Creationism is false

Foley wrote:

real life wrote:
It is very selective to say that similar DNA between viruses and humans proves that one inherited it from the other, but similar structures (eyes) do not have be inherited one from the other, they just all happened to evolve similar structures independently of one another.

Do you see the inconsistency?

You misunderstand. Viruses do not possess deoxyribonucleic acid; rather, they are the ultimate basic form of 'life'- in quotations because it is debated whether or not they are alive. The 'assumption' that we got 8% of our traits from them comes from the fact that such an evolutionary chain would not make sense in humans, though we are aware that the virus acts in that way and infected our ancestors.

You think it is impossible for the eye to have evolved that many times alone? We all came from very similar (or perhaps the same) basic organism in evolution, and we all evolved in the same environment- naturally, nature would evolve in the most practical way, and it just so happens that eyes were a key trait that that kind of microorganism would evolve into.

Also, you'll notice (or perhaps deny, if you're crazy enough) that eyes in animals did evolve differently- snakes see in infrared.

So really, it doesn't contradict itself at all. And though both evolution and creationism ultimately ride on faith, evolution has logic, science, and observation on its side.

I just find the selectivity with which evolutionists handle the evidence quite funny.

Homology is evidence of common descent......except when it's not.

I at least agree with you that both creationism and evolution require faith. However that's bound to get you in trouble with the evolutionists. They don't like that at all.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Homology is evidence of common descent......except when it's not.

But there is an explanation. In one case, it comes from having a distant common ancestor and evolving in the same environment, despite all your differences. In the other, it is because there was a mutation that was accepted by our DNA and passed down.

real life wrote:

I at least agree with you that both creationism and evolution require faith. However that's bound to get you in trouble with the evolutionists. They don't like that at all.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I've met complete jerks from both sides of the issue, and I don't like to sit in either camp.

0 Replies

Foley wrote:

real life wrote:
Homology is evidence of common descent......except when it's not.

But there is an explanation. In one case, it comes from having a distant common ancestor and evolving in the same environment, despite all your differences. In the other, it is because there was a mutation that was accepted by our DNA and passed down.

real life wrote:
I at least agree with you that both creationism and evolution require faith. However that's bound to get you in trouble with the evolutionists. They don't like that at all.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I've met complete jerks from both sides of the issue, and I don't like to sit in either camp.

I agree with you. I have little patience and no time for those who tend to become abusive and insulting, and that can come from either side of any issue.

Hope you're having a great day.

0 Replies

For those not keen enough to have followed Timber's link:

Wiki wrote:

Although the eye remains a common and popular example of complexity in arguments against evolution, some intelligent design and creationism advocates have abandoned the eye as an example of "irreducible complexity". As the detail and history of eye evolution have become better understood, its role in these circles has declined and been replaced by molecular and microscopic structures such as the flagellum. However, much as with the eye, research into these smaller-scale structures has also uncovered details of their evolution[21].

The eye argument thus stems from a "God of the gaps" strategy, or more broadly, the "argument from incredulity" fallacy.

0 Replies

oops, there I go again. Letting "real life" turn a thread called "Creationism is False" into a "defense of evolution".

Let's get back to something you said earlier rl,

If today's bible is possibly not 100% correct, as you admit, then you can't be certain of the bit about creation. True?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

oops, there I go again. Letting "real life" turn a thread called "Creationism is False" into a "defense of evolution".

Let's get back to something you said earlier rl,

If today's bible is possibly not 100% correct, as you admit, then you can't be certain of the bit about creation. True?

I would be only too glad to see you try to defend 'Creationism is False'. Nobody, including the OP, seems to be inclined to do so however.

I wonder why?

Your point, 'Creationism MAY not be true' is a far cry from that.

And the answer to your question is No.

0 Replies

Why? How can you be certain?

0 Replies

I'm as certain of creation as you are of evolution. Are you certain of evolution?

Certain enough to defend the notion that creation cannot have happened? Probably not.

My position is that evolution cannot have happened. It is not consistent with science, nor with logic.

Information-rich structures cannot simply assemble themselves from random interaction based on no information.

Intricately interdependent systems and processes cannot have evolved one without the other.

Dead chemicals cannot spring to life.

Most groups of living organisms as we know them today appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed.

Most of them appear in or near the beginning or the 'Cambrian period', meaning that most of the 'heavy lifting' of the evolutionary theory, (i.e. producing the most complex organisms at the top of the scale), had to occur in less than about 5-7% of the postulated historical existence of the Earth.

Evolution doesn't have, as is commonly believed, 4.5 billion years to work with. It has a lot less.

The first billion years had to see the production of life.

But the likely cold or even frozen state of the Earth under a faint young sun makes the commonly repeatedly evolutionary story of a balmly tropical sea of chemical soup read like a fairy tale.

0 Replies

There are plenty of other possible answers besides evolution and creation.

I wasn't asking why you are sure evolution is wrong, I was asking why you are sure creation is right.

Right now we are talking about creation, as defined by a bible you admit you cannot trust.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

There are plenty of other possible answers besides evolution and creation.

I wasn't asking why you are sure evolution is wrong, I was asking why you are sure creation is right.

Right now we are talking about creation, as defined by a bible you admit you cannot trust.

This is where I break down and want to cry when talking to creationists.

Most of them will admit that they don't belive the bible to be 100% true. That's easy to get them to admit.

When they do admit it though, and you ask them a question similar to the one you asked about how they know that the creation story is true when they've admitted that they don't believe that other parts are true, then they start being completly illogical again.

RL stated that evolution is not consistent with science or with logic so he doesn't believe in it. His chosen belief however, based on a book that he admits is flawed, based on zero direct evidence, and based on biased human emotions and thoughts is at least equally inconsistent (much more inconsistent in my view) with science and logic yet he sees no contridiction there. I wonder why he is so critical of evolution but not of creationism.

And RL, I agree with some of your points about evolution, all of the questions are not answered. Unanswered questions do not disprove evolution. There are unanswered questions about everything in science. If there is ever evidence that disproves evolution then either evolution will go away as being rule of thumb, or the theory of evolution will be modified to accept new parameters. This is normal of all science, scientific theories are working documents and new science, evidence, and tools ALWAYS modify old theories. It's the way of the game.

I before you state that I reject creationism because I beleive in evolution, I'll assure you I don't. I reject Christianity because of it many other beliefs, practices, and for the simple fact that it is a man made, false religion. I would think that the simple fact that 1) the book says that it is 100% the true word spoken by god and 2) you don't believe that this statement is true, would be more than enough reason to not trust anything you believe about this book.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

There are plenty of other possible answers besides evolution and creation.

Name a few.

Eorl wrote:

I wasn't asking why you are sure evolution is wrong, I was asking why you are sure creation is right.

Right now we are talking about creation,.

The topic is 'Creationism is false' which you don't seem to want to defend or provide evidence in support of.

Eorl wrote:

as defined by a bible you admit you cannot trust.

Where did I say that?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Eorl wrote:
There are plenty of other possible answers besides evolution and creation.

I wasn't asking why you are sure evolution is wrong, I was asking why you are sure creation is right.

Right now we are talking about creation, as defined by a bible you admit you cannot trust.

This is where I break down and want to cry when talking to creationists.

Most of them will admit that they don't belive the bible to be 100% true. That's easy to get them to admit.

When they do admit it though, and you ask them a question similar to the one you asked about how they know that the creation story is true when they've admitted that they don't believe that other parts are true, then they start being completly illogical again.

RL stated that evolution is not consistent with science or with logic so he doesn't believe in it. His chosen belief however, based on a book that he admits is flawed, based on zero direct evidence, and based on biased human emotions and thoughts is at least equally inconsistent (much more inconsistent in my view) with science and logic yet he sees no contridiction there. I wonder why he is so critical of evolution but not of creationism.

And RL, I agree with some of your points about evolution, all of the questions are not answered. Unanswered questions do not disprove evolution. There are unanswered questions about everything in science. If there is ever evidence that disproves evolution then either evolution will go away as being rule of thumb, or the theory of evolution will be modified to accept new parameters. This is normal of all science, scientific theories are working documents and new science, evidence, and tools ALWAYS modify old theories. It's the way of the game.

I before you state that I reject creationism because I beleive in evolution, I'll assure you I don't. I reject Christianity because of it many other beliefs, practices, and for the simple fact that it is a man made, false religion. I would think that the simple fact that 1) the book says that it is 100% the true word spoken by god and 2) you don't believe that this statement is true, would be more than enough reason to not trust anything you believe about this book.

Same question as for Eorl, where did I say that?

You have apparently misunderstood something I said, or perhaps are attributing someone else's remark to me.

0 Replies

You're right, real life. My apologies. I read "Yes, I do think it impossible" as "Yes, I do think it possible" - completely opposite meaning.

So you really think every word of your copy of the bible is your god's word? (serious, not sarcasm)

As for alternatives to evo/creation....how about alien seeding of the planet? The point is, we are talking about creation. Let's stick to that. We have enough threads on evolution already, and as you are well aware, falsifying evolution does not validate creation one bit.

0 Replies

Evolution is false. Creationism is false.

The world came to be as a result of someone in the future trying to call a friend, but dialing a wrong number that led to no one, resulting in a looped signal in the wires that went completely awol.

You cannot prove that this is not so, therefore it must be true. Twisted Evil

That is the form of logic that defends creationism.

0 Replies

True, Cyracuz.

Creationism, as literally described in most bibles, can easily be proved false, as has been for along time. That won't stop people saying "no, it hasn't".

Funny thing about people though....almost everything you can possibly imagine is thought to be true by someone, somewhere.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

You're right, real life. My apologies. I read "Yes, I do think it impossible" as "Yes, I do think it possible" - completely opposite meaning.

Not a prob.

Eorl wrote:

As for alternatives to evo/creation....how about alien seeding of the planet? The point is, we are talking about creation. Let's stick to that. We have enough threads on evolution already, and as you are well aware, falsifying evolution does not validate creation one bit.

Alien seeding of the planet is not an alternative to evolution or creation. It is just a variation of one of them, depending on if you think the aliens were created, or evolved from simpler organisms which sprang to life from dead matter.

Eorl wrote:

So you really think every word of your copy of the bible is your god's word? (serious, not sarcasm)

As for the Bible, yes it is God's word.

But that doesn't mean every statement in it is true. For instance, if someone is recorded in the Bible telling a lie, it doesn't make their lie to be true, nor does it mean that God approves of what they said.

But the Bible is trustworthy, in that, if it says that a person says thus, then that is what they said.

That seems rather basic, but it is often overlooked by the Bible's critics. Context is vital to understanding the Bible.

Eorl wrote:

Creationism, as literally described in most bibles, can easily be proved false

Do so.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
As for alternatives to evo/creation....how about alien seeding of the planet? The point is, we are talking about creation. Let's stick to that. We have enough threads on evolution already, and as you are well aware, falsifying evolution does not validate creation one bit.

Alien seeding of the planet is not an alternative to evolution or creation. It is just a variation of one of them, depending on if you think the aliens were created, or evolved from simpler organisms which sprang to life from dead matter.

Does this mean you are arguing to defend all creation myths, rather than the Christian one, which is just one of many?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Creationism, as literally described in most bibles, can easily be proved false

Do so.

Let's not bother. Your mind-warping denial of simple facts won't achieve anything constructive.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

But the Bible is trustworthy, in that, if it says that a person says thus, then that is what they said.

How do you know that?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

real life wrote:
But the Bible is trustworthy, in that, if it says that a person says thus, then that is what they said.

How do you know that?

Because the Bible tells him so.

0 Replies

Creationism is false

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know