Questions for creationists (pt 12)...?
491506
If you would like to learn about truth, I suggest the King James Bible. Man is very fallible and yet you read man's word before God's.\n\nI would wish you good luck, but you are history.\n\nPsa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
389680
Hey, iloveicecream103, why don't YOU read a book about science, then talk to us about Genesis, if you still can.\n\nFossil layers show change over time.  The lowest layers have species the least like modern species.  As you progress up the fossil record, each layer is consistently more and more like modern organisms.  Creationists have no explanation for this.  They haven't even bothered trying.\n\nComing up the fossil record, you see forms changing over time.  Clams are preceded by animals like clams, but with their shells united.  Before mammals, mammal-like reptiles.  Before reptiles, reptile-like amphibians.  Before amphibians, amphibian-like fish.  Creationists have no explanation for this either, but they have made a few wasted efforts.\n\nThe transitions evolution expects occur.  Creationists can pretend they aren't *really* transitions, they just *look* like transitions, but that's just like a child yelling "DOES NOT" to win an argument.\n\nCreationists especially need to pretend that no transitions between humans and other apes appear.  They claim that all fossils are obviously human or obviously ape.  However, if you examine the claims of multiple creationists, you'll find they disagree on which are "obviously" which.  If it was so freaking obvious, shouldn't they be able to agree?  At least a little?  Here's a chart:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html\n\nThe only thing obvious about it is that the skulls obviously cannot be considered one or the other and must be seen as transitions by any open-minded person.\n\nThe transitions that evolution doesn't want do not occur.  At no point in the fossil record do we find mammal/birds.  At no point do we find any direct transitions between amphibians and mammals.  We don't find any cat/humans either.  Any of these things, if discovered, would scrap evolutionary theory overnight.  Creationists have yet to explain why God made only species that look like they could have evolved.\n\nEven without any notion of progress or change over time in the fossil record, it's sorting would be an embarrassment to creationists.\n\nScientists respect the fossil record and accept it on its own terms.  If oak trees appear on top of tree ferns, oak trees came after tree ferns.  Creationists need to impose explanations to account for their claims that everything existed together at once, but these do not flow naturally from the evidence.  For instance, they have no explanation for why oak trees are found above tree ferns.\n\nCreationists have three explanations for fossil sorting, none of them works at all.\n\n1.  They like to claim that fossils are sorted by which species could outrun the rising floodwaters (they blame Noah’s' flood for everything they can't explain).  This would mean that moles and sloths can run faster than velociraptors, Oak trees and mangroves can run faster than velociraptors as well.  Velociraptors run at the same speed as tree ferns.  It is also useless for explaining why ichthyosaurs and dolphins are never found together.\n\n2.  They claim that different species occur in different ecological zones, thus would form in different layers.  This fails again.  Mangroves are found in the lowest ecological zone of any flowering plants, but the highest levels of the fossil record.  Oak trees are found high with mangroves, instead of low in the plains.  Tree ferns should be found with oaks.  Moles should be beneath velociraptors again, and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found with dolphins.\n\n3.  They claim that the mechanical action of the flood should sort things.  Well, it should.  Too bad such sorting doesn't look at all like what is seen.  Mangroves sink, for example.  So do waterlogged oaks.  Moles are bullet shaped and would sink faster than light-boned velociraptors.  Dolphins and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found together.\n\nCreationists have lots of explanations for fossil so
172145
This is a question that seems to come up a lot, but I love it anyway!\nIf the Bible is really God's word, then there is no problem at all with a literal 6 day creation story. (If you try to change that, then you have death before Adam sinned, and Eve could not be the mother of all living, etc ... disbelieving a literal 6 day creation will make you throw out more of the rest of the Bible than you get to keep.)\nI agree with the perspective that God could have created the earth with the appearance of age, created stars with light-years of light coming from them already, etc... I mean, if God can create everything, He can create it however he likes. (Side note on the age of the earth, did you know that according to evolution the earth is ageing millions of years per year? - Ask that one sometime!)\n\nBack when Darwin introduced the theory of Evolution to modern history (the idea goes back WAY before Darwin, but that's another story), he stated that for his theory to work, there must be evidence, and speculated on what it COULD look like - None exists today. Christians really dropped the ball on this one, and let this "theory" become equivalent to "science" (science must be observable and repeatable).\n\nIs there PROOF for creation? No (again, scientific proof must be observable and repeatable), there is not PROOF, but there is a lot more reasonable evidence that there is for creation.\n\nRegarding dinosours, the Bible actually speaks of them (and dragons) in the book of Job.\nSome remote cultures (The Congo, the Amazon, etc.) have recent (20th Century) stories of dinosaurs still living.\n\nThere's a lot more, but I don't want to get too long on you, so check out the link below for TONS more info, on this subject.
1099072
Here's a list of silly creationist claims and how to debunk them:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
983838
Darwin never "withdrew" his theory, nice try.\n\nYou're right there were lots of storms and meteorites.  For all we know, life needed a couple of tries to get started.\n\nJust the fact that you are asking whether we came from monkeys or from goo, shows that you either have NO idea what evolution is about or are just trying to get a rise out of people.  You bore me.
680138
I'm having the same issue with my sets of questions (you can click on my avatar to see them).  Almost everyone who replied (one real exception) hasn't even bothered to try to answer the questions.  Yet these same people want creationisim taught in our science classes?\n\nI looked at both of your questions and they were good questions.  You were not doing anything wrong, just asking people to answer them.  I think you really do want to here what their answers are.  If you find any that actually do answer, send them to my questions as well please.
1104157
Good job!\n The timelines are the key to the fallacies in the Evolution THEORY! Oh, did I mention that it IS a THEORY?\n\n Who created the timelines anyway? Scientists.\nThe reason evolution has to REMAIN a theory is because there is no human eyewitness documentation of the timelines...\n\nThis is exactly why every time an Athiest Scientist sets out to prove the Bible wrong....they end up becoming Creation Scientists! Because, if they are TRUTHFUL there IS NO evidence to support Darwins' claims.\n\nCheck it ALL out on...\n\nwww.answersingenesis.org   ~Ken Ham(from Australia)\n\nwww.drdino.com  ~Kent Hovind (American)\n\nBoth of these men have EXTENSIVE info on this subject\n\nYou can find everything you need there and other
912794
That's a great question, esp. since creationists have tried to co-opt evolution to an extent, by saying "Oh, God just took longer than the Bible says" and other claptrap.\n\nI'm not a creationist, but am more interested in the new info on Neanderthals (I majored in Anthropology). Can you add some details to the question and give links to articles? I'd really like to read them! I'm rather behind the times regarding new discoveries, and the Discover Channel's programs about it are SO questionable! I've got to read more!(I'm serious).\n\n***********\n\nThanks---for the links! Can you believe some of the whacko ideas people have? You'd think it hadn't been 150 yrs. since Neanderthal was first found!
607412
I don't see a question here either.  But I think I understand what you're saying.  However, you did get a lot of people who answered your last question.\n\nI usually get the run around and no real answers when I ask creationists questions as well (just click on my icon to see/answer them).
304551
Tell you what.  Spend six weeks in a biology lab with some species with very short life/reproductive cycles--say, drosophila or flatworms--and they'll be your witnesses to evolution.  Is it easy to argue against the existence of something one can actually see happening in front of one?  For example, how do you explain the constant mutation of the flu virus.  It's not a point of theory--it's an observable fact.  So, how does that happen, if there's no evolution?  You see my point:  we don't need "witnesses," because we have real empirical evidence.\n\nBut in any case, it doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe.  There is room both for your cosmology and for mine in the world.\n\nWhat does matter is what is taught in school.  As of yet, right-wing Christian evangelicals have not succeeded in imposing their particular worldview on the entire country by changing our laws into Evangelical Christian shariah, and our schools into Evangelical Christian madrassas, despite their repeated efforts.  Until that time, it does matter that science, not religion, is what we study in science class.\n\nBy the way, try reading other eye-witness accounts to the creation of the world.  Upon what basis, other than your community's belief, is your religious creation myth more demonstrably true than that of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Baha'is, Jains, etc.?  Show me the legitimate, objective, neutral, non-theological criteria that proves your book's eyewitness account more true than theirs, and you might have made a real point.  Until then, not really.\n\n(By the way, any answer that says the Bible has the true answer "because the Bible says so" would not count as a reason outside your faith system.  I'm not saying you're wrong--just that that's not science.)
837015
hold on, lmme read. \n\nill add my own after.\n\nokay wel lthese arent exactly funny biut theyre true.\n\n1. you defend Ted Haggard, even though hes a Crystal Meth smokin, gay prostitute bangin' hypocrite.\n\n2. regardless of the massive amoutns of corroberating evidence that supports evolution you still claim that evolution has no foot to stand on.\n\n3. you claim that the vast majority of scientists actually beleive in god but, so they can continue to beleive othersise, deny his existence. \n\n4. single celled organisms eventually becoming multicelled organisms is laughable. but believing that god taook the form of a talking, burning (yet nonconsuming) shrubbery isperfectly logical.\n\n\nso yeah...not so funny....i think im gonna create my own list.
1164312
Yet another interesting question, man_id.\n\nAll a theory of abiogenesis can do is give an answer for how life-from-non-life is *possible*.  ... I.e. what ingredients and conditions might result in a replication system that is sufficient for natural selection to take over?  And which ones *may* have been present in the early days of the earth (knowing what we do know about those days)?  There may, in fact, be multiple answers ... many different recipes, all equally possible.  If so, then we may never know which one actually occurred on our planet.\n\nBut it is also possible that we may never find a recipe that works that we know might have been available in the earth's infancy.  We've only started looking.
57150
Hot topic! Woo-eee. This is one of the creationist versus non-creationist hot potatoes!\n\nHere's why, some creationists say if the sun were shrinking steadily, then a  long time ago, it might have been so big and hot as to turn the surface of the Earth into a pit of fire. So nothing would be alive, say when the Earth was a billion years old.\n\nScientists who study the Sun believe that it is a huge ball of glowing gases and matter. Gravity wants to pull all the stuff together, to shrink it. Heat from nuclear and other reactions in the center of the sun wants to blast it all away, to make it grow.\n\nThe Sun seems to have reached a temporary balance point and so it is the size that it is right now.\n\nSome observations were thought to show that the Sun was shrinking during 6 years of monitoring.\n\nOther studies show that the Sun might sometimes expand and shrink at different times. Just like a candle flame will flare up and then settle down again.\n\nThere are no mainstream scientists claiming that the Sun has been STEADILY shrinking since the beginning. They are only investigating to see what might be happening.\n\nSome astronomy research about the possibility of the Sun shrinking has been used by some groups such as the Institute for Creation Research as evidence for a young Earth. The idea being that this research agrees with their way of reading Holy Scripture. Their view is that the Earth is not very old.\n\nOther writers point out that the astronomy research about the size of the sun is interesting and important work about small-scale, and SHORT-TERM changes in stellar structure. And it may or may not have anything to add to the creation debate.\n\nMost solar research and theory shows that stars are initially formed by coalescing matter -- they shrink. But only until a balance is reached. Then over long periods of time stars might oscillate in size as different types of chemical and nuclear reactions take place. Some stars become super-giants, others zoom outward and then crush inwards to tiny sizes. \n\nThese are just theories based on mathematical models and observations of different sized suns and novas. No one knows for sure in a secular sense.
476875
Look through the website linked below. It answers pretty much all the points that creationists keep bringing up over and over.
742072
What is the creationist response to feathered dinosaurs?\n\nThey stick their head in the sand and repeat over and over, "I believe the Bible, I believe the Babble."
632
I happen to agree that evolution may not be the way god chose to create the world. There must be an intelligent designer - the more I learn science the more I see that must be true. I've watched dr dinos vids and as a scientist I see a lot of cool stuff, but also a bunch of flaws - I loved his work on dinosaurs though.\nThe only scientific evidence for evolution that really leaves me hanging is radioisotope degradation (I can see around C14, but what about the others)\nAnyone want to explain a way around that...I'd be interested!
291165
Yes. I am a firm creationist, and speak out against evoulutionists reguarly. \n\nGo to drdino.com for more info on how creation is supported by facts, and how evolution is supported by assumptions.