Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments, Parts I and II

[D1B]

You didn't answer the questions, Joltin Joe.

Here's another one. Why don't you apply the same absolute/ridiculous demands for scientific certitude to your religion? You demand that every facet of evolution be proven as observable fact, yet you accept as fact, without question, the comical and impossible nature of your triune, zombie god.

Yeah, SG, this fuck is god. Fact

I didn't answer them because they were not pertinent to the discussion at hand. You want to call me out, start your own thread and stop hiding in your brother's shadow! (By the way, I thought that was a good dig).

Please realize I have in no way said that evolution is wrong. I have simply stated that I get my undies all bunched up when people attribute studies as fact, when they really don't support a theory.

That is my beef. Everything does not have to fit nicely into the evolution box, but that is what is happening.

By the way, who has been the intolerant assholes in this thread? Do I need to start a poll?

Go ahead, coward. Bet you'll be surprised. Creationist have zero credibility.

[SeattleGriz]

I didn't answer them because they were not pertinent to the discussion at hand. You want to call me out, start your own thread and stop hiding in your brother's shadow! (By the way, I thought that was a good dig).

Please realize I have in no way said that evolution is wrong. I have simply stated that I get my undies all bunched up when people attribute studies as fact, when they really don't support a theory.

That is my beef. Everything does not have to fit nicely into the evolution box, but that is what is happening.

By the way, who has been the intolerant assholes in this thread? Do I need to start a poll?

Go ahead, coward. Bet you'll be surprised. Creationist have zero credibility.

D1B claiming others have no credibility. Nice. Now I have seen it all.

To answer your question, as you are too lazy to start your own thread. I don't apply the same standards because acceptance of faith is just that. Faith. If I could prove God existed, why the need for faith? It would be case closed and those that didn't believe would be thumbing their nose to a known God. Not wise. Faith is asking a person to take a leap. That obviously has no place in science.

Thank you for the softball I just sent into the next county. I owe you.

[MSUDuo]

I didn't answer them because they were not pertinent to the discussion at hand. You want to call me out, start your own thread and stop hiding in your brother's shadow! (By the way, I thought that was a good dig).

Please realize I have in no way said that evolution is wrong. I have simply stated that I get my undies all bunched up when people attribute studies as fact, when they really don't support a theory.

That is my beef. Everything does not have to fit nicely into the evolution box, but that is what is happening.

By the way, who has been the intolerant ******* in this thread? Do I need to start a poll?

Go ahead, coward. Bet you'll be surprised. Creationist have zero credibility.

I don't know much but I do know that is not true. Whether you want to believe it or not is another question...

[Cap'n Cat]

Go ahead, coward. Bet you'll be surprised. Creationist have zero credibility.

I don't know much but I do know that is not true. Whether you want to believe it or not is another question...

Take your thumb-suckin' ass back to the football forum and leave this to the big boys, Duo.

[SeattleGriz]

I don't know much but I do know that is not true. Whether you want to believe it or not is another question...

Take your thumb-suckin' ass back to the football forum and leave this to the big boys, Duo.

Yeah! Throw in some swear words and you will be fully accepted.

[MSUDuo]

I don't know much but I do know that is not true. Whether you want to believe it or not is another question...

Take your thumb-suckin' ass back to the football forum and leave this to the big boys, Duo.

So nice of you to join us Cap'n. Where ya been?

[Cap'n Cat]

Take your thumb-suckin' ass back to the football forum and leave this to the big boys, Duo.

So nice of you to join us Cap'n. Where ya been?

Been seein' a seventh grader. Name's Keera. Sucks cock like they stopped making dicks.

[SeattleGriz]

So nice of you to join us Cap'n. Where ya been?

Been seein' a seventh grader. Name's Keera. Sucks cock like they stopped making dicks.

AWESOME! How do you fit into all that? Are you like a first base coach?

[MSUDuo]

So nice of you to join us Cap'n. Where ya been?

Been seein' a seventh grader. Name's Keera. Sucks cock like they stopped making dicks.

Just had to have someone the same mental age as yourself? Good for you if you can seal the deal, as disgusting as it is...

[D1B]

Go ahead, coward. Bet you'll be surprised. Creationist have zero credibility.

D1B claiming others have no credibility. Nice. Now I have seen it all.

To answer your question, as you are too lazy to start your own thread. I don't apply the same standards because acceptance of faith is just that. Faith. If I could prove God existed, why the need for faith? It would be case closed and those that didn't believe would be thumbing their nose to a known God. Not wise. Faith is asking a person to take a leap. That obviously has no place in science.

Thank you for the softball I just sent into the next county. I owe you.

You're a moron. You rely on critical reasoning and scientific knowledge in every aspect of your life, but with religion you blindly accept the nonsense of bronze age idiots.

[Cap'n Cat]

D1B claiming others have no credibility. Nice. Now I have seen it all.

To answer your question, as you are too lazy to start your own thread. I don't apply the same standards because acceptance of faith is just that. Faith. If I could prove God existed, why the need for faith? It would be case closed and those that didn't believe would be thumbing their nose to a known God. Not wise. Faith is asking a person to take a leap. That obviously has no place in science.

Thank you for the softball I just sent into the next county. I owe you.

You're a moron. You rely on critical reasoning and scientific knowledge in every aspect of your life, but with religion you blindly accept the nonsense of bronze age idiots.

Sorry, SeaGee. Game over, man.

[SeattleGriz]

You're a moron. You rely on critical reasoning and scientific knowledge in every aspect of your life, but with religion you blindly accept the nonsense of bronze age idiots.

Sorry, SeaGee. Game over, man.

I wanted to reply to Da #1 Bitches response, but as long as you are wiping his ass, I might as well reply here.

What bronze age idiots? Where has Jesus been disproven? Jesus is a fact. The part you get caught up upon is that Jesus claimed he was Lord. I know it is old and tired, but what if I am wrong? I will be wrong and become the Earth. Holy shit, what horrible thing.

Fuck dude. Get over yourself.

This is faith, not science.

[Cap'n Cat]

Sorry, SeaGee. Game over, man.

I wanted to reply to Da #1 Bitches response, but as long as you are wiping his ass, I might as well reply here.

What bronze age idiots? Where has Jesus been disproven? Jesus is a fact. The part you get caught up upon is that Jesus claimed he was Lord. I know it is old and tired, but what if I am wrong? I will be wrong and become the Earth. Holy shit, what horrible thing.

Fuck dude. Get over yourself.

This is faith, not science.

Um. Exactly. G a m e o v e r .

[youngterrier]

What biological data and studies contradict evolution? Perhaps it ALWAYS fits with evolution, is because, I dunno, EVOLUTION IS THE BACKBONE OF ALL MODERN BIOLOGICAL STUDY?!!!! (bolded for emphasis). The only way certain biological facts and studies make sense is if evolution is true.

As for the junk DNA, we've covered it before. It's still junk. You find one or 2 or 3 exceptions to the parts that are junk every now and again, but to say majority of our DNA isn't junk because we found a few exceptions that we originally did include is like saying not all manure is terrible for makeup, because we found one person to find manure attractive. One cannot undermine how massive the human genome is and one or two genes in the genetic code out of such a massive pool does not swing the see-saw past a vast majority of DNA being junk.

You are still missing the point. It's not about the one or two or three exceptions that crop up every now and then to what is believed to be non functional DNA. It is that the evolution crowd stated that 98% of our DNA had absolutely NO FUNCTION, only to realize it was more like the 2% has no function. A complete flip flop, but yet, it fits into the evolutionary theory somehow.

If you can't grasp this, you have proven you are just going to keep reciting the atheist websites you visit. Don't think I haven't noticed how your arguments mirror exactly what is said on those sites. Lame. I thought you were better than that.

You are a fool to believe any part of our DNA is junk, especially in light of epigenetics.

Strawmen get you nowhere sir, you don't know the definition of junk DNA and this post reflects it clearly.

By junk, it means it's useless in that it could mutate, but it won't change the actual message sent.

Such as this word being written in bold, the mutation would make this word in italics. Sure it looks different, and mutated, but it doesn't change anything in terms of information.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of key evolutionary concepts is where you, and the ID crowd are not taken seriously.

[youngterrier]

Fair enough,
Thank you for being honest and admitting this isn't about the validity of Evolution
You're a bigger man than 99% of the other Americans who parade their Faith disguised as a Scientific argument

BTW:
There are some 34,000 credible organized religions - each claiming the other 34,000 are not legitimate
Some 20,000 claim that if you don't believe in specifically their one faith - you will suffer for eternity

Secondly:
I do indeed believe in God
I believe in the Prime Mover argument

Thirdly:
You ask what is lost for me if I don't believe just exactly like you believe
And I say - I have no idea - because just like 95% of Christians I haven't read the Bible Either

That many? Had no idea. How many claim the need for a Savoir who died for mankind?

I'd probably say "95% of people who claim to be Christian" but really I should stay away from that...

Honestly, it isn't up to me what other people believe. We have a free well for a reason. I just find it comical that those that try to preach tolerance what to rid the world of religion. Does that make sense what so ever?

I'm all for letting people live the way they want to as long as you're not putting anyone else out. Now, that doesn't mean I won't share my faith but there is a time and place for it and if someone doesn't want to hear about it, they won't have to from me.

If Christians are right, 3/4 of the planet burns in Hell for eternity. If Muslims are right, 3/4 of the planet burns in Hell for eternity, especially the Christians who believe virgin birth. I'm willing to be the Hindus have a belief involving being in bad karma or something for not being Hindu, but I'm pulling that out of my ass.

If Atheists, are right, they're all wrong.

As for the ridding of religion part, there's a difference between tolerance yet disdainful feelings toward a philosophy and intolerance. I think the world would be better without religion. I wear that on my sleeve. I respect religious people, I don't think they're dumb or bad people, but I don't respect religion.

virtuous and moral deeds speak for themselves and reap demonstrable benefit. Whether or not (current) religion "invented" such a concept (which I highly doubt) is irrelevant. Good deeds can be done and justified by their own merit, bad deeds however, are only justified by religion. Do I really need to explain how insisting that sawing at the tip of a child's genitalia isn't a moral thing, and would be considered morally reprehensible if religion wasn't around to institutionalize such a thing? That's just one point. Many atheists, when going on a moral tangent against religion feel the need to attack the fundamentalists and the radicals; I don't, there's plenty of sickness among the moderate theology.

[youngterrier]

Go ahead, coward. Bet you'll be surprised. Creationist have zero credibility.

I don't know much but I do know that is not true. Whether you want to believe it or not is another question...

Depends on your definition of creationist......if you mean "young earth creationist" then the answer is a profound "Hell No!"

[Cap'n Cat]

[Chizzang]

brilliant..!!!
I laughed hard over this

[D1B]

Sorry, SeaGee. Game over, man.

I wanted to reply to Da #1 Bitches response, but as long as you are wiping his ass, I might as well reply here.

What bronze age idiots? Where has Jesus been disproven? Jesus is a fact. The part you get caught up upon is that Jesus claimed he was Lord. I know it is old and tired, but what if I am wrong? I will be wrong and become the Earth. Holy shit, what horrible thing.

Fuck dude. Get over yourself.

This is faith, not science.

Uhhh, you're meaningless and a moron, but billions of people believing in nonsense and unwilling to question the authority of an ignorant race of people who lived thousands of years ago and who thought the world was flat and sacrificing babies to god was a perfectly just thing - this is a problem.

[D1B]

Fair enough,
Thank you for being honest and admitting this isn't about the validity of Evolution
You're a bigger man than 99% of the other Americans who parade their Faith disguised as a Scientific argument

BTW:
There are some 34,000 credible organized religions - each claiming the other 34,000 are not legitimate
Some 20,000 claim that if you don't believe in specifically their one faith - you will suffer for eternity

Secondly:
I do indeed believe in God
I believe in the Prime Mover argument

Thirdly:
You ask what is lost for me if I don't believe just exactly like you believe
And I say - I have no idea - because just like 95% of Christians I haven't read the Bible Either

That many? Had no idea. How many claim the need for a Savoir who died for mankind?

I'd probably say "95% of people who claim to be Christian" but really I should stay away from that...

Honestly, it isn't up to me what other people believe. We have a free well for a reason. I just find it comical that those that try to preach tolerance what to rid the world of religion. Does that make sense what so ever?

I'm all for letting people live the way they want to as long as you're not putting anyone else out. Now, that doesn't mean I won't share my faith but there is a time and place for it and if someone doesn't want to hear about it, they won't have to from me.

Problem is, you are putting someone out.



I know you'll agree that the world would be a better place without Islam.

It's the same thing with christianity and judaism.

[SeattleGriz]

You are still missing the point. It's not about the one or two or three exceptions that crop up every now and then to what is believed to be non functional DNA. It is that the evolution crowd stated that 98% of our DNA had absolutely NO FUNCTION, only to realize it was more like the 2% has no function. A complete flip flop, but yet, it fits into the evolutionary theory somehow.

If you can't grasp this, you have proven you are just going to keep reciting the atheist websites you visit. Don't think I haven't noticed how your arguments mirror exactly what is said on those sites. Lame. I thought you were better than that.

You are a fool to believe any part of our DNA is junk, especially in light of epigenetics.

Strawmen get you nowhere sir, you don't know the definition of junk DNA and this post reflects it clearly.

By junk, it means it's useless in that it could mutate, but it won't change the actual message sent.

Such as this word being written in bold, the mutation would make this word in italics. Sure it looks different, and mutated, but it doesn't change anything in terms of information.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of key evolutionary concepts is where you, and the ID crowd are not taken seriously.

A mutation to the non-coding portion would most likely affect the regulation of a gene.

That is not junk.

The "junk" is what regulates how a gene is expressed. I would not want a mutation in the regulatory portion of my genes.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of key gene concepts is where you are not taken seriously.

Yeah, sounds like junk to me:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's a revolution under way in biology. Scientists are coming to understand that genetics isn't just about genes. Just as important are smaller sequences of DNA that control genes.

These so-called regulatory elements tell genes when to turn on and off, and when to stop functioning altogether. A new study suggests that changes in these non-gene sequences of DNA may hold the key to explaining how all species evolved.

To better understand this revolution in biology, we have to go back about a century. At that time, the notion of a gene was fairly simple. A gene was responsible for a particular trait.

"There was a gene for blue eyes, a gene for curly hair, etc.," says Gregory Wray, a geneticist at Duke University. But genes were just a concept in those days. Nobody really knew what a gene looked like. That changed in 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick showed that genes were made of DNA, and that DNA was the chemical that allowed genes to be passed from parent to child.

"We came to understand a gene as a stretch of DNA that codes for a protein, and the protein is involved in producing that trait, whatever we're interested in — eye color, hair and so forth," says Wray.

Biologists spent the latter half of the 20th century exploring the steps involved in turning genetic instructions inside a stretch of DNA into something the body needs to survive. They wrote tens of thousands of papers explaining how genes make proteins, what proteins do, what piece of DNA codes for a particular protein. "And now we're coming to realize that that's only half the picture," says Wray. Many scientists are now shifting their attention to the other half of the picture.

Regulating Genes

Wray says there are about 20,000 genes in the human genome, but as many as 1 million of these so-called regulatory elements, so scientists have a lot to do.

[MSUDuo]

That many? Had no idea. How many claim the need for a Savoir who died for mankind?

I'd probably say "95% of people who claim to be Christian" but really I should stay away from that...

Honestly, it isn't up to me what other people believe. We have a free well for a reason. I just find it comical that those that try to preach tolerance what to rid the world of religion. Does that make sense what so ever?

I'm all for letting people live the way they want to as long as you're not putting anyone else out. Now, that doesn't mean I won't share my faith but there is a time and place for it and if someone doesn't want to hear about it, they won't have to from me.

Problem is, you are putting someone out.



I know you'll agree that the world would be a better place without Islam.

It's the same thing with christianity and judaism.

Nope. I have a few Muslim friends. Got no problem with them. There is a difference between them and the radicals. Just like I don't identify with the whacks at Westboro or whatever it's called in Kansas.


Not sure I understand your obsession with a childs "pee-pee" though...

[kalm]

Problem is, you are putting someone out.



I know you'll agree that the world would be a better place without Islam.

It's the same thing with christianity and judaism.

Nope. I have a few Muslim friends. Got no problem with them. There is a difference between them and the radicals. Just like I don't identify with the whacks at Westboro or whatever it's called in Kansas.


Not sure I understand your obsession with a childs "pee-pee" though...

Sometimes it's more subtle. For instance, Bush's and Rove's faith enabled them to start a war of choice that killed many innocent people. Remember the report of Rove walking through the whitehouse halls whistling "Onward Christian Soldiers"?

[youngterrier]

Strawmen get you nowhere sir, you don't know the definition of junk DNA and this post reflects it clearly.

By junk, it means it's useless in that it could mutate, but it won't change the actual message sent.

Such as this word being written in bold, the mutation would make this word in italics. Sure it looks different, and mutated, but it doesn't change anything in terms of information.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of key evolutionary concepts is where you, and the ID crowd are not taken seriously.

A mutation to the non-coding portion would most likely affect the regulation of a gene.

That is not junk.

The "junk" is what regulates how a gene is expressed. I would not want a mutation in the regulatory portion of my genes.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of key gene concepts is where you are not taken seriously.

Yeah, sounds like junk to me:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's a revolution under way in biology. Scientists are coming to understand that genetics isn't just about genes. Just as important are smaller sequences of DNA that control genes.

These so-called regulatory elements tell genes when to turn on and off, and when to stop functioning altogether. A new study suggests that changes in these non-gene sequences of DNA may hold the key to explaining how all species evolved.

To better understand this revolution in biology, we have to go back about a century. At that time, the notion of a gene was fairly simple. A gene was responsible for a particular trait.

"There was a gene for blue eyes, a gene for curly hair, etc.," says Gregory Wray, a geneticist at Duke University. But genes were just a concept in those days. Nobody really knew what a gene looked like. That changed in 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick showed that genes were made of DNA, and that DNA was the chemical that allowed genes to be passed from parent to child.

"We came to understand a gene as a stretch of DNA that codes for a protein, and the protein is involved in producing that trait, whatever we're interested in — eye color, hair and so forth," says Wray.

Biologists spent the latter half of the 20th century exploring the steps involved in turning genetic instructions inside a stretch of DNA into something the body needs to survive. They wrote tens of thousands of papers explaining how genes make proteins, what proteins do, what piece of DNA codes for a particular protein. "And now we're coming to realize that that's only half the picture," says Wray. Many scientists are now shifting their attention to the other half of the picture.

Regulating Genes

Wray says there are about 20,000 genes in the human genome, but as many as 1 million of these so-called regulatory elements, so scientists have a lot to do.

You keep cutting and pasting articles, but you don't really read them.

I think your skepticism is fallacious in that you think it's more likely that biologists are conspiring on a world-wide scale to suppress something, than it is that you misunderstand what they're saying.

[youngterrier]

Nope. I have a few Muslim friends. Got no problem with them. There is a difference between them and the radicals. Just like I don't identify with the whacks at Westboro or whatever it's called in Kansas.


Not sure I understand your obsession with a childs "pee-pee" though...

Sometimes it's more subtle. For instance, Bush's and Rove's faith enabled them to start a war of choice that killed many innocent people. Remember the report of Rove walking through the whitehouse halls whistling "Onward Christian Soldiers"?

IMO, the difference between a radical and a moderate is that the radical has more hardship so he has to get a little crazy. Positive socio-economic conditions and government legally protecting viewpoints go a long way to quell fundamentalist rage. Take that away, then add The Great Satan bombing people in your region and supporting a regime you feel is illegitimate, oppressive, and against your religion, and fundamentalism becomes more attractive.