Why are creationists so against evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2015, 01:43 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(28-06-2015 10:53 PM)RDK Wrote:  Paul repeats himself twice about the blindness of people who are putting their beliefs in the O.T.
Oh, you mean just like people putting their faith in the NT these days? Now I get it.

(28-06-2015 10:53 PM)RDK Wrote:  Christ did not teach us to kill, but to forgive our enemies.
So who taught you christards to kill the 100 - 200 million souls that you did then?

(28-06-2015 10:53 PM)RDK Wrote:  Jesus will not change a standard such as; love your enemies as yourself, if He had the intention of throwing anyone into hell or killing them later on.

jebus couldn't change anything because he didn't exists - so christards had to.

(28-06-2015 10:53 PM)RDK Wrote:  I know that the old and new are completely opposite in their discourses on the nature of God.

Hey, no shit sherlock!

(28-06-2015 10:53 PM)RDK Wrote:  God can not be the way that He is portrayed in the old if Jesus is correct.

So the OT is a lie. Just like the NT. Well, why didn't you say this right at the start. Then, I needn't have wasted my time.

(28-06-2015 10:53 PM)RDK Wrote:  Jesus said; do not throw stones at the lady caught in adultery. He didn't want imperfect people thinking that it was a good thing to do those commands of Moses; kill the adulterers.
So you christards just went ahead anyway and murdered 100 - 200 million souls who didn't agree with your murderous, two-faced cult. Good oh.

(28-06-2015 10:53 PM)RDK Wrote:  Most Christians don't read enough of their own book to find these things.

Let's face it, it's not the only thing that most christards don't do.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 02:06 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(28-06-2015 10:21 PM)RDK Wrote:  Would you like some scientific evidence against evolution? Try this; it is impossible. What you see in animals that change over time is adaptation, an ability of advanced life forms ( and some not so advanced). Life should certainly have had no problem organizing all of the necessary parts to create a self replicating organism, right? Impossible!. How can I say this? All creatures, no matter how simple, are made up of all of their needed parts in order to exist. If any one needed part is not there, the organism ceases to be. In other words, each animal, cell, creature, in existence, is a coordinated system, with all of it's parts working together for the life of the whole. A system CAN NOT EVOLVE! Each part of the creature had to start off life all at once since each part of the creature needs the support of all of the other parts AT ONCE or the organism never sees life for the first time. Said again another way; without the support of all of the parts that make a complete whole, all of them have to begin at the same time. Would you still think that it takes years to complete the process? Again I say impossible! A half formed organism would never have the time to wait for all of the needed parts to arrive before that creature ever got a start. This applies to the simplest cells. Each cell requires thousands of chemical reactions and processes to operate simultaneously in order for that cell to have its start. Once they do, they also have to operate within a complete set of operating instructions so each part can be reproduced at a later time. Could millions of bits of instructions just be waiting around in the environment for the happen-chance arrangement to be perfected before establishing reproduction? What could possibly be the reason for those astronomical odds and chance just be waiting around for the first available cell to jump into? No reason at all could explain how reproduction could get it's start this way, especially when the first cells did not even have all of it's parts ready yet in order to survive. Accidental arrangements do not happen. You would have to expect that in-numerable atomic reactions and connections to happen to organize an incredibly complex system that could support life, with absolutely no reason, to make ANYTHING AT ALL! The intelligent design argument means that all of these reactions would happen at one time so that all of the independent parts could support each other for life.
It's amazing to me to think that all of our reasoning about evolution begins backwards-intelligent creatures that have the ability to reproduce, change over time, adapt to suit their environment as times and places change, all of this getting people to believe that it must have started this way. If the ideas currently accepted for evolution are true, they have to work for everything right from the beginning. No evolutionist starts from the beginning-that's bio-genesis don't you see. That certainly can have nothing to do with evolution. The beginning of life should establish the pattern by which all life exists. Let's establish the needed life parameters right from the start and advance from there. That is the problem with conventional thinking on this subject. Simple parts do not gather together to make anything called life. Remember, a system can not evolve. All of the needed parts have to be assembled together at the same moment for life to start. If a key component in a cell is not there yet, there is no life, and non- life can't reproduce to make more non-life.
This concept of life's beginnings is certainly a shock to those whose faith is in the scientist who does everything in his power to prove to us that God can not exist. I say, think again. Maybe the Biblical events that speak of creation are figurative, and not precise in any scientific way, it still can contain some general themes for us to think about when we wonder where we came from.

There are no awards given here for the longest paragraph.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
29-06-2015, 03:19 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 01:43 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  So who taught you christards to kill the 100 - 200 million souls that you did then?
Citation? I mean, it seems like a lot... Consider

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 04:15 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(28-06-2015 10:21 PM)RDK Wrote:  Would you like some scientific evidence against evolution? Try this; it is impossible. What you see in animals that change over time is adaptation, an ability of advanced life forms ( and some not so advanced). Life should certainly have had no problem organizing all of the necessary parts to create a self replicating organism, right? Impossible!. How can I say this? All creatures, no matter how simple, are made up of all of their needed parts in order to exist. If any one needed part is not there, the organism ceases to be. In other words, each animal, cell, creature, in existence, is a coordinated system, with all of it's parts working together for the life of the whole. A system CAN NOT EVOLVE! Each part of the creature had to start off life all at once since each part of the creature needs the support of all of the other parts AT ONCE or the organism never sees life for the first time. Said again another way; without the support of all of the parts that make a complete whole, all of them have to begin at the same time. Would you still think that it takes years to complete the process? Again I say impossible! A half formed organism would never have the time to wait for all of the needed parts to arrive before that creature ever got a start. This applies to the simplest cells. Each cell requires thousands of chemical reactions and processes to operate simultaneously in order for that cell to have its start. Once they do, they also have to operate within a complete set of operating instructions so each part can be reproduced at a later time. Could millions of bits of instructions just be waiting around in the environment for the happen-chance arrangement to be perfected before establishing reproduction? What could possibly be the reason for those astronomical odds and chance just be waiting around for the first available cell to jump into? No reason at all could explain how reproduction could get it's start this way, especially when the first cells did not even have all of it's parts ready yet in order to survive. Accidental arrangements do not happen. You would have to expect that in-numerable atomic reactions and connections to happen to organize an incredibly complex system that could support life, with absolutely no reason, to make ANYTHING AT ALL! The intelligent design argument means that all of these reactions would happen at one time so that all of the independent parts could support each other for life.
It's amazing to me to think that all of our reasoning about evolution begins backwards-intelligent creatures that have the ability to reproduce, change over time, adapt to suit their environment as times and places change, all of this getting people to believe that it must have started this way. If the ideas currently accepted for evolution are true, they have to work for everything right from the beginning. No evolutionist starts from the beginning-that's bio-genesis don't you see. That certainly can have nothing to do with evolution. The beginning of life should establish the pattern by which all life exists. Let's establish the needed life parameters right from the start and advance from there. That is the problem with conventional thinking on this subject. Simple parts do not gather together to make anything called life. Remember, a system can not evolve. All of the needed parts have to be assembled together at the same moment for life to start. If a key component in a cell is not there yet, there is no life, and non- life can't reproduce to make more non-life.
This concept of life's beginnings is certainly a shock to those whose faith is in the scientist who does everything in his power to prove to us that God can not exist. I say, think again. Maybe the Biblical events that speak of creation are figurative, and not precise in any scientific way, it still can contain some general themes for us to think about when we wonder where we came from.

Your ignorance and incredulity are not an answer, they are a problem.

You do not understand evolutionary theory - you have a cartoon version of it in your head.

Read a book. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
29-06-2015, 04:18 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 03:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 01:43 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  So who taught you christards to kill the 100 - 200 million souls that you did then?
Citation? I mean, it seems like a lot... Consider

http://markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

The point is: If christinsanity is the peaceful, loving and understanding religion that it claims to be, there shouldn't have been any deaths at all.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
29-06-2015, 07:42 AM
Why are creationists so against evolution?
(07-05-2015 07:21 PM)peacefrog Wrote:  Of course, the answer to us is obvious. But firm their perspective, why are they so opposed to investigating it? Why do they not believe that, if creationism was true, the evidence would lead scientists to that conclusion?

Cultural mindset.

I think about it this way. If someone is so confident in their opinion being correct that they'll express it publicly with confidence, then they probably both really believe it and aren't willing to consider it to be false. You have a lot of people around the world who grow up with these arrogant morons preaching confident ignorance to them most of their lives (and perhaps even more critically, preaching to them during their formative years).

When I look at it this way, I'm not surprised at all that there are so many creationists. Or theists in general.

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
29-06-2015, 07:43 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
They're dumbasses!

Pretty simple really. The creationists I mean. Wink

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
29-06-2015, 09:38 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(28-06-2015 10:21 PM)RDK Wrote:  Would you like some scientific evidence against evolution? Try this; it is impossible. What you see in animals that change over time is adaptation, an ability of advanced life forms ( and some not so advanced). Life should certainly have had no problem organizing all of the necessary parts to create a self replicating organism, right? Impossible!. How can I say this? All creatures, no matter how simple, are made up of all of their needed parts in order to exist. If any one needed part is not there, the organism ceases to be. In other words, each animal, cell, creature, in existence, is a coordinated system, with all of it's parts working together for the life of the whole. A system CAN NOT EVOLVE! Each part of the creature had to start off life all at once since each part of the creature needs the support of all of the other parts AT ONCE or the organism never sees life for the first time. Said again another way; without the support of all of the parts that make a complete whole, all of them have to begin at the same time. Would you still think that it takes years to complete the process? Again I say impossible! A half formed organism would never have the time to wait for all of the needed parts to arrive before that creature ever got a start. This applies to the simplest cells. Each cell requires thousands of chemical reactions and processes to operate simultaneously in order for that cell to have its start. Once they do, they also have to operate within a complete set of operating instructions so each part can be reproduced at a later time. Could millions of bits of instructions just be waiting around in the environment for the happen-chance arrangement to be perfected before establishing reproduction? What could possibly be the reason for those astronomical odds and chance just be waiting around for the first available cell to jump into? No reason at all could explain how reproduction could get it's start this way, especially when the first cells did not even have all of it's parts ready yet in order to survive. Accidental arrangements do not happen. You would have to expect that in-numerable atomic reactions and connections to happen to organize an incredibly complex system that could support life, with absolutely no reason, to make ANYTHING AT ALL! The intelligent design argument means that all of these reactions would happen at one time so that all of the independent parts could support each other for life.
It's amazing to me to think that all of our reasoning about evolution begins backwards-intelligent creatures that have the ability to reproduce, change over time, adapt to suit their environment as times and places change, all of this getting people to believe that it must have started this way. If the ideas currently accepted for evolution are true, they have to work for everything right from the beginning. No evolutionist starts from the beginning-that's bio-genesis don't you see. That certainly can have nothing to do with evolution. The beginning of life should establish the pattern by which all life exists. Let's establish the needed life parameters right from the start and advance from there. That is the problem with conventional thinking on this subject. Simple parts do not gather together to make anything called life. Remember, a system can not evolve. All of the needed parts have to be assembled together at the same moment for life to start. If a key component in a cell is not there yet, there is no life, and non- life can't reproduce to make more non-life.
This concept of life's beginnings is certainly a shock to those whose faith is in the scientist who does everything in his power to prove to us that God can not exist. I say, think again. Maybe the Biblical events that speak of creation are figurative, and not precise in any scientific way, it still can contain some general themes for us to think about when we wonder where we came from.

You should perhaps look into the concept of scaffolding.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 07:43 AM)Banjo Wrote:  They're dumbasses!

Pretty simple really. The creationists I mean. Wink

I opened up this thread to post, "They are stupid assholes." but you've basically beat me to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 10:40 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 07:43 AM)Banjo Wrote:  They're dumbasses!

Pretty simple really. The creationists I mean. Wink

I opened up this thread to post, "They are stupid assholes." but you've basically beat me to it.

Well I am dead bored and cannot sleep. What possible chance did you have. Smartass

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: