creationism is the truth
-
I come to realise that a few non-believers actually have better manners than believers.
*No childish replys pls -
All your explainations are too complicated for me to understand.
Sry i cant participate more.
I admire Vince's qualities of steadiness
I admire Kaister's qualities of forgiveness
And i admire Ice's qualities of use of complicated words
*No childish remarks pls -
Supporters of creationism, stop attacking evolution! It is the explanation of origin of species, not life!
If you want origins of life, here's one - theory of biopoesis.
Around 3.5 - 3.9 million years ago, Earth is very different from what it was today. It was much much hotter, had a lot of thunderstorms (due to formation of rainclouds from the hot weather) and had lots of gases such as cardon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulpfide, water, phosphate etc, floating in the atmosphere.
Stanley Miller, an american chemist, showed that if similar conditions were reproduced, you can get amino acids to form. Amino acids are the building blocks of life as they make up protein and other substances in living beings. If you think this is entirely random, I agree. However, know that the Earth is 4.567 billion years old! Given such a long period of time, anything is possible.
To me, that is the beginnings of life. Sure it still has lots of loopholes but it doesn't need a creator, higher-being, or some other unexplainable forces. Biopoesis can be entirely replicated in laboratories!
What other better observations can you ask for? -
Heehee and by theory of biopoesis, god is only some chemicals (created in his own image).Originally posted by nomood:Funnily, the retrospective evidence you cite to be the most tangible is a terrible nightmare for creationists. If held to be correct without other parts of evolution, either god looks like an ape (created in his own image) or god only created part of the world. (since everything before b.c4000 predates creation)
-
Anything with no logical explaination can happen if the period is long right?Originally posted by kaister:Supporters of creationism, stop attacking evolution! It is the explanation of origin of species, not life!
If you want origins of life, here's one - theory of biopoesis.
Around 3.5 - 3.9 million years ago, Earth is very different from what it was today. It was much much hotter, had a lot of thunderstorms (due to formation of rainclouds from the hot weather) and had lots of gases such as cardon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulpfide, water, phosphate etc, floating in the atmosphere.
Stanley Miller, an american chemist, showed that if similar conditions were reproduced, you can get amino acids to form. Amino acids are the building blocks of life as they make up protein and other substances in living beings. If you think this is entirely random, I agree. However, know that the Earth is 4.567 billion years old! Given such a long period of time, anything is possible.
To me, that is the beginnings of life. Sure it still has lots of loopholes but it doesn't need a creator, higher-being, or some other unexplainable forces. Biopoesis can be entirely replicated in laboratories!
What other better observations can you ask for?
hehehe, me thinking of a VERY NICE theory, sure get nobel priSe one
-
Bioquesis no logical explanation?Originally posted by davidche:Anything with no logical explaination can happen if the period is long right?
hehehe, me thinking of a VERY NICE theory, sure get nobel priSe one It has been proven and reproduced in laboratories all around the world by mimicking primitive earth conditions. If I need to explain the exact mechanism I would need at least 3 pages, starting from chemical binding theories... Bet you'll fall asleep by then 
The main point is, it's not illogical. Bioquesis is based on chance. If you roll your dice enough times, you'll get a 6. Same thing.
In science, if similar conditions were reproduced and the same exact results were elicited every single time, it can be taken to be the infallible truth.
Heehee... no offence but you don't seem like nobel prize caliber leh... care to share your theory. Shower us in your glorious intellect.
-
Nice one, kaister... I just can't stand Davidche's illogical arguements...Originally posted by kaister:Bioquesis no logical explanation? It has been proven and reproduced in laboratories all around the world by mimicking primitive earth conditions. If I need to explain the exact mechanism I would need at least 3 pages, starting from chemical binding theories... Bet you'll fall asleep by then
The main point is, it's not illogical. Bioquesis is based on chance. If you roll your dice enough times, you'll get a 6. Same thing.
In science, if similar conditions were reproduced and the same exact results were elicited every single time, it can be taken to be the infallible truth.
Heehee... no offence but you don't seem like nobel prize caliber leh... care to share your theory. Shower us in your glorious intellect. -
Still interested in hearing his theory though...
-
Wow, i quite learn someting from the exchange. Very interesting. What caught my eye is the below stated by kaister.
"If creationism exist, why would adaptations be so evident everywhere? Imagine you're an engineer, wouldn't it make more sense to build a bird like an F-16 so that they can fly faster? Wouldn't it make more sense to have wheels instead of feet so that animals can run faster? Wouldn't it be more sensible to build fishes with turbines, so that they can swim faster?"
Actually i thought kaister raised some important questions - "wouldnt it make more sense to...."
i am thinking here, does "faster" necessary means the best that a Creator can or should offer ? If a bird flies like an F-16, personally to me, my sight should also be created to match up with that speed to enjoy seeing, the flight of birds.
Is there a possibility for God to "create adaptations" ? -
Thanks klydeer! Glad someone read all the info.Originally posted by klydeer:Wow, i quite learn someting from the exchange. Very interesting. What caught my eye is the below stated by kaister.
"If creationism exist, why would adaptations be so evident everywhere? Imagine you're an engineer, wouldn't it make more sense to build a bird like an F-16 so that they can fly faster? Wouldn't it make more sense to have wheels instead of feet so that animals can run faster? Wouldn't it be more sensible to build fishes with turbines, so that they can swim faster?"
Actually i thought kaister raised some important questions - "wouldnt it make more sense to...."
i am thinking here, does "faster" necessary means the best that a Creator can or should offer ? If a bird flies like an F-16, personally to me, my sight should also be created to match up with that speed to enjoy seeing, the flight of birds.
Is there a possibility for God to "create adaptations" ?
"Faster" was written in the context that the creator could have done better. It doesn't have to be the best. Have you ever sprained your legs? Ever wondered why we keep spraining our legs or why women always have to endure so much labour pain? It's because we humans were adapted to walk on two legs instead of 4 from our ancestors.
Our 2 lower limbs are too fragile to support all our weight and they easily give way when stressed. Also, female pelvis will have to be narrowed so that women don't walk like apes and waste precious energy (food was scarce during caveman days). Narrowed pelvis, however, would create problems in childbirth and immature human babies compared to the rest of our close relatives like gorillas and chimpanzees.
Our legs were just not perfectly designed for walking on 2 feet cos' it was based on adaptation - modification from previous design. Therefore we are imperfect. Going by that logic, if God created us in his image, it would imply he's imperfect. Kinda hard to imagine the creator to be imperfect, don't you agree?
The only logical conclusion for adaptations to exist, is because of evolution. My analogy of an engineer best describes that. If you're an engineer, why would you design a system that is so faulty? Of course not... unless you're an idiot
Hope that answers all your questions
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Nice one, kaister... I just can't stand Davidche's illogical arguements...
i killed me!! -
i am thinking here, does "faster" necessary means the best that a Creator can or should offer ? If a bird flies like an F-16, personally to me, my sight should also be created to match up with that speed to enjoy seeing, the flight of birds.
Well, to me the most basic reason why faster birds are better is simply because faster means the birds have an easier time to catch their food or escape their foes. If you believe in creationism, and god create animals for men to appreciate, then why do god create deep sea creatures or tunneling animals when most men can only see them in action from video.Is there a possibility for God to "create adaptations" ?
Persomally, adaptation speaks out more for evolution than for creationism. Creationism do not have to rely on past or other models to come out with different creatures. Strangely all creatures are seen to be adapted from some other species before. If you can come out with a creature that show no signs of adaptation, voila you have proven evolution to be wrong. However that never happened. -
lol, i hv argued regarding this matter with other ppl liao. He ended up with no clever answer.Originally posted by kaister:Thanks klydeer! Glad someone read all the info.
"Faster" was written in the context that the creator could have done better. It doesn't have to be the best. Have you ever sprained your legs? Ever wondered why we keep spraining our legs or why women always have to endure so much labour pain? It's because we humans were adapted to walk on two legs instead of 4 from our ancestors.
Our 2 lower limbs are too fragile to support all our weight and they easily give way when stressed. Also, female pelvis will have to be narrowed so that women don't walk like apes and waste precious energy (food was scarce during caveman days). Narrowed pelvis, however, would create problems in childbirth and immature human babies compared to the rest of our close relatives like gorillas and chimpanzees.
Our legs were just not perfectly designed for walking on 2 feet cos' it was based on adaptation - modification from previous design. Therefore we are imperfect. Going by that logic, if God created us in his image, it would imply he's imperfect. Kinda hard to imagine the creator to be imperfect, don't you agree?
The only logical conclusion for adaptations to exist, is because of evolution. My analogy of an engineer best describes that. If you're an engineer, why would you design a system that is so faulty? Of course not... unless you're an idiot
Hope that answers all your questions
You see, ppl nowadays like to think for God.
If there is a God why didnt he build it this way...etc
But they all fail to see that our limited minds is not capable of know everything.
And rebuted them based on their examples, in your case, its the bird
I said maybe if birds fly fast, their eyeballs may pop out due to the high speed.
So for that to be flawless, birds will need to have transparent casing outside their eyes....
And they end up saying: arent you thinking for God too?
So my point is. whats rubbish is rubbish. Whether its about God or not.
(hmmm..i sound like cs.lewis ) -
Can you sum up your ideas?Originally posted by kaister:Thanks klydeer! Glad someone read all the info.
"Faster" was written in the context that the creator could have done better. It doesn't have to be the best. Have you ever sprained your legs? Ever wondered why we keep spraining our legs or why women always have to endure so much labour pain? It's because we humans were adapted to walk on two legs instead of 4 from our ancestors.
Our 2 lower limbs are too fragile to support all our weight and they easily give way when stressed. Also, female pelvis will have to be narrowed so that women don't walk like apes and waste precious energy (food was scarce during caveman days). Narrowed pelvis, however, would create problems in childbirth and immature human babies compared to the rest of our close relatives like gorillas and chimpanzees.
Our legs were just not perfectly designed for walking on 2 feet cos' it was based on adaptation - modification from previous design. Therefore we are imperfect. Going by that logic, if God created us in his image, it would imply he's imperfect. Kinda hard to imagine the creator to be imperfect, don't you agree?
The only logical conclusion for adaptations to exist, is because of evolution. My analogy of an engineer best describes that. If you're an engineer, why would you design a system that is so faulty? Of course not... unless you're an idiot
Hope that answers all your questions
So God is perfect and he creates inperfect things
walking on two feet causes labour pain is an example of imperfectness.
And there are many other examples to support how the world is built inperfect.
"An engineer wont build a faulty system unless he is an idiot." i lv this sentance
Now i shall begin.
My main point is that what seems to our human eyes inperfect may NOT be inperfect as you think.
My idea cannot be explained, however, it has to be guilded b4 one can understand.
Is labour pain bad and a sign of inperfectness?
(this is my question for you now) -
It might be true that my limited mind cannot understand God's true intentions. But what I do know is if I keep spraining my legs, God must be at risk of spraining his legs too cos' I was built in his image.Originally posted by davidche:lol, i hv argued regarding this matter with other ppl liao. He ended up with no clever answer.
You see, ppl nowadays like to think for God.
If there is a God why didnt he build it this way...etc
But they all fail to see that our limited minds is not capable of know everything.
And rebuted them based on their examples, in your case, its the bird
I said maybe if birds fly fast, their eyeballs may pop out due to the high speed.
So for that to be flawless, birds will need to have transparent casing outside their eyes....
And they end up saying: arent you thinking for God too?
So my point is. whats rubbish is rubbish. Whether its about God or not.
(hmmm..i sound like cs.lewis ) Take note this is in relation to the physical defect inbuilt in everyone of us, courtesy of your almighty creator.
I also know he's in danger of appendicitis... Although his invulnerability might probably help him.
Ever wondered why your mother had to bear with the child labour when she gave birth to you? Ever wondered why so babies died even though they were born on "full-term" (we humans have a much higher infant mortality rate than other primates)?
Going by your creationism, it's all a crude joke from the big guy up there.
As for your arguement on birds, yes, I will design birds to have protection over their eyes if they can fly that fast. Unfortunately, the creator somehow oversaw that.
There's nothing wrong with your arguements, it's just that it's too submissive to my liking. Even if there is a creator, I wouldn't want to be trapped in his "fish tank", be happy that I'm under his care and eventually die not knowing what lies outside this "fish tank". -
Btw davidche, where's your nobel prize winning theory? Still waiting leh...
-
You might as well say that ppl with birth defects are not perfect and thus they reflect God's imperfectness?Originally posted by kaister:It might be true that my limited mind cannot understand God's true intentions. But what I do know is if I keep spraining my legs, God must be at risk of spraining his legs too cos' I was built in his image. Take note this is in relation to the physical defect inbuilt in everyone of us, courtesy of your almighty creator.
I also know he's in danger of appendicitis... Although his invulnerability might probably help him.
Ever wondered why your mother had to bear with the child labour when she gave birth to you? Ever wondered why so babies died even though they were born on "full-term" (we humans have a much higher infant mortality rate than other primates)?
Going by your creationism, it's all a crude joke from the big guy up there.
As for your arguement on birds, yes, I will design birds to have protection over their eyes if they can fly that fast. Unfortunately, the creator somehow oversaw that.
There's nothing wrong with your arguements, it's just that it's too submissive to my liking. Even if there is a creator, I wouldn't want to be trapped in his "fish tank", be happy that I'm under his care and eventually die not knowing what lies outside this "fish tank". -
In short, yes.Originally posted by davidche:Can you sum up your ideas?
So God is perfect and he creates inperfect things
walking on two feet causes labour pain is an example of imperfectness.
And there are many other examples to support how the world is built inperfect.
"An engineer wont build a faulty system unless he is an idiot." i lv this sentance
Now i shall begin.
My main point is that what seems to our human eyes inperfect may NOT be inperfect as you think.
My idea cannot be explained, however, it has to be guilded b4 one can understand.
Is labour pain bad and a sign of inperfectness?
(this is my question for you now)
In long sentences, of course labour pain is bad and a sign of imperfection! I mean what the hell? Why would you want to design a system where nothing works well? You can't walk well using your 2 legs cos' they are imperfect and babies are always at risk of dying because they are always born immature (in order to squeeze thru the narrow pelvis).
If I am to grade the creator's works, I would fail him/her. One thousand and one ways to approach the problem and this is how the creator submitted his work? Frankly, I'm very disappointed.
And ya, try asking if labour pain is an imperfection to a mother. See how they will answer you.
Edit: spelling error -
People with birth defects are born that way because of mutations and genetic errors. Nothing to do with God. He's innocent in that.Originally posted by davidche:You might as well say that ppl with birth defects are not perfect and thus they reflect God's imperfectness?
What I'm saying is the defects that's in EVERYONE of us. Man, woman, child, everyone! And yes, they reflect that the creator is imperfect. -
So ask you a very critical question. How do you know what are imperfect.Originally posted by kaister:What I'm saying is the defects that's in EVERYONE of us. Man, woman, child, everyone! And yes, they reflect that the creator is imperfect.
Is sth imperfect because YOU think it is imperfect? -
Wah, quite hard to argue on your level leh... answer your questions liao then ask somemore...Originally posted by davidche:So ask you a very critical question. How do you know what are imperfect.
Is sth imperfect because YOU think it is imperfect?
I know what is imperfect because I know perfection when I see one. But seriously, what kind of question is that? You watch Singapore Idols right? You'll know if a person is singing terribly even if you don't know how to sing yourself.
As for your 2nd question, I think that something is imperfect because it is imperfect to start with. Not because I think it's imperfect therefore it's imperfect.
All I know is that things could've been better. Much better. Can understand so far right?
Okie, everytime also you ask me. Now my turn, answer these:
1. Is god/creator perfect?
2. Are we created in his image?
3. Then why do we have imperfect (maybe in your terms, could've -been-better) features - eg, coccyx, appendix, weak lower limbs, prematurely-born babies from narrowed pelvis?
4. Where is your nobel prize winning theory? -
davidche, like vince69, is just stringing you along, questions after questions with no viable admission of what he thinks.Originally posted by kaister:In short, yes.
In long sentences, of course labour pain is bad and a sign of imperfection! I mean what the hell? Why would you want to design a system where nothing works well? You can't walk well using your 2 legs cos' they are imperfect and babies are always at risk of dying because they are always born immature (in order to squeeze thru the narrow pelvis).
If I am to grade the creator's works, I would fail him/her. One thousand and one ways to approach the problem and this is how the creator submitted his work? Frankly, I'm very disappointed.
And ya, try asking if labour pain is an imperfection to a mother. See how they will answer you.
Edit: spelling error
anyway, child labour was supposed to be some form of punishment and not a flaw; it thus serves as a bad example if we are to include divine intervention in intelligent design.
there's no point arguing with him because everything, to him boils down to our puny minds. oh and i quote,
"But they all fail to see that our limited minds is not capable of know everything. "
Ultimate defence for a christian. All divinity and no logic. Exact same sort of people who insist that the earth is flat. -
Now heres the thing:Originally posted by kaister:Wah, quite hard to argue on your level leh... answer your questions liao then ask somemore...
I know what is imperfect because I know perfection when I see one. But seriously, what kind of question is that? You watch Singapore Idols right? You'll know if a person is singing terribly even if you don't know how to sing yourself.
As for your 2nd question, I think that something is imperfect because it is imperfect to start with. Not because I think it's imperfect therefore it's imperfect.
All I know is that things could've been better. Much better. Can understand so far right?
Okie, everytime also you ask me. Now my turn, answer these:
1. Is god/creator perfect?
2. Are we created in his image?
3. Then why do we have imperfect (maybe in your terms, could've -been-better) features - eg, coccyx, appendix, weak lower limbs, prematurely-born babies from narrowed pelvis?
4. Where is your nobel prize winning theory?
only a perfect person can judge whether a thing is perfect or not cos he knows better than you or me.
Do you think a person who cannot even be in the perfect status can judge what is perfect?
You used Singapore Idol as an example which i think is very good.
You find that the judges are experts in music and not just any person.
Thats because they know what is good singing and bad singing and they know the difference
We on the other hand, can give comments and stuffs but we sometimes happen to have the wrong judgement. -
Originally posted by nomood:
I admit child labour was a BAD BAD example. The main point is the immature babies that keeps dying because of the compromise in pelvic width.
davidche, like vince69, is just stringing you along, questions after questions with no viable admission of what he thinks.
anyway, child labour was supposed to be some form of punishment and not a flaw; it thus serves as a bad example if we are to include divine intervention in intelligent design.
there's no point arguing with him because everything, to him boils down to our puny minds. oh and i quote,
[b]"But they all fail to see that our limited minds is not capable of know everything. "
Ultimate defence for a christian. All divinity and no logic. Exact same sort of people who insist that the earth is flat.[/b]
Sometimes I feel unjust for scientists who worked hard in their fields, only to be condemned on the basis of faith/religion. Darwin wanted to reject his own theory at his deathbed to get the church's acceptance. Galileo, who suggested that the earth was not the center of universe in 1600s, got only a public apology from Pope John Paul II in 1992, for condeming him.
If we had choose to see with our own eyes, you will find that we might live in a better society, rather than one filled with hatred and religious conflicts. -
Come on davidche. Answer my questions. I won't continue the discussion if you don't answer my 4 SIMPLE questions.Originally posted by davidche:Now heres the thing:
only a perfect person can judge whether a thing is perfect or not cos he knows better than you or me.
Do you think a person who cannot even be in the perfect status can judge what is perfect?
You used Singapore Idol as an example which i think is very good.
You find that the judges are experts in music and not just any person.
Thats because they know what is good singing and bad singing and they know the difference
We on the other hand, can give comments and stuffs but we sometimes happen to have the wrong judgement.
I apologise for not being able to make the questions sound even simpler than they already are.