22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[jcoin200]

Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote."  If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.

I had never heard of David Berlinski until today.  A professor at Princeton and an agnostic Jew that believes in intelligent design is refreshing to listen to.  He really is brilliant.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

Yeah it is refreshing to listen to someone who is truly unbiased when he looks at the data and the facts. He can clearly see a correlation between the MONEY behind the studies, and how that has swayed the "science" behind evolution. It's like how the government has "ended the debate" over the safety of GMO's. If they put enough money into a study, they can get whatever outcome they want

[julestheminer]

Creationism vs. Evolution should not be a discussion anymore. Agreeing to disagree is the only way the two sides are going to survive in harmony... there is literally no logical way that either side can make any headway with the other. If someone wants to believe something, they will. If the two opposing sides begin a debate, you can always see how each side simply tries to trick the other into agreement. No one learns anything, and nothing gets solved...so why do people still have this talk?

tl;dr: Creationism says: "Science doesn't know everything. I could be right.". Evolution says: "Science is trying to understand things. You could be wrong."
Everyone flames and no one wins.

Russell's Teapot, etc.

[KonstantinosM]

Evolution is a scientific theory. So it is testable, and observable under laboratory conditions. You can observe it in nature.

The second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. The earth is not a closed system. The sun gives energy to the earth. Decaying radioisotopes in the earth also give it a lit of energy. The moons orbit also gives it some energy. Furthermore some energy is lost to space.


Most of those questions are really unintelligent. If any of these people were designed for today's society I'd say their brains were unintelligently designed.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote."  If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.

I had never heard of David Berlinski until today.  A professor at Princeton and an agnostic Jew that believes in intelligent design is refreshing to listen to.  He really is brilliant.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

How can he be agnostic but believe in intelligent design?

[BitChick]

Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote."  If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.

I had never heard of David Berlinski until today.  A professor at Princeton and an agnostic Jew that believes in intelligent design is refreshing to listen to.  He really is brilliant.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

How can he be agnostic but believe in intelligent design?

An agnostic and atheist are not one in the same.  One can be agnostic and be theistic but they admit that there is no proof of that existence.  It seems that David Berlinski is very much a philosopher and I would think his claim of being "agnostic" was one in which he takes a more neutral stance in his belief in God.  There is more about him on Wikipedia though.

[Gimpeline]

How do you explain easter without the bunny...

Honestly. That question makes more sense than most creationists questions

[guybrushthreepwood]

Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote."  If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.

I had never heard of David Berlinski until today.  A professor at Princeton and an agnostic Jew that believes in intelligent design is refreshing to listen to.  He really is brilliant.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

How can he be agnostic but believe in intelligent design?

An agnostic and atheist are not one in the same.  One can be agnostic and be theistic but they admit that there is no proof of that existence.  It seems that David Berlinski is very much a philosopher and I would think his claim of being "agnostic" was one in which he takes a more neutral stance in his belief in God.  There is more about him on Wikipedia though.

I'm aware of that, but how can someone believe in intelligent design whilst remaining agnostic? By definition you need a creator for that.

[BitChick]

Listen to David Berlinski, he basically knocks evolution down to "nothing more than an anecdote."  If you still believe in the THEORY of evolution after listening to him, you are crazy.

I had never heard of David Berlinski until today.  A professor at Princeton and an agnostic Jew that believes in intelligent design is refreshing to listen to.  He really is brilliant.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

How can he be agnostic but believe in intelligent design?

An agnostic and atheist are not one in the same.  One can be agnostic and be theistic but they admit that there is no proof of that existence.  It seems that David Berlinski is very much a philosopher and I would think his claim of being "agnostic" was one in which he takes a more neutral stance in his belief in God.  There is more about him on Wikipedia though.

I'm aware of that, but how can someone believe in intelligent design whilst remaining agnostic? By definition you need a creator for that.

Wikipedia seems to think it is possible:  

Types of agnosticism

A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:

Agnostic atheism
    The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[21][22][23]
Agnostic theism
    The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[21]
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
    The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[24][25]
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
    The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."[26][27][28]
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
    The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[26][27][28

I have often thought that agnostics were just those that believe in God but think he is completely uninterested or not at all involved with us as humans on a personal level.  Sort of like he created everything and is now letting humanity deal with it's own vices.  It can often feel that way so I understand the agnostic point of view to a certain degree.  However, I have personally come to believe that God is as involved in our lives as we will allow him, or ask Him to be. 

[guybrushthreepwood]

I have often thought that agnostics were just those that believe in God but think he is completely uninterested or not at all involved with us as humans on a personal level.  Sort of like he created everything and is now letting humanity deal with it's own vices.  It can often feel that way so I understand the agnostic point of view to a certain degree.  However, I have personally come to believe that God is as involved in our lives as we will allow him, or ask Him to be. 

Agnosticism is not really that. Simply put it is someone who doesn't know, or believes they cannot know wether there is a god or not. I don't see how somebody can believe they were created by a intelligent being, but not be sure wether there is an intelligent being or not.

[BitChick]

I have often thought that agnostics were just those that believe in God but think he is completely uninterested or not at all involved with us as humans on a personal level.  Sort of like he created everything and is now letting humanity deal with it's own vices.  It can often feel that way so I understand the agnostic point of view to a certain degree.  However, I have personally come to believe that God is as involved in our lives as we will allow him, or ask Him to be. 

Agnosticism is not really that. Simply put it is someone who doesn't know, or believes they cannot know wether there is a god or not. I don't see how somebody can believe they were created by a intelligent being, but not be sure wether there is an intelligent being or not.

Perhaps because he has no way of proving God one way or another?  One of David Berlinski's quotes that is circulating is:

“I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.”

[Wipeout2097]

Someone wrote (by accident) that "God" created the world in 6 days because he didn't know better, and 3500 later after knowing a bit more about the Universe, we're still discussing what that dude wrote ?!

Who created God? What is God made of?

[BTCWizard]

http://www.ibtimes.com/22-responses-buzzfeeds-22-messages-creationists-evolution-origin-life-1553534

Do these people only read 2000 year old fairy tales?
We have internet, libraries, good documentaries and brains. Use them!

[Lethn]

Whoever wrote that article is far more patient than I ever could be.

[salstimda]

Question #4



Question #5



Question #9




Etc, etc.... Enjoy!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?sub=2976539_2391851

omg this is hilarious thanks

[guybrushthreepwood]

I have often thought that agnostics were just those that believe in God but think he is completely uninterested or not at all involved with us as humans on a personal level.  Sort of like he created everything and is now letting humanity deal with it's own vices.  It can often feel that way so I understand the agnostic point of view to a certain degree.  However, I have personally come to believe that God is as involved in our lives as we will allow him, or ask Him to be. 

Agnosticism is not really that. Simply put it is someone who doesn't know, or believes they cannot know wether there is a god or not. I don't see how somebody can believe they were created by a intelligent being, but not be sure wether there is an intelligent being or not.

Perhaps because he has no way of proving God one way or another?  One of David Berlinski's quotes that is circulating is:

“I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.”

But he believes he was intelligently designed, so how can he be agnostic?

And you can't really disprove that something doesn't exist. Can the scientific community disprove a baboon god that I have just made up doesn't exist? No. God (and my baboon god along with all the other ones we made up) do a pretty good job of proving they don't exist all by themselves by not existing.

[RodeoX]

Those questions could be answered by my students. They have all been considered by science in past decades and even centuries. What am I supposed to make of their ignorance?

"How do you explain a sunset if there is no god?" Jesus H. Christ 

[guybrushthreepwood]

Those questions could be answered by my students. They have all been considered by science in past decades and even centuries. What am I supposed to make of their ignorance?

"How do you explain a sunset if there is no god?" Jesus H. Christ  

You missed the grammar fuck up too.

[BitChick]

I have often thought that agnostics were just those that believe in God but think he is completely uninterested or not at all involved with us as humans on a personal level.  Sort of like he created everything and is now letting humanity deal with it's own vices.  It can often feel that way so I understand the agnostic point of view to a certain degree.  However, I have personally come to believe that God is as involved in our lives as we will allow him, or ask Him to be.  

Agnosticism is not really that. Simply put it is someone who doesn't know, or believes they cannot know wether there is a god or not. I don't see how somebody can believe they were created by a intelligent being, but not be sure wether there is an intelligent being or not.

Perhaps because he has no way of proving God one way or another?  One of David Berlinski's quotes that is circulating is:

“I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.”

But he believes he was intelligently designed, so how can he be agnostic?

And you can't really disprove that something doesn't exist. Can the scientific community disprove a baboon god that I have just made up doesn't exist? No. God (and my baboon god along with all the other ones we made up) do a pretty good job of proving they don't exist all by themselves by not existing.

Perhaps he is misusing the word "agnostic" or the meaning of "agnostic" has just evolved over time.

Regardless,  I like the guy. I think he brings up many valid points.  This topic has not been "laid to rest" as many who hold to the evolutionary theory as if it was the one thing that held more truth than absolutely everything else in the universe.

I had a debate on Facebook with a friend of mine this week about this.  He said he was "unimpressed" with Dr. Berlinski's video and then proceeded to send me links of transitional fossils and even (in order to put the nails in the coffin) sent me several links to show how there are fossils of fish becoming amphibians.  So I responded that if the fossils showing fish becoming amphibians was indeed some true scientific observational evidence of evolution then YES!  There is some small piece of proof to base a theory on.  However, is that all I get?  Just a few fossils of fish becoming amphibians?  Can't I at least get a transitional fossil of a fish becoming a bird?  Is this too much to ask if I am going to base my entire belief system on this and throw out the potential that there was an Intelligent Designer that had a hand in how beautifully organized and complex our universe is and works together?  Of course he just threw the millions and billions of years that it took.  However, even with billions of years is there enough time to allow for each small change to happen to get where we are now?  It is mathematically impossible.  Plus there just is no observational record of these changes.  Otherwise it is just "faith" in evolution.  We have a choice then, faith in evolution or faith in an intelligent designer.  It really is that simple.

[jcoin200]

I've seen some of the "transitional fossils," or shards and fragments of fossils, which is basically what they are.  If there were really millions of years of humans and other animals "evolving" then these "transitional fossils" would be everywhere.  Instead, the fossils found are fully developed "kinds" or species.

Evolution supporters still cant explain why these aren't found EVERYWHERE, which is what their THEORY says should occur.  Funny how they can just gloss over this extreme lack of any physical historical evidence whatsoever.

[BitChick]

I've seen some of the "transitional fossils," or shards and fragments of fossils, which is basically what they are.  If there were really millions of years of humans and other animals "evolving" then these "transitional fossils" would be everywhere.  Instead, the fossils found are fully developed "kinds" or species.

Evolution supporters still cant explain why these aren't found EVERYWHERE, which is what their THEORY says should occur.  Funny how they can just gloss over this extreme lack of any physical historical evidence whatsoever.

LOL. http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

From the link:  -

Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks

Again.  This is supposed to convince me?  These so called "transitional fossil" that the scientists are getting so excited about are nothing more than a beautiful show about micro-evolution which is basically the changes that happen within a species.  This does not account for changes other than that.  Show me one solid piece of evidence that proves macro-evolution please.  Just one example of one KIND changing into another KIND.  That is all I am asking for.  It does not seem like a lot to ask does it?