Why are creationists so against evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-06-2015, 06:48 AM
Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 09:11 PM)RDK Wrote:  To all who seam interested about the incredulity of the beginnings of life the evolutionary way, consider this. Has anyone ever calculated the odds against a single cell organism which has been reproducing just fine by dividing into multi-millions of themselves, then later begin to reproduce with a mate. What is so incredible about this impossibility is that this single cell has to automatically need to find a mate cell which has the same intentions at the same time for conjugation to occur. What a happen-chance bunch of crap that is. For any creature to have ventured off a tried and true method of making more of themselves, a rebel in the group decides its time to do it another way.
This can not happen! Both cells would have had to develop a method simultaneously for any chance of a coupling to occur. and as for coupling...that would not have happened without a very difficult set of design issues which would have to change for both just for this chance to occur. To say that this obtuse idea is the rule for creation is just a farce.
Someone does not have to study about a complex method called adaptation to reason out that life did not have that capability until it was later designed in. In nature, creatures usually only make copies of themselves, and do not have the foresight to adjust themselves to be something else.

Your straw man version of the evolution of sexual reproduction is bad, real bad.

Eukaryotic cells evolved first from symbiotic relationships among bacteria. THEN sex evolves as a means of exchanging genetic information to increase genetic diversity. The more genetically diverse group (the one that could both sexually and asexually reproduce) had a fitness advantage and sex as a means of reproduction persisted in the population.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
30-06-2015, 06:55 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 09:11 PM)RDK Wrote:  To all who seam interested about the incredulity of the beginnings of life the evolutionary way, consider this. Has anyone ever calculated the odds against a single cell organism which has been reproducing just fine by dividing into multi-millions of themselves, then later begin to reproduce with a mate. What is so incredible about this impossibility is that this single cell has to automatically need to find a mate cell which has the same intentions at the same time for conjugation to occur. What a happen-chance bunch of crap that is. For any creature to have ventured off a tried and true method of making more of themselves, a rebel in the group decides its time to do it another way.
This can not happen! Both cells would have had to develop a method simultaneously for any chance of a coupling to occur. and as for coupling...that would not have happened without a very difficult set of design issues which would have to change for both just for this chance to occur. To say that this obtuse idea is the rule for creation is just a farce.
Someone does not have to study about a complex method called adaptation to reason out that life did not have that capability until it was later designed in. In nature, creatures usually only make copies of themselves, and do not have the foresight to adjust themselves to be something else.

Are you home-schooled? Consider

Are you in your teens? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-06-2015, 06:56 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 10:57 PM)RDK Wrote:  Reason is evidence.

No, it isn't. Reason is a tool for understanding the evidence you actually have and for determining what new evidence to look for. If you base your reasoning on faulty premises the result is not knowledge but, at best, speculation.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
30-06-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 10:03 PM)RDK Wrote:  A faith based system functions very well if it works to prove something which can substantiate it's own existence. I prefer to use the word trust. If you begin to see an idea form and you work with it until it makes sense, you can have faith that more of the same is likely to follow. I don't mean reading a lot of things in a book that you can't understand. That faith/trust arrangement needs to mean something that is good for you, and others, for it to have any value at all. It must be repeatable and worthwhile for you to expend the extra energy.
I believe that the intentions of most people are to search out what makes sense and what is valuable in life. I won't begin to try to defend people who claim God is in their life, and they do horrible things to others which cancels out their good achievements.
I think that the Bible is one of the most difficult books to understand. You can find any evidence in there to support whatever opinions that you have-God is love, God is hate, etc. Without direction we are left to guess at what might be a correct answer.
For me, love and kindness are my greatest aspirations. Nothing else that I have done has left anything good in my life to talk about at all. Simple. I seek simple.

Yes, the bible is bunk. So you made up your own religion, your own science and then just use rehashed creationism and stale Christian concepts of god and rebranded it as the Truth, as only you see it.

Of course with your virtually infinite knowledge of science, religion, archeology, biology, cosmology, etc. you've got it all figured out- god is love man!

There is much deepity and truthiness in you.

[Image: image.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
30-06-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:39 PM)RDK Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 11:18 PM)pablo Wrote:  There is also such a thing as oversimplification.
Such as, replacing logical explanations with magic.
I have included no magic whatsoever. The same rules apply to you and me equally. In order to begin to understand a new concept, you have to put aside what you think you know and try a new method. What you have seen me do here is to show you what can't be, with logic/reasoning. I have not thrown the God blanket on you. You have drawn those conclusions on your own.

Bullshit.
You have not used reason or logic, but insisted that evolution could not have happened because you think the odds are bad.
You cannot grasp it, so it couldn't have happened.

This entire time you have been suggesting life must have had outside help, and now you're trying to tell me I've come up with that idea on my own.
Dishonest little shit aren't ya?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like pablo's post
30-06-2015, 10:49 AM
Why are creationists so against evolution?
(30-06-2015 10:03 AM)pablo Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 11:39 PM)RDK Wrote:  I have included no magic whatsoever. The same rules apply to you and me equally. In order to begin to understand a new concept, you have to put aside what you think you know and try a new method. What you have seen me do here is to show you what can't be, with logic/reasoning. I have not thrown the God blanket on you. You have drawn those conclusions on your own.

Bullshit.
You have not used reason or logic, but insisted that evolution could not have happened because you think the odds are bad.
You cannot grasp it, so it couldn't have happened.

This entire time you have been suggesting life must have had outside help, and now you're trying to tell me I've come up with that idea on my own.
Dishonest little shit aren't ya?

A dishonest theist?!!!! Say it ain't so!!!!!!!





Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
01-07-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
Chas -

Thank DOG you got to that before I arrived here. I was reading this thread and working myself into a WHATTHEFUCK lather, especially over the misrepresentations of science, and had pretty much hit the wall, by the time I got to that horse-hockey about the "sudden" evolution of sexual reproduction, acting as if it's a binary solution-set instead of a dual-method (an ability our own cells still have, essentially, which we call mitosis and meiosis.

So I'm really glad I looked just below, to see your response, and was able to breathe out a "whew!" puff of air before my dogdamned head exploded at that inanity.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 02:36 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2015 02:43 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:23 PM)RDK Wrote:  Spiritual or physical, it makes no difference. You try something...it doesn't work you throw it away. For me, to throw away the obvious bad usually leaves a simpler set of choices to make. If it is confusing or unsubstantial, be it scientific or spiritual, it might be time to discard those ideas and start fresh...the way that a child does. Imagine the possibilities!

Hey, genius...

That's exactly how I became an atheist, after sounding like you in my teenage years.

When I found the Bible to be confusing and unsubstantial (not to mention immoral), the tenets of my church to be out of synch with reality, I discarded those ideas and started fresh.

Why don't you imagine the possibilities of a life where you're constrained by logic and not presupposition? Where you need not hate anyone because God told you they were Bad People? Where you can enjoy your own orgasm any way you want?

Imagine the possibilities!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
03-07-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(07-05-2015 07:47 PM)peacefrog Wrote:  But if you were to ask a creationist why he's anti-evolution, what would he say? He wouldn't say, "Because creationism is a house of cards," even if that's true and he knows it. So what reason would he give? It's the devil's attempt to drive us from Christ?

Speaking as a former young earth creationist Christian, evolution means no Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve, means no original sin. No original sin, means Jesus (being God in the flesh), was crucified and resurrected for nothing (basically making god no't know what he was doing). And all of this means that the bible is errant, fallible, and can't be trusted.

This is why they refuse to educate themselves on the matter. If the bible is errant, fallible, and unable to be trusted, then, in their mind, NO god can possibly exist.
This is due to the mandatory assumption that all non-Christian beliefs are inherently false to begin with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Kaelinn's post
05-07-2015, 05:41 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(30-06-2015 10:03 AM)pablo Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 11:39 PM)RDK Wrote:  I have included no magic whatsoever. The same rules apply to you and me equally. In order to begin to understand a new concept, you have to put aside what you think you know and try a new method. What you have seen me do here is to show you what can't be, with logic/reasoning. I have not thrown the God blanket on you. You have drawn those conclusions on your own.

Bullshit.
You have not used reason or logic, but insisted that evolution could not have happened because you think the odds are bad.
You cannot grasp it, so it couldn't have happened.

This entire time you have been suggesting life must have had outside help, and now you're trying to tell me I've come up with that idea on my own.
Dishonest little shit aren't ya?

All of the life you see around you is organized so that it lives. You can organize chemicals in all sorts of ways, but that does not make it live.

Let me make my explanation even more simple. You must know that life is a collection of things, not just a single thing in and of itself. Is hydrogen alive, oxygen, carbon, etc? These may be components of life, or byproducts from it, but these are atoms with no affiliation for life on their own.

Even a simple cell has multiple components within it, pieces with a joint goal or purpose. Which part do you think is the first most important part to start with to begin this new life. You have to choose one or another to begin a collection. And what is this new part supposed to do while it is waiting for the next important part to float in. This second part has to agree with the first to stay together for awhile while the third part is located.

Oops! The parts dried up while they were waiting. It didn't matter that thousands of parts would have had to accidentally arrange themselves this way. And, that they would have had to jump start together to make the first cell START. C**P!

Each single simple accessory to a cell would consist of more atoms than you could count, and each one of them would have had to wait for each of it's necessary buddies to team up to make that simple little part.

Does all of the dumbness start to make sense yet? You can't simplify the single cell structure by saying it just united with another to make something. It isn't logical and its just not true.

As I said before; You can't organize anything into anything without help from somewhere!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RDK's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: