Creationism

  • 346 Replies
  • 40145 Views
?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Creationism
« Reply #330 on: October 22, 2010, 09:53:46 AM »
It still doesn't make much sense.

No what doesn't make sense is the atheist fairytale of origins:

''One day in the primordial soup a piece of something got struck by lightening, then started life and after millions or billions of years evolved''

"A wizard did it"
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: Creationism
« Reply #331 on: October 22, 2010, 09:58:00 AM »
It still doesn't make much sense.

No what doesn't make sense is the atheist fairytale of origins:

''One day in the primordial soup a piece of something got struck by lightening, then started life and after millions or billions of years evolved''

It arguably makes more sense than an imaginary dude in the Sky sending dead people to imaginary places of paradise or eternal torture.  I could go on and on.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Creationism
« Reply #332 on: October 22, 2010, 10:00:17 AM »
It still doesn't make much sense.

No what doesn't make sense is the atheist fairytale of origins:

''One day in the primordial soup a piece of something got struck by lightening, then started life and after millions or billions of years evolved''

It arguably makes more sense than an imaginary dude in the Sky sending dead people to imaginary places of paradise or eternal torture.  I could go on and on.

Please don't. You suck at lampooning.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: Creationism
« Reply #333 on: October 22, 2010, 10:03:31 AM »
 :(

Re: Creationism
« Reply #334 on: October 22, 2010, 11:19:28 AM »
It still doesn't make much sense.

No what doesn't make sense is the atheist fairytale of origins:

''One day in the primordial soup a piece of something got struck by lightening, then started life and after millions or billions of years evolved''

It arguably makes more sense than an imaginary dude in the Sky sending dead people to imaginary places of paradise or eternal torture.  I could go on and on.

Abiogenesis was debunked in the 19th century, this is why every atheist now just replies ''i don't know'' in responce to the question of how the universe or life started.

So at the end of the day, atheists have no answers, they completely fail.
RETIRED

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Creationism
« Reply #335 on: October 22, 2010, 11:32:33 AM »
Damn, I had no idea abiogenesis was disproven. How was that accomplished, exactly?

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Creationism
« Reply #336 on: October 22, 2010, 11:32:46 AM »
If you're referring to Louis Pasteur's experiments, then I suppose a certain kind of abiogenesis has been debunked, the kind that says that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.
Pasteur knew absolutely nothing about self-replicating molecules, and none of his experiments tested them.
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

Re: Creationism
« Reply #337 on: October 22, 2010, 11:35:55 AM »
Damn, I had no idea abiogenesis was disproven. How was that accomplished, exactly?

How was the universe created? How did life start?

No evolutionist/atheist can ever answer. Note the title of Darwins book ''Origin of Species'', but he never could adress his own title. Darwin did not know the origin of anything.
RETIRED

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Creationism
« Reply #338 on: October 22, 2010, 11:38:26 AM »
Despite the title of the book, evolution is not the theory of how life began.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Creationism
« Reply #339 on: October 22, 2010, 11:40:26 AM »
Damn, I had no idea abiogenesis was disproven. How was that accomplished, exactly?

How was the universe created? How did life start?

No evolutionist/atheist can ever answer. Note the title of Darwins book ''Origin of Species'', but he never could adress his own title. Darwin did not know the origin of anything.

So because there is no explanation, it is disproven?

Once again, I ask:

Damn, I had no idea abiogenesis was disproven. How was that accomplished, exactly?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Creationism
« Reply #340 on: October 22, 2010, 01:01:32 PM »
Actually, abiogenisis has been proven to be very capable of happening by Dr. Jack Szostak.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

and a video that explains extremely clearly how, not only can the nucleotides occur, but reproduce and evolve.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Creationism
« Reply #341 on: October 23, 2010, 12:54:41 AM »
It still doesn't make much sense.

No what doesn't make sense is the atheist fairytale of origins:

''One day in the primordial soup a piece of something got struck by lightening, then started life and after millions or billions of years evolved''

"A wizard did it"

"I hate stories about good wizards... they always turn out to be about him..."

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Creationism
« Reply #342 on: October 27, 2010, 07:01:02 AM »
If the universe was designed for life its a horribly inefficient design. We can only live on a tiny bit of one tiny planet on one tiny solar system in one tiny galaxy; even assuming life blooms around every star, most of the universe is inhospitable.

The equivalent would be a farmer with 1,000 acres at his disposal and only growing one limp blade of grass in the middle of it. He would not be hailed as a successful farmer.

Actually it's been proven if the earth was only a few miles closer to the sun it would burn up because of the heat, and secondly if it was further away would be too cold and everything would die. The earth is therefore perfectly positioned to substain life.

Yes, indeed. Except for the fact that the distance between the Earth and the sun varies by about 5 million kilometres from the apsis to the periapsis, and your post is bullshit.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Creationism
« Reply #343 on: October 27, 2010, 07:22:00 AM »
Plus, the Earth has life because the conditions are good.
Conditions have not made good with the purpose of the earth to hold life.

It's a coincidence, something that had to happen somewhere in an "infinite" universe with potentially "infinite" combinations of planets, their conditions, and their distance to its stars.
Probably there is another civilization 48548538452985 trillion light-years away (random number), talking about this too.
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

Re: Creationism
« Reply #344 on: October 27, 2010, 01:59:17 PM »
Woah...

So the OP is trying to disprove evolution on the basis of a lack of observable/testable evidence...while supporting creationism?

Creationism has NO evidence supporting it.  Not observational, not experimental, not theoretical.  None.  Therefore, to argue against evolution on the basis of lack of evidence is hypocritical.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Creationism
« Reply #345 on: October 27, 2010, 02:20:19 PM »
Woah...

So the OP is trying to disprove evolution on the basis of a lack of observable/testable evidence...while supporting creationism?

Creationism has NO evidence supporting it.  Not observational, not experimental, not theoretical.  None.  Therefore, to argue against evolution on the basis of lack of evidence is hypocritical.

Technically right. However, The Bible is used as evidence in favour of Creationism, as if it were real evidence.

Re: Creationism
« Reply #346 on: October 30, 2010, 12:43:13 AM »
Woah...

So the OP is trying to disprove evolution on the basis of a lack of observable/testable evidence...while supporting creationism?

Creationism has NO evidence supporting it.  Not observational, not experimental, not theoretical.  None.  Therefore, to argue against evolution on the basis of lack of evidence is hypocritical.
Just foolish.
In another forum, the original poster was adamant that creation in six days as given in Genesis was fact.