Are you a creationist?

[Planogirl]

Thanks for posting those because they are fascinating and certainly food for thought. I see them more as possible proof for creationism rather than proof against evolution though.

 

[~Kik-Kik~]

Here's your link, Kik-Kik

Top Evidences for Creation

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-against-evolution-faq.htm

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/scientific_case_against_evolution.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

All of those are good. They all are basically say the same thing. The one you posted and I quoted is abbreviated, I just took out the Bible points. The last one focuses more on the facts and less on the Bible facts and is more in depth.

They are a nice read if you have the time a patience. I find the fossil one the most important of them all personally, though the section on mutations is interesting too.

With all the humans in the world and all the apes around the world you would think a missing link would at least uncommon. It is just impossible to find!

 

[Uncle Remus]

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-against-evolution-faq.htm

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/scientific_case_against_evolution.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

All of those are good. They all are basically say the same thing. The one you posted and I quoted is abbreviated, I just took out the Bible points. The last one focuses more on the facts and less on the Bible facts and is more in depth.

They are a nice read if you have the time a patience. I find the fossil one the most important of them all personally, though the section on mutations is interesting too.

With all the humans in the world and all the apes around the world you would think a missing link would at least uncommon. It is just impossible to find!

Scienists don't give up lookin' for answers, that's one of the beauties of science, they keep learnin' "new stuff."

 

[~Kik-Kik~]

Scienists don't give up lookin' for answers, that's one of the beauties of science, they keep learnin' "new stuff."

I know they never give up, they woulnt be doing their job if they did give up. But like I said, for every new discovery there are 20 mre questions and still hundreds of more things they NEED to discover.

The key missing links are some of the bigger things.

If you only find 1 of something it's hardly evidence.

I want evidence like the coelacanth. That is REAL evidence.

 

[Nomi]

Though not all are perfect here are some.

Sexual Reproduction
Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination. Evolution is suppose to better species; sexual reproduction makes it harder to reproduce, how is that better for a species?

Because asexual reproduction has a very low chance of genetic change or mutation, where in offspring have the benefit of two separate and genetically individual organisms. Plus, remember most bacteria and single celled organisms still reproduce asexually, because the speed at which they reproduce enough changes occur to keep the group of organisms well adapted to it's environment. As organisms get larger, generally, they reproduce slower so it is of more benefit, and worth the resources, to reproduce sexually.

Human Language
Language is one of the main things that separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.

First off, gorillas and chimpanzees use sign language fairly well. All mammals have many means of communication, some more advanced than others. Humans evolved with a brain more suited for language than other mammals, because we relied on our complex social interactions to survive. Human language is just a more complex form of communication.

Also, the bible is not a scientific or historically accurate source. It is only valid to people of one specific faith, please refrain from using it. Just because some old fictional writing 'says so', that doesn't make it true. You still need to provide empirical evidence.

Human Consciousness
A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.

Yes, chemicals and electrical impulses can explain self-awareness (our complex brain allows us to conceive ourselves just like elephants, dolphins, and just about any mammal and some birds), creativity (it's our brain again. And creativity is not just a human trait), reasoning (brain. Gosh, ain't brains cool?), emotions (they are chemicals. Love and hate specifically stem from our evolution in a group setting, pleasure and pain are even more basic and evident in almost all organisms in the animal kingdom, pain keeping us alive and pleasure keeping us doing things that benefit us). Reason is indeed easily explained by neurological processes, though more specific than blind.

Also, what evidence is there for a soul? Not everyone believes in one, I certanly do not.

Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record
The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time (“stasis”). The “Cambrian Explosion” in the “primordial strata” documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation “according to its kind”, and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the “geologic column” and giving the appearance of a “Cambrian Explosion”. Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from “simpler” forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.

First off, there is no evidence for a global flood (a global flood would not produce the geological forms we see and we would have WAY more fossils). Secondly, there are many transitional forms of organisms. The evolution 'explosions' occur when there is a massive change in the environment, meaning that there was more opportunity for organisms to with mutations to take the place of former 'models', if you will. When a species is well adapted to it's environment and that environment is stable, there is no need for evolution. However, when the environment changes, there is an 'explosion' of evolution.
And, dinosaurs were not reptiles but dinosaurs. Reptiles are something different all together. Plus, you've never heard of 'archaeopteryx' or any of the other numerous transitional species between one species of dinosaur (a small raptor species)? There is evidence many dinosaurs had feathers. Plus, as soon as their was flight or even sustained gliding, the organisms with lungs better adaptive to flying would be more successful and able to reproduce more. It makes perfect sense how lungs would change when an organism develops flight.

Fine-tuning of Earth for Life
Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean’s water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth’s circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.

This in particular has nothing to do with evolution, but I'll bite. Lets think here... how many billions of stars are there in this solar system alone? And how many planets orbiting those stars? Thats right, a heck of a lot. Now, on top of that, there are billions of other solar systems. Even with a minimal chance of there being earth like planets, lets say 0.00000001 percent, that still makes for billions of earth like planets.
Also, what makes you think that life could only evolve on an earth-like planet? Sure, earth organisms couldn't survive, but organisms evolving on that planet would be well adapted to those conditions.

The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal “solvent” known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.

Again, even with a minimal chance of water being proficient enough for life, that would still make for billions of planets with enough water to support life . And again, nothing to do with evolution.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.

I know this is bad debate form, but it is late. Please read this: (all CF000's) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF000 Using the second law of thermodynamics improperly is a common fallacy employed by creationists.

Formation of Life
Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.

Heck, you are just going for all the classic creationism arguments aren't you? One, abiogenisis DOES NOT equal evolution, Asking the theory of evolution to explain where we come from is like asking the process of child development to explain where humans come from. It's absurd.

As for the airplane fallacy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

Design of Living Things
Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.

Just because it looks designed, doesn't mean it is. Humans look for patterns.

As for the beetle, it's another absurd fallacy that deserves only a link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
The beetles that boom don't get to reproduce, the ones that don't, and have a better working system do. So the better working system gets passed on. It's as simple as that.

Honestly, I was expecting some empirical evidence, and you've given me fallacies and misunderstanding of evolution, what it is and isn't, and other aspects of science.

 

[Nomi]

Aww, you go and change you post one me! Anyway, to have every single 'link' we would need every single organism ever. Which, understanding how rare it is for a fossil to form, is impossible. We do have many 'transitional' organisms, though this thinking is flawed. There is no end product, evolution is an ongoing process as long as organisms are reproducing.

 

[Momvic5]

I am really interested in reading about the observable evidence against evolution. Could you point me to a link where I could read up on this?

(again, I am not being smarmy or anything, I am just wanting to educate myself on different points of view)

It really is interesting. I am just a homeschool mom who has had to familiarize myself with the history and study of science. I will admit I am partial to creationism so science that supports the idea of creationism is our study of choice. I do not have a handy link on line for you but I am sure you could find some.

The biggest evidence, to me, against evolution is really the lack of evidence. The lack of evidence in our fossil records. Evolution is the idea that simple life forms evolved into more complex forms over millions of years. Numerous species had to exist that made up the intervals of change that took place while one specie evolved into another. The evidence against evolution lies in the fact that there is a missing link and that there should be fossils that show the evolution or the change. There are only a few known fossils that show a change and those are highly questionable. Even Darwin himself said many intermediate links should be found and saw this as strong evidence against evolution. Our fossil record has missing links, and no amount of evidence for evolution can dispute that. It is just a personal choice as to what evidence you choose to accept. Do you accept certain evidence as proof against evolution or do you accept certain evidence as proof for evolution. It is just another personal choice based on belief and not mere data.

 

[Lil' Grumpy]

in reality, it is self evident..that man/kind is not smart enough to be

a "creationist", by webster. ever.

...personally, i am not religious..because..of my belief..that religions'

..primary objective is not being met. [ to encourage and support
individuals..toward discovering their true faith.]

faith..describes the true feelings in a person 's heart, by my definitions.

if any man/woman..ever create something/anything...that have

never existed....then i like to meet that person.

....i think, if one takes a bucket of paint & turned it upside down,
the results...will always be predictable. forever.

life itself , could have never been made...without the interventions
from thinking...and in today's reality, changed the results mentioned above.

though, in my observations, the "invention"..was in~deeds...
very simple..but it was also very effective...reproducing variety
of systems.

with this thinking, my faith..has no doubts, of an energy force beyond
way my imagination under one power , with a design and a plan for all
of us, born under the same system.

anything else existing , would be alien or machine unless designed
by the same force. therefore, all the arguments regarding evolution,
by my observations....have no meanings.

i would like to meet any person demonstrating something/anything
found..in the process/es of evolution, using an alternative force
that was not created..by thinking first. including acts of cloning.

i 've observed many great inventions , but all, taking things already
created..to mixed into new products. i have yet to observed a
new "element"..,being made/created by the minds of mankind.

for me, the reality that took place~ when a force intervened &
changed natural occuring "events"...made it possible for all
to "hold" life..even though..just for a lil'time, is good reasoning...
to value one's faith. truth is a comfort measure.

then for good measure....science...by its own defintion, defines
"energy"...cannot be destroyed, only transformed. and since
life itself , an energy force....it only stand up afgainst many
rationizations....


this is what i think & feel. i have no interest in changing others.
iam sharing my faith, because...i believe..everyone...should
be encourage toward their faith...by participating & learning
the world around them. so if you have an idea? let's hear it.


for me,
i am in awe of life & all the adventures...it provides. sadly, mankind
are still resorting..to killing when it is contary to mental health...101,
where our rights end,when our words.actions~ begin to hurt others.
* psst, how do we kno?..when others tell us..we are hurting. and in
this "system"...that was set up for..us? funny~ the best ways to
influence..others..is a positive action/interactions. killing is also defined
as negative, because its takes life away.

...personally, i never wanted a career in mental health. things
happened. what i found similar to this topic..are the 2 ways
ineffective coping, occurring in our thinking...manipulations &
rationizations. the most sucessful intervention i have discovered
to help others..."reality orientation".

the greatest knowledge....i ever found, is within the bible. why
so many deny its existence...is a mystery to me. nor does one
has to go to school to read it.

God blessings to me, is all about finding happiness, &

 

[Lil' Grumpy]

ps...i almost forgot..i don't believe the creation for life...
wasn't the greatest intevention.....instead "creating"
all the things that sustained us~ thur life...is. of course,

..its just a simple belief.

 

[Michelle67]

I believe in both...a dynamic creation.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

ps...i almost forgot..i don't believe the creation for life...
wasn't the greatest intevention.....instead "creating"
all the things that sustained us~ thur life...is. of course,

..its just a simple belief.

Your previous post was beautiful.

In my life, I have discovered that my daily walk with the Lord provides me with an inner peace that I cannot find elsewhere. Although some would deny that this serenity is anything other than my vivid imagination, I find that these individuals have never truly taken the leap of faith required to find it.

The sarcasm, hate and anger of committed atheist comes through in the words written and voiced by them. Believers in God are chastised for having simple and narrow minded beliefs. However, the committed atheist is never willing to take the leap of faith. He/she chastizes the thought as hocus pocus. The atheist continues to only observe the facts that he/she can see now, never admitting that modern science has not discovered all that there is to know about our history.

God's creation is all around us to be experienced by all of our senses. I know that a scientist can tell me why a sunset occurs, but can he tell me why its beautiful?

Perla, I hope that you find what you are seeking. I will suggest that you read the bible as well as philosophy with an open mind and more importantly with an open heart. Whatever your path, I hope you find joy and peace.

 

[What the Heck]

I once took a class in college, the Philosphy of Religion. In the class, the logical cases were made both for creation and for evolution. Personally, I found the arguments for creation stronger than evolution (although I can't remember the contents of the class).

As for my beliefs, it happened a long time before I was here. I have a personal belief in God (and in Christ), and I let the future and the past in His hands.

 

[bicker]

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

~ Carl Sagan

 

[Nomi]

Your previous post was beautiful.

In my life, I have discovered that my daily walk with the Lord provides me with an inner peace that I cannot find elsewhere. Although some would deny that this serenity is anything other than my vivid imagination, I find that these individuals have never truly taken the leap of faith required to find it.

The sarcasm, hate and anger of committed atheist comes through in the words written and voiced by them. Believers in God are chastised for having simple and narrow minded beliefs. However, the committed atheist is never willing to take the leap of faith. He/she chastizes the thought as hocus pocus. The atheist continues to only observe the facts that he/she can see now, never admitting that modern science has not discovered all that there is to know about our history.

God's creation is all around us to be experienced by all of our senses. I know that a scientist can tell me why a sunset occurs, but can he tell me why its beautiful?

Perla, I hope that you find what you are seeking. I will suggest that you read the bible as well as philosophy with an open mind and more importantly with an open heart. Whatever your path, I hope you find joy and peace.

We find things beautiful because we are attracted to color, pattern and symmetry, which evolved alongside our evolution of of color and pattern recognition as the evolution of human social interaction and behavior. That doesn't make things any less beautiful to me, and I think the world is awesome enough that I don't need it to contain or be created by supernatural things.

I have to admit I'm a little offended that you thing atheists are all sarcastic, hateful and angry. That said, when facing the same logical fallacies in creationist arguments, and asking for the evidence they claim to have and never getting it, over and over and over and over and over again, and the general hate and 'holier than thou' attitude towards atheists, hopefully you can understand why it irritates us so.

And perhaps you can explain to me why some people seem to hold blind faith as a virtue?

 

[Kath2003]

The sarcasm, hate and anger of committed atheist comes through in the words written and voiced by them.

Evidently, I am nothing but sarcastic, hateful and angry, as are the millions of other atheists.

The atheist continues to only observe the facts that he/she can see now, never admitting that modern science has not discovered all that there is to know about our history.

Huh? The point about science is that it cannot current answer all the questions - we admit that. That is why we are still LOOKING for answers, rather than attributing them to a higher being. Surely if you already know how life, the universe and everything came about, it is you who has ceased to wish to expand their understanding?

God's creation is all around us to be experienced by all of our senses. I know that a scientist can tell me why a sunset occurs, but can he tell me why its beautiful?

Yes. There are thousands of scientific studies on why particular scenes and images and situations are favourable to humans.

 

[bicker]

We find things beautiful because we are attracted to color, pattern and symmetry, which evolved alongside our evolution of of color and pattern recognition as the evolution of human social interaction and behavior.

That doesn't make things any less beautiful to me, and I think the world is awesome enough that I don't need it to contain or be created by supernatural things.

ITA.

And perhaps you can explain to me why some people seem to hold blind faith as a virtue?

Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence. ~ Anonymous

 

[Laura]

Yeah, it just make me upset when people try to take out the theory part and try to make it fact. Neither can truly be proven. The Bible has been truthful about the past and there is evidence in favor of evolution. Hovever, not everything in the Bible can be proven, let alone explained and there is also alot evidence against evolution.

There re just some things we will never know. I think of it like our world is far too wonderful and beautiful to just be made of chance. It must have been planned. Other's find that silly and will go with evolution.

Well, I don't find the idea of god creating the universe silly. I think that's what happened, but starting with a Big Bang. Why not start things off with a bang, eh? I don't see evolution as a god-negating idea, nor is science trying to disprove the existence of god. You can't prove or disprove such a thing through science, because a deity is not of the natural world, it is supernatural.

There is a difference between evolution and its theory, which many people often miss. Evolution itself is a fact, a phenomenon that scientists have observed. The theory part comes in when scientists use evidence to explain how evolution works.

A scientific theory generally is not proven, but it is based on facts and findings in the scientific community, not mere conjecture. Scientific theories typically don't become laws. Physics is different because one can use equations, but broad-ranging scientific theories like the theory of evolution don't have an "equation" to figure out and display as proof.

New findings in the fossil record can change some pre-existing ideas, like linear evolution or if there were different humanoid species side by side, but over time the theory of evolution since Darwin has simply been expanded and enhanced, not overturned. Some of Darwin's ideas have been found to be wrong, but it doesn't negate the fact that evolution exists; Darwin just didn't know about things like DNA.

 

[luvsJack]

And perhaps you can explain to me why some people seem to hold blind faith as a virtue?

I'm not the poster you are talking to but I wanted to comment on this. My faith in God not a "true" blind faith. No, I cannot see Him; but there are many things I cannot see but I know to be real. What I can do is feel His presence in my life and feel His love for me. I know God is with me everyday. When I ask for guidance in my life; I feel His presence. When I have a problem in my life that I do not know how to solve, I pray for His help and am guided to the answer. When I have had a tragedy in my life I feel Him with me; comforting me. I KNOW He is there; not a doubt in my mind. Yes, it is faith, but it is also fact. And nothing anyone can say will ever cause me to think otherwise.

As for creation vs. evolution: I believe it was a mixture of both. But, I also think we spend way too much time concerning ourselves with how we got here when maybe we should be more concerned with where we are going.

 

[Laura]

As for creation vs. evolution: I believe it was a mixture of both.

I agree. I don't think it has to be an either/or kind of belief, and many people accept the theory of evolution without denying their religious beliefs.

 

[perla75]

I'm not the poster you are talking to but I wanted to comment on this. My faith in God not a "true" blind faith. No, I cannot see Him; but there are many things I cannot see but I know to be real. What I can do is feel His presence in my life and feel His love for me. I know God is with me everyday. When I ask for guidance in my life; I feel His presence. When I have a problem in my life that I do not know how to solve, I pray for His help and am guided to the answer. When I have had a tragedy in my life I feel Him with me; comforting me. I KNOW He is there; not a doubt in my mind. Yes, it is faith, but it is also fact. And nothing anyone can say will ever cause me to think otherwise.

As for creation vs. evolution: I believe it was a mixture of both. But, I also think we spend way too much time concerning ourselves with how we got here when maybe we should be more concerned with where we are going.

I just wanted to tell you that while I do not completely share your beliefs, I highly respect them & respect your devotion to your faith.

I also like your ending comment-VERY TRUE!!