are others areas of learning and understanding that I take into account as well as the arts, music and the metaphysical. However I can respect the journey of each person and his sincerity in his beliefs whether they agree with mine or not. I am interested in the truth and I respect that others are also on the search for the truth so I don't want to demonise them nor do I want to be branded and patronised as some kind ignorant Appalachian hillbilly because I don't accept Darwinian Evolution.

It is very much like denying gravity, it can only reflect upon you - not the science. If you really are interested in the truth - look up Mary Sweitzer's original research on the dino tissue - see for yourself how the creationists have utterly misrepresented it. The fossil in question was 65 million years old by the way.

 

[Skwim]

To be fair, we should not limit this thread to the Bible story. There are many more including those at Creation Stories which includes the claim that Genesis really contains two different creation stories.

Or maybe the Rig Veda version including this:

It isn't. Come up with a version of creationism not Bible based and make your case.

__________________________________

How is this an ultimate challenge? This is extraordinarily easy. The vast majority of creation mythos found in the world's religions predate the scientific revolution. Therefore, it's not exactly astounding that the vast majority of creation mythos does not contain references to what as, at the time, a non-existent idea.

I don't understand this thread.

And that's okay.

__________________________________

I don't know about others but I am for one tired of fanatical evoluionists and creationists. I find the patronising sneering of many supporters of the evolutionary theory tiresome.

Yet here you is

in the midst of just such tiresome, fanatical, patronizing, and sneering folk. Masochist perhaps?

_________________________________

I think I've found it. Is this it? I'll read through it, but you are free to paste the relevant quote from the document if you feel so inclined.

This should be interesting. Verrrrry interesting.

 

[Parsimony]

I did find the following quotes in the document:

"Comparative genetic maps have indicated that the porcine and human genomes are more similarly organized than when either is compared to the mouse."

"In more than 600 comparisons of non-coding DNAs aligned by orthologous exonic sequences on human chromosome 7, pig (and cow, cat and dog) sequences consistently grouped closer to human and non-human primate sequences than did rodent (mouse and rat) sequences [Green, 2002]."

I've seen no mention of monkeys so far. Perhaps you mistook "mouse" or "rodent" for "monkey"?

 

[Sapiens]

Once again, as usual, there seems to be a problem understanding the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. They are two separate phenomena, not linked in any way, and neither demands the other.

 

[Skwim]

Once again, as usual, there seems to be a problem understanding the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. They are two separate phenomena, not linked in any way, and neither demands the other.

Doesn't make any difference. As long as it appears to be a broadside to evolution it's worthy of repeating, and repeating, and repeating, and . . . . .:sleep:

 

[Ouroboros]

I should think that the discovery of blood collagen in dinosaur bones,

Explained here: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Science solve it.

the discovery of unfossilised dinosaur bones,

Have they been examined by any reputable paleontologist?

and the facts that pigs share more dna with humans than monkeys

Reading the report, it doesn't seem to be what they're saying.

I have a good friend who is a Geo-physicist and he also doesn't accept the evolutionary theory anymore.

Which part doesn't he accept? All of it?

Nor do I think that the primary purpose of Genesis 1 is a fundamentalist science text of creation. Do I believe in the scientific method. Yes I do believe in proposing hypothesises and testing them. However origins are more difficult and is much more problematic as science can only test what is here today in todays conditions and then speculate what might have happened in the past.

If you look into the genetic evidence, it's like looking at a record.

I am also concerned when I see that using evolutionary dating methods to evaluate genetic studies in human dna has distorted the evidence

Can you explain that a little further?

and the actual germ -line dates are radically different from the evolution based ones.

That's a new one. Can you give a link? I'm interested.

 

[Tiapan]

Its obvious, Adam was procaryotic algae and god was the pond

Cheers

 

[Iti oj]

How is this an ultimate challenge? This is extraordinarily easy. The vast majority of creation mythos found in the world's religions predate the scientific revolution. Therefore, it's not exactly astounding that the vast majority of creation mythos does not contain references to what as, at the time, a non-existent idea.

I don't understand this thread.

This is in no way s response to the thread. This is aimed at people who take creation stories as literal and factual. When debating they argue against evolution and not for creationism.

This thread is asking for a pro creationism argument, not anti evolution.

 

[idav]

This thread is asking for a pro creationism argument, not anti evolution.

I am starting to wonder if such a thing exists. I heard they claim science behind it dont they?

 

[jonathan180iq]

6 pages in and so far we have a passage from Romans a claim that there was a second world where Adam lived that was dissolved when this happened:

 

[sun rise]

This is in no way s response to the thread. This is aimed at people who take creation stories as literal and factual. When debating they argue against evolution and not for creationism.

This thread is asking for a pro creationism argument, not anti evolution.

To me, if you're going to argue that Genesis, both creation stories mushed together, is literal and factual the same should be true of Leviticus which, of course, would lead to obvious followup questions.

I think I brought this up at least once before, but I had a co-worker who believed that Genesis was 100% accurate but that God changed the laws of nature to make it seem to science that evolution occurred. Strange how more don't make that argument rather than insisting that science (including physics) is wrong while using the products of science such as computers.

Because, of course, if you're going to disbelieve in evolution, you also have disbelieve in goodly sized chunks of physics as well.

 

[jonathan180iq]

To me, if you're going to argue that Genesis, both creation stories mushed together, is literal and factual the same should be true off Leviticus which, of course, would lead to obvious followup questions.

I think I brought this up at least once before, but I had a co-worker who believed that Genesis was 100% accurate but that God changed the laws of nature to make it seem to science that evolution occurred. Strange how more don't make that argument rather than insisting that science (including physics) is wrong while using the products of science such as computers.

Because, of course, if you're going to disbelieve in evolution, you also have disbelieve in goodly sized chunks of physics as well.

Haha. When in doubt, just change the rules!