15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

Scientific American ^ | 17 June 2002 | John Rennie

[Dimensio]

Okay, I'll admit that I'm aware of the usage of the term "The Father" when referring to the Christian concept of "God". Claiming that I'm making you sick by denying this "Father" begs the question that this "Father" exists in the first place, but I can't very well do that if no one bothers to provide evidence as to this "Father's" existence.

[newcats]

Nice self-portrait there bud.....

[disgustedvet]

You just don't get it. I'm not going to waste my time debating "scientific facts" with another. Why? Because I choose to believe in what I read in the Bible. Period.

The problem, as I see it, is that many of those that promote the theory of evolution do so at the expense of my religion. That is truly the part that makes me sick. People that search for pieces of wood from Noah's ark, all the while saying they will believe in God if they find a tangible object that could prove to them that what they read in the Bible is true. To me, those people have already missed the boat. I believe in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not because of what a scientist tells me is possible, but on pure faith. I cannot prove to a scientist that God exists, but all I need to do to prove it to myself is look outside my window every morning. So, when you say that I came from a monkey, you attack my religion because I believe that God created me in his own form. You ask me for scientific evidence of why I believe that, and when I can't show you your scientific evidence, you throw out all of your own scientific evidence in favor of evolution. and attempt to label me as closed minded, uneducated etc.

I guess we will find out who is right and who is wrong on Judgement Day. That is, if you believe there will be a Judgement Day. After all, I have no scientific data to prove to all the evolutionists that it will, in fact, happen.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Wow. With all that brain power, you'd think you might dispense with the school yard name calling. Then again, intelligence often finds company with arrogance, and I guess you're no exception. You should try to hide it a little better though. It might make for a more convincing case.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Who have I called names? Pointing out behavior isn't name calling.

[AndrewC]

That nothing has a purpose insomuch as I don't buy into the "God wanted another angel with Him" B.S. that I often hear when I loved one dies.

It must come as a shock to you that everyone dies.

[jlogajan]

I'm not going to waste my time debating "scientific facts" with another. Why? Because I choose to believe in what I read in the Bible. Period.

We understand this about religionists. The very idea of looking at the world around them with an inquisitive eye is frightning, lest they see something that doesn't square with the literal Bible -- and thus raise doubts that surely threaten eternal hell fires.

Be safe. Keep thy nose in the Bible. Look not out your windows. Only the forbidden fruit of knowledge lurks out there. Avert thine eyes.

[Dimensio]

Okay, I think I understand your point. You are upset because observed reality apparently contradicts what you believe is history (such as a global flood) and you find the idea of evolution "insulting" (despite the fact that your personal opinion of evolution is irrelevant to its truth value) because of your misconception that it teaches that "man came from monkey". You are, as I ascertained previously, unwilling to trade your faith in when observation suggests that your faith might not reflect reality -- at least not with 100% accuracy -- and the idea that reality might not conform to your faith disturbs you. You cling to your faith by looking out your window and convincing yourself that it all must be a miracle because you personally cannot imagine how it could come into being otherwise.

[jlogajan]

It must come as a shock to you that everyone dies.

What? Are you on the same meds as f.christian???

[Diamond]

I started off as a Creationist. Then I saw the light (or I 'strayed away from the light' as some might say, lol)

. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of the of men.
. The Light shines in the darkness , and the darkness did not comprehend it.

. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Cordially,

[AndrewC]

ID is not falsifiable in any way, shape or form and is thus not science.

B, I, J, and 1

[That Subliminal Kid]

Man, I'm continually blown away by your even handed rationalism. LOL!

[general_re]

Pointing out behavior isn't name calling.

Yeah I tried to make that exact same point on Friday, but it didn't fly.

[Dimensio]

AndrewC's statement was grammatically correct, down to the punctuation. It was a complete sentence with a subject and a predicate. Please do not unfairly compare that post to anything that f.Christian has "offered" (save the cut-and-paste postings).

[That Subliminal Kid]

Anything can be chalked up to "chance did it".

They have God of the gaps, you have chance of the gaps. Everyone has their own little deity.

And of course ID can be falsified. Just produce a natural mechanism by which non-living matter self-assembles, simultaneously acquires the ability to convert raw energy, and subsequently increases in biological informational complexity such that it can or would empirically produce all the wide and varied forms we have today. When you do that, and stop pointing to crystal formations and crowing about chaos theory, you'll have falsified ID. Good luck!

[jlogajan]

Pointing out behavior isn't name calling.

Ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance. Both behavior and name calling are irrelevant. Logical arguments stand or fall on their own merits and have nothing to do with the personalities or characteristics of those who argue for or against them.

[Dimensio]

Just produce a natural mechanism by which non-living matter self-assembles, simultaneously acquires the ability to convert raw energy, and subsequently increases in biological informational complexity such that it can or would empirically produce all the wide and varied forms we have today.

I'm curious, does ID rely on this being completely impossible? Evolution theory does not state that intelligent design is completley impossible, it is simply a theory on species origins that does not involve intelligent design and as such discovering that intelligent design is possible would not falsify evolution.

If what you stated above were observed, why would that rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer?

[JediGirl]

It must come as a shock to you that everyone dies.

*GASP* You don't say!?! My point exactly--that is why I get sick of the bull excuses. Everyone dies. It's sad. There is no way to make it sweet so let's not pass out the "She's in a better place" schlock.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Ironically, it is evolution that cannot be falsified. Science as it is defined will conclude that life arose as a gradual natural process over time. Because science assumes 1) naturalism and 2) passage of time. But I'm sure you already knew that :)

[smith288]

So science can't prove that God doesn't exist, but it can show in most day to day events that he doesn't intervene with means that are disallowed by standard physics theories.

I would be interested in seeing research that would prove Gods hand not involved.