I want a creationist!
Anyone got any spare ones left? I could use some debating to feel better about myself and am tired of the basic, boring stupid arguments that the average christian/deism/whatever apologist has, I want some real insane arguments.
I'd prefer young earth, but some good old god of the gaps watchmaker type I wouldn't mind either.
Find em, direct em to this post, lemme have fun with em, don't just keep them all to yourselfs, I know you want to keep all their crazytalk to yourself but it's no fair, us european guys get none of the fun, and they do seem to be dying out a bit lately, the more ridiculous and science illiterate they are the better.
And if you are a creationist reading this:
Evolution is true.
There is no Creator of the universe.
Faith is Bullshit.
go!
I'd prefer young earth, but some good old god of the gaps watchmaker type I wouldn't mind either.
Find em, direct em to this post, lemme have fun with em, don't just keep them all to yourselfs, I know you want to keep all their crazytalk to yourself but it's no fair, us european guys get none of the fun, and they do seem to be dying out a bit lately, the more ridiculous and science illiterate they are the better.
And if you are a creationist reading this:
Evolution is true.
There is no Creator of the universe.
Faith is Bullshit.
go!
Comments809
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Faith is my perspective in which I trust. How else do I get lucky with my future mrs?
^Trolling
^ stupid
^pathetic loser that will get nowhere in life
Am sure I'll get farther as someone proclamining themselfs artists and delivering.. err.. what you deliver.
I'll take the bait. But only because I don't like trolls.Though I'm not by definition a Creationist (I believe both creationism and evolution are plausibilities, and I'm known to argue alternately for both.) I am a believer in God.
First off, we have to acknowledge the fact that there are two different basic kinds of evolution in biology: macro and micro. Micro-evolution (which is evolution within the confines of a species) is undoubtable fact in that it has been observed and the theory has been consistent enough with the results of analysis that it can indeed be considered a fact.
Macro-evolution is the theory which serves as the basis of the belief of those who suppose human beings evolved from other species. It operates on the assumption that living organisms can evolve into entirely different species. This phenomenon has never been observed out of the billions of animal species that walk the earth, and only a handful of sporadic "links" have been found that can assume an inter-species evolutionary process, given much scientific assumption (discluding the vast majority of "missing links" that have been proven to be false, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt beyond all ridiculous reason in your favour by saying those were all simply straw-men).
Creationism evolved (lol) from early Judeo-Christian tradition and assumes that God directly created the universe in it's working order - nothing more complex than the snap of one's fingers. In all honesty, there really isn't anything to suggest the theory is inherently wrong or right, though it does sound fantastical to people who don't understand the concept of contingency. The whole premise is that everything was created as-is at some point - therefore it's openly and honestly quite stupid to even bother trying to destroy the concept. The only way of HONESTLY leading away from such a premise is to realize that both are just theories...
God is bullshit and anyone believing in em is a moron.
Now with your introduction out of the way lets see your arguments
yes there are different kinds of evolutions, in the same day that different there are days and there are months.
To claim that there isn actua difference you see, is s stupid it should cause massive brain hemmorages on the spot.
Now with your introduction out of the way lets see your arguments
yes there are different kinds of evolutions, in the same day that different there are days and there are months.
To claim that there isn actua difference you see, is s stupid it should cause massive brain hemmorages on the spot.
I believe in Christ and He never ceased to be Eternal God Himself.
The reincarnation of Seth, the third son of adam, come to...
oh wait, thats one of the many ancient teachings you declared forbidden isn't it?
oh wait, thats one of the many ancient teachings you declared forbidden isn't it?
Well it's nice to know some bigots still exist in the free world! ^_^
I'm not here to argue - I already gave you all you need. When you come face to face with a creationist who isn't a straw-man, and assuming you aren't as bull-headed at that time, you'll be surprised by what you get.
Have a nice day, stranger.
I'm not here to argue - I already gave you all you need. When you come face to face with a creationist who isn't a straw-man, and assuming you aren't as bull-headed at that time, you'll be surprised by what you get.
Have a nice day, stranger.
a lot of unscientific bullshit?
not too suprising.
not too suprising.
Not, too suprsing? You mean, you didn't know, that if you accept theory of evolution without question you will generally be safe from criticism.
But, did you ever try to push evolutionist to the edge of the cliff for any proof or any evidence? i.e. creature, lacking the genetic information for some major features has turned into a creature with that genetic information.
Do you ever see, that they are quickly run out of examples of where that new information came from? Instead, they tend to resort to sneering, irrelevant claims, verbal abuse, diversions, sarcasm, and even threats...Ahahaahahaaaa.
We have found this pattern consistently and countless others have also experienced it, when they simply ask for scientific proof and evidence of evolution.
Evolution — meaning that such diverse creatures as whales, worms, hummingbirds, hadrosaurs, platypusses and presidents have evolved from the same first life-form — is a belief system. It certainly has not been proved to be a scientific fact.
But, did you ever try to push evolutionist to the edge of the cliff for any proof or any evidence? i.e. creature, lacking the genetic information for some major features has turned into a creature with that genetic information.
Do you ever see, that they are quickly run out of examples of where that new information came from? Instead, they tend to resort to sneering, irrelevant claims, verbal abuse, diversions, sarcasm, and even threats...Ahahaahahaaaa.
We have found this pattern consistently and countless others have also experienced it, when they simply ask for scientific proof and evidence of evolution.
Evolution — meaning that such diverse creatures as whales, worms, hummingbirds, hadrosaurs, platypusses and presidents have evolved from the same first life-form — is a belief system. It certainly has not been proved to be a scientific fact.
Yep, my High school teacher he had more satisfying answers then any religious garblings about stoning and raping and whatnot.
See, that's your problem. You have all these preconceived notions about problems in the world around you that you REFUSE to understand instead of posing honest questions for honest answers. If you ever did have any intention of learning anything, you didn't learn it with the juvenile attitude you're using now.
don't make long sentences with big words unless you can do such without looking nonsensical through loosing the grammar mid sentence.
Actually it isn't incorrect grammar. I wouldn't be carping and criticising in that area, if I were you, when you don't even capitalize the beginning of half of your sentences.
Regardless of of your perception of grammar, it is the content of my message that counts - not the style in which it was given.
Regardless of of your perception of grammar, it is the content of my message that counts - not the style in which it was given.
View all replies
against your extremely scientific presentations? seriously get a grip. if only you knew s of science as much as you knew the s of your mother
I'm not Azebetha but I'm feeling like butting in, hope you don't mind.
Really? They're both theories? And you say you argue on occasion for evolution...
Creationism is a theory in the vulgar sense, as in something someone thought up. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, as in it was throughly tested independently and is yet to find any evidence that it is wrong. Creationism can't even be tested, which automatically disqualifies it from the scientific theory cathegory.
Macroevolution is defined as change on the level of species or above, it is not a theory but a simple classification of degree of change. Creationists try to redefine it as something impossible, that if it were to happen it would do more to disprove evolution than the reverse.
Macroevolution and microevolution are caused by the exact same thing. The difference is that in micro you end up with a population slightly different from the original species, and in macro you end up with a population that is incapable of reproduction with members of the original species while capable to reproduce themselves, a.k.a. a new species. This a matter of degree of change, if you accumulate enough change within a population (micro), there will be a point where the original species and your changed one will not reproduce (macro).
Really? They're both theories? And you say you argue on occasion for evolution...
Creationism is a theory in the vulgar sense, as in something someone thought up. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, as in it was throughly tested independently and is yet to find any evidence that it is wrong. Creationism can't even be tested, which automatically disqualifies it from the scientific theory cathegory.
Macroevolution is defined as change on the level of species or above, it is not a theory but a simple classification of degree of change. Creationists try to redefine it as something impossible, that if it were to happen it would do more to disprove evolution than the reverse.
Macroevolution and microevolution are caused by the exact same thing. The difference is that in micro you end up with a population slightly different from the original species, and in macro you end up with a population that is incapable of reproduction with members of the original species while capable to reproduce themselves, a.k.a. a new species. This a matter of degree of change, if you accumulate enough change within a population (micro), there will be a point where the original species and your changed one will not reproduce (macro).
""""Really? They're both theories? And you say you argue on occasion for evolution..."""
Yes, actually, on all three.
"""Creationism is a theory in the vulgar sense, as in something someone thought up. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, as in it was throughly tested independently and is yet to find any evidence that it is wrong. Creationism can't even be tested, which automatically disqualifies it from the scientific theory cathegory."""
I'm guessing you've never read "Exploring Creation with Physical Science," "Exploring Creation with Biology," or "Exploring Creation with Chemistry". After reading said three books (highschool-level [though considering the state of our mainstream education, they may be considered college-level in some areas
]) it has become quite clear to me how ignorant many evolutionists are, and similarly, how ignorant many creationists are too. Creationism does have an original basis in an idea - but so does every hypothesis that ever existed that may have become a theory that may have become a scientific law... Creationism can be tested and is just as valid a theory as evolutionism - it is no more fantastical than the concept of the Big Bang theory, other than that it is more "directly" involving in the presence of a Divine Intelligence as opposed to what is often considered "impersonal" evolutionary change due to an explosion that happened long ago.
In microevolution, the same genetic code exists throughout the change. The changes that occur are simply the result of variation within that genetic code. In order for macroevolution to occur, information must be added to the genetic code, essentially creating a new genetic code. Unless you can point me to a (reliable) source other than wikipedia proving that such a thing has in fact been observed, I have no reason to put my faith in the theory.
Completely regardless of whether or not it has actually happened, there is more than one theory as to how exactly these trans-species adaptations would occur in the first place - in fact there has been a lot of dissension between evolutionists on the topic (as if any hardcore evolutionist wasn't aware). They're all united against creationists of course, but there are quite a few very different and conflicting hypotheses and theories concerning exactly **how** an animal turns into a new species.
In summary - I don't trust theories that are both inconclusive and irrelevant to my religious, moral, or political beliefs. People who want to bite each other's heads off over the issue can go ahead and do so; I just wanted to take the opportunity to show how redundant and stupid it is to do so.
Yes, actually, on all three.
"""Creationism is a theory in the vulgar sense, as in something someone thought up. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, as in it was throughly tested independently and is yet to find any evidence that it is wrong. Creationism can't even be tested, which automatically disqualifies it from the scientific theory cathegory."""
I'm guessing you've never read "Exploring Creation with Physical Science," "Exploring Creation with Biology," or "Exploring Creation with Chemistry". After reading said three books (highschool-level [though considering the state of our mainstream education, they may be considered college-level in some areas
]) it has become quite clear to me how ignorant many evolutionists are, and similarly, how ignorant many creationists are too. Creationism does have an original basis in an idea - but so does every hypothesis that ever existed that may have become a theory that may have become a scientific law... Creationism can be tested and is just as valid a theory as evolutionism - it is no more fantastical than the concept of the Big Bang theory, other than that it is more "directly" involving in the presence of a Divine Intelligence as opposed to what is often considered "impersonal" evolutionary change due to an explosion that happened long ago. In microevolution, the same genetic code exists throughout the change. The changes that occur are simply the result of variation within that genetic code. In order for macroevolution to occur, information must be added to the genetic code, essentially creating a new genetic code. Unless you can point me to a (reliable) source other than wikipedia proving that such a thing has in fact been observed, I have no reason to put my faith in the theory.
Completely regardless of whether or not it has actually happened, there is more than one theory as to how exactly these trans-species adaptations would occur in the first place - in fact there has been a lot of dissension between evolutionists on the topic (as if any hardcore evolutionist wasn't aware). They're all united against creationists of course, but there are quite a few very different and conflicting hypotheses and theories concerning exactly **how** an animal turns into a new species.
In summary - I don't trust theories that are both inconclusive and irrelevant to my religious, moral, or political beliefs. People who want to bite each other's heads off over the issue can go ahead and do so; I just wanted to take the opportunity to show how redundant and stupid it is to do so.
In microevolution, the same genetic code exists throughout the change. The changes that occur are simply the result of variation within that genetic code. In order for macroevolution to occur, information must be added to the genetic code, essentially creating a new genetic code. Unless you can point me to a (reliable) source other than wikipedia proving that such a thing has in fact been observed, I have no reason to put my faith in the theory.
You really don't understand genetics. At all.
You really don't understand genetics. At all.
" it has become quite clear to me how ignorant many evolutionists are, and similarly, how ignorant many creationists are too"
That, we can both agree on.
" that may have become a scientific law... "
Theories do not become laws. Laws are a summarized description of a apparently universal phenomenon, often in a mathematical form. Theories explain said phenomenon using available data. One does not turn into the other.
"Creationism can be tested and is just as valid a theory as evolutionism"
Please do tell about a falsifiable test that may be done or was done for Creationism. I'm yet to hear about one.
"In microevolution, the same genetic code exists throughout the change."
False. Mutations happen which change the genetic code. The only way your affirmation would be true is if the only thing that happens was changes in the genetic frequencies. Considering that is relatively easy for a gene with low frequency to disappear, even without mutation you can have genetic change.
"In order for macroevolution to occur, information must be added to the genetic code, essentially creating a new genetic code"
It was added in microevolution. I'm not sure what you mean with creating a new genetic code, this sounds like you are going the way of the crocoduck. Explain and I might rise to your challenge.
" in fact there has been a lot of dissension between evolutionists on the topic"
Gasp! Say it isn't so! is almost like science works by arguing and showing evidence of your viewpoint! And here I was thinking Evolution was some kind of dogma.... Oh, wait! My mistake. That's how science works.
"People who want to bite each other's heads off over the issue can go ahead and do so"
That sounds unhygienic.
That, we can both agree on.
" that may have become a scientific law... "
Theories do not become laws. Laws are a summarized description of a apparently universal phenomenon, often in a mathematical form. Theories explain said phenomenon using available data. One does not turn into the other.
"Creationism can be tested and is just as valid a theory as evolutionism"
Please do tell about a falsifiable test that may be done or was done for Creationism. I'm yet to hear about one.
"In microevolution, the same genetic code exists throughout the change."
False. Mutations happen which change the genetic code. The only way your affirmation would be true is if the only thing that happens was changes in the genetic frequencies. Considering that is relatively easy for a gene with low frequency to disappear, even without mutation you can have genetic change.
"In order for macroevolution to occur, information must be added to the genetic code, essentially creating a new genetic code"
It was added in microevolution. I'm not sure what you mean with creating a new genetic code, this sounds like you are going the way of the crocoduck. Explain and I might rise to your challenge.
" in fact there has been a lot of dissension between evolutionists on the topic"
Gasp! Say it isn't so! is almost like science works by arguing and showing evidence of your viewpoint! And here I was thinking Evolution was some kind of dogma.... Oh, wait! My mistake. That's how science works.
"People who want to bite each other's heads off over the issue can go ahead and do so"
That sounds unhygienic.
hypotheses that, after being tested and tested become more valid (basically, gaining in credibility), can eventually become a theory. A Theory (basically a refined and more credible hypothesis), after being tested and tested and tested over a very long period of time can become what is known as a scientific law (an extremely well-refined and credible theory, usually considered accurate enough to consider truthful). This is what happened during the days spontaneous generation, and how it continues to work today - though generally without the total upheaval of a concept believed for thousands of years. Up until the 1600's it was just considered a given fact that life could spontaneously generate, seemingly out of nothing. Up until the time it was completely blown out of the water, it was an ok guess due to the fact that prior scientists lacked the equipment and capabilities that Louis Pasteur did (and didn't fully understand the concept of a clean experimental area...).
For creationism there are actually quite a few arguments being engaged in, though there are only a few I can name off the top of my head:
Cambrian explosion + inconsistent geological collumn
Common design vs. common ancestors
Lack of transitional forms
Earth core - dynamo theory vs. rapid decay theory.
Plate tectonics
"""False. Mutations happen which change the genetic code. The only way your affirmation would be true is if the only thing that happens was changes in the genetic frequencies. Considering that is relatively easy for a gene with low frequency to disappear, even without mutation you can have genetic change."""
That's only assuming you're talking about one form or type of evolutionary change though. Some believe in punctuated equilibrium, others believe in gradualism. I think there are a couple other ones too. All of them have different interpretations as to how exactly a *mutation* happens. Regardless, mutations beneficial (nonetheless non-lethal) to an organism that also cross into trans-species territory have never actually been observed in nature (again, unless you can provide a reliable source). Only rare exceptions have been made in laboratories, like the Vacanti mouse.
[link]
Of course if you do know anything about the Vacanti mouse, it actually had nothing to do with genetic engineering...
For creationism there are actually quite a few arguments being engaged in, though there are only a few I can name off the top of my head:
Cambrian explosion + inconsistent geological collumn
Common design vs. common ancestors
Lack of transitional forms
Earth core - dynamo theory vs. rapid decay theory.
Plate tectonics
"""False. Mutations happen which change the genetic code. The only way your affirmation would be true is if the only thing that happens was changes in the genetic frequencies. Considering that is relatively easy for a gene with low frequency to disappear, even without mutation you can have genetic change."""
That's only assuming you're talking about one form or type of evolutionary change though. Some believe in punctuated equilibrium, others believe in gradualism. I think there are a couple other ones too. All of them have different interpretations as to how exactly a *mutation* happens. Regardless, mutations beneficial (nonetheless non-lethal) to an organism that also cross into trans-species territory have never actually been observed in nature (again, unless you can provide a reliable source). Only rare exceptions have been made in laboratories, like the Vacanti mouse.
[link]
Of course if you do know anything about the Vacanti mouse, it actually had nothing to do with genetic engineering...
...
You stopped our argument to trade insults with alzebetha?
Well, it was fun.
You stopped our argument to trade insults with alzebetha?
Well, it was fun.
As I've stated once - when you come up against a thorough creationist (ie. someone who has actually done his homework and retained all of it, unlike myself) you'll have your work cut out for you. So far as I see, it's a lost cause for me to try reasoning with you, particularly based on my lack of recollection.
Also, Alzebet is the one who made the thread, and consequently the one I originally, specifically replied to.
Also, Alzebet is the one who made the thread, and consequently the one I originally, specifically replied to.
View all replies