22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[hilariousandco]

....

Etc, etc.... Enjoy!

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

So is Satoshi the Creator or did bitcoin evolve?

After all, once upon a time there were lowly little one digit numbers swimming around.  Then they combined.  But nobody has ever shown a number simply arise out of the swamp.  Every number came from another number.

I watched an interesting video about how the fact we even have "information" or the ability to think proves that the information was put there to begin with.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information

I used to teach Kindergarten and in teaching math to young children there is some time spent on symmetry and pattern recognition.  Patterns as well as symmetry are everywhere in our world. Even the simplest things like a leaf on a tree has symmetry.  It obviously takes order and a plan for things to be made like they are.  Where did the plan and order come from?  For evolution to be a good theory we should see evidence of chaos becoming more orderly or symmetry and patterns coming from nothing, but this just isn't the case.  

There's patterns and symmetry because of math which is a universal language. God didn't make it; it's just there. If god has a symmetrical face, does that mean he needs a creator too?

And what do you mean 'symmetry and patterns coming from nothing'? That happens all the time. There's no amount of facts or evidence that any one could ever provide that will satisfy you. God could come down from the sky and tell you evolution was true and the bible is bullshit and you'd probably still question it.

Math requires information.  Watch the video.  It discusses math quite a bit as well as "language" and really is compelling.   I can't do it justice.  My brain does not have enough "information" in it.  I am humbly aware of my limitations but I feel fairly confident that most of you on this board will be able to follow it fine.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information

Linking me to a website called answersingenesis.org is about as much use as me linking you to one called religionisbullshit.org or evolutionisfact.co.uk.

I can try to summarize but I cannot do the scientist credit.  He is a German geneticist an do goes into great detail with examples.

But I will do my best here:

Information is complex.  The amount of information in even a small part of our DNA, for example, is more than thousands of pages of a book.  This information comes from somewhere.  All information comes from someone putting that information there.  This is a scientific "law."  He has proof of that law.  Therefore, there had to be intelligent design because of how information works. 

Why are you suddenly bothering with the laws of science? You disregard them for everything else unless it appears to suit you, but that info did come from somewhere. Millions of years of evolution. Why do you never apply your same logic to god himself. God must have "information" in him too, far more complex information than anything that is on this planet, yet he exists just fine to you.

[1715447711]

1715447711

[1715447711]

1715447711

[1715447711]

1715447711

[BitChick]

....

Etc, etc.... Enjoy!

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

So is Satoshi the Creator or did bitcoin evolve?

After all, once upon a time there were lowly little one digit numbers swimming around.  Then they combined.  But nobody has ever shown a number simply arise out of the swamp.  Every number came from another number.

I watched an interesting video about how the fact we even have "information" or the ability to think proves that the information was put there to begin with.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information

I used to teach Kindergarten and in teaching math to young children there is some time spent on symmetry and pattern recognition.  Patterns as well as symmetry are everywhere in our world. Even the simplest things like a leaf on a tree has symmetry.  It obviously takes order and a plan for things to be made like they are.  Where did the plan and order come from?  For evolution to be a good theory we should see evidence of chaos becoming more orderly or symmetry and patterns coming from nothing, but this just isn't the case.  

There's patterns and symmetry because of math which is a universal language. God didn't make it; it's just there. If god has a symmetrical face, does that mean he needs a creator too?

And what do you mean 'symmetry and patterns coming from nothing'? That happens all the time. There's no amount of facts or evidence that any one could ever provide that will satisfy you. God could come down from the sky and tell you evolution was true and the bible is bullshit and you'd probably still question it.

Math requires information.  Watch the video.  It discusses math quite a bit as well as "language" and really is compelling.   I can't do it justice.  My brain does not have enough "information" in it.  I am humbly aware of my limitations but I feel fairly confident that most of you on this board will be able to follow it fine.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information

Linking me to a website called answersingenesis.org is about as much use as me linking you to one called religionisbullshit.org or evolutionisfact.co.uk.

I can try to summarize but I cannot do the scientist credit.  He is a German geneticist an do goes into great detail with examples.

But I will do my best here:

Information is complex.  The amount of information in even a small part of our DNA, for example, is more than thousands of pages of a book.  This information comes from somewhere.  All information comes from someone putting that information there.  This is a scientific "law."  He has proof of that law.  Therefore, there had to be intelligent design because of how information works.  

Why are you suddenly bothering with the laws of science? You disregard them for everything else unless it appears to suit you, but that info did come from somewhere. Millions of years of evolution. Why do you never apply your same logic to god himself. God must have "information" in him too, far more complex information than anything that is on this planet, yet he exists just fine to you.

But who is really disregarding the laws of science?  Evolutionists have so little proof of their theory.  For just one example, they use a few fossils that show micro-evolution (changes within a kind) and then make assumptions based on these fossils and then speculate that because they see some changes in a species that then we all just evolved from nothing, but there is no proof of any changes from species to another species or one kind to another kind and then you say that I am not bothering with the laws of science?  I am offended by that.  

There is great science that has support for intelligent design.  I am sorry if I have to use "biased" creation websites to show videos of this but unfortunately all of the so called "scientific" sites have become a club of evolution propaganda preachers that have the main goal of discrediting anything that would make them even consider that there was a God, or someone that they have to be accountable to other than themselves.


And as for God having information?  Of course He does.  We have a finite mind and have no understanding of anything outside of time or creation.  Everything in our world has a beginning and an end.  We cannot understand an infinite being because we are living in finite bodies. 

[hilariousandco]

Why are you suddenly bothering with the laws of science? You disregard them for everything else unless it appears to suit you, but that info did come from somewhere. Millions of years of evolution. Why do you never apply your same logic to god himself. God must have "information" in him too, far more complex information than anything that is on this planet, yet he exists just fine to you.

But who is really disregarding the laws of science?  Evolutionists have so little proof of their theory.  For just one example, they use a few fossils that show micro-evolution (changes within a kind) and then make assumptions based on these fossils and then speculate that because they see some changes in a species that then we all just evolved from nothing, but there is no proof of any changes from species to another species or one kind to another kind and then you say that I am not bothering with the laws of science?  I am offended by that.  

There is great science that has support for intelligent design.  I am sorry if I have to use "biased" creation websites to show videos of this but unfortunately all of the so called "scientific" sites have become a club of evolution propaganda preachers that have the main goal of discrediting anything that would make them even consider that there was a God, or someone that they have to be accountable to other than themselves.


And as for God having information?  Of course He does.  We have a finite mind and have no understanding of anything outside of time or creation.  Everything in our world has a beginning and an end.  We cannot understand an infinite being because we are living in finite bodies. 

Evolutionists have so little proof of their theory? Creationists have zero of theirs.  Evolution doesn't boil down to just "a few fossils". There's far more evidence on top of the fossil record that backs that up, but you disregard that. You say there's no proof, but the only thing that would satifsy you is if you saw an monkey evolve into a human or a bird into a fish in front of your eyes, but that's not gonna happen.

And you just said a few posts up that there's information in the world and we need a designer for that to be put there. How did the information get in god? You contradict yourself continually. You ask for evidence yet require none for god. If nobody can understand god because he's outside of time (I thought he was everywhere?) then you cant possibly understand him. But I suppose it does make sense that god would write the bible in such childlike terms so us puny limited-capacity humans can understand it. Don't actually elaborate or explain any of the genius of the science behind all creation, just say "I did it and it was good" like that's an acceptable explanation and us idiotic humans will believe it without any evidence. Oh, wait... idiots do believe it.  Like I said before, if there was a god, the bible would be an absolute slap round the face to his intelligence and genius  .

[C10H15N]

Again. you are spouting pure bullshit.

Evolution has all the peer reviewed proof which is why its the current accepted theory.

Creationism has none of that because there is no proof, only belief - which in scientific terms is bullshit.

[botija]

Well, that's it, they got me. I no longer believe in evolution. What really did it for me was the question, "If humans came from monkeys, how come there are still monkey?"    

[jcoin200]

Well, that's it, they got me. I no longer believe in evolution. What really did it for me was the question, "If humans came from monkeys, how come there are still monkey?"    

Another question I have asked is, why did some species decide to stop evolving?  Such as sharks and crocodiles.  That baffles me

[FalconFly]

Well, that's it, they got me. I no longer believe in evolution. What really did it for me was the question, "If humans came from monkeys, how come there are still monkey?"    

Did someone forget the irony tag ?

[C10H15N]

Well, that's it, they got me. I no longer believe in evolution. What really did it for me was the question, "If humans came from monkeys, how come there are still monkey?"    

Did someone forget the irony tag ?

lol - most of us are clever enough not to need the tag, but we are dealing with creationists.   

[Bit_Happy]

....

Question #9




Etc, etc.... Enjoy!

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

I must say intelligent design was a creative way to avoid admitting they were wrong. 

[Peter Lambert]

Well, that's it, they got me. I no longer believe in evolution. What really did it for me was the question, "If humans came from monkeys, how come there are still monkey?"    

Another question I have asked is, why did some species decide to stop evolving?  Such as sharks and crocodiles.  That baffles me

Who says sharks and crocodiles are not evolving? They are successful in their niche, and so there is evolutionary pressure to stay as they are. There are many varieties of both crocodiles and sharks, if you look closely you will see they have been evolving.

Don't anthropomorphize evolution too much, creatures do not decide to evolve or not, they are all always evolving.

Think of it this way: Species A evolves into A and B, A is better fit so B dies off. Then A evolves into A and C, A is better fit so C dies off. Now, millions of years later, we have species A, can we say that A has not been evolving this whole time?

[C10H15N]

Another question I have asked is, why did some species decide to stop evolving?  Such as sharks and crocodiles.  That baffles me

Your failure to understand evolution in no way makes it less valid.   

[jcoin200]

Well, that's it, they got me. I no longer believe in evolution. What really did it for me was the question, "If humans came from monkeys, how come there are still monkey?"    

Another question I have asked is, why did some species decide to stop evolving?  Such as sharks and crocodiles.  That baffles me

Who says sharks and crocodiles are not evolving? They are successful in their niche, and so there is evolutionary pressure to stay as they are. There are many varieties of both crocodiles and sharks, if you look closely you will see they have been evolving.

Don't anthropomorphize evolution too much, creatures do not decide to evolve or not, they are all always evolving.

Think of it this way: Species A evolves into A and B, A is better fit so B dies off. Then A evolves into A and C, A is better fit so C dies off. Now, millions of years later, we have species A, can we say that A has not been evolving this whole time?

Please provide the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE showing your theory of Species A evolving into B, then B dying off.  There is no physical evidence of species changing from one to another completely different species, contrary to what you may think.  According to evolution, there should be countless fossils of these "transitional species."

[FalconFly]

Well, that's it, they got me. I no longer believe in evolution. What really did it for me was the question, "If humans came from monkeys, how come there are still monkey?"    

Another question I have asked is, why did some species decide to stop evolving?  Such as sharks and crocodiles.  That baffles me

Who says sharks and crocodiles are not evolving? They are successful in their niche, and so there is evolutionary pressure to stay as they are. There are many varieties of both crocodiles and sharks, if you look closely you will see they have been evolving.

Don't anthropomorphize evolution too much, creatures do not decide to evolve or not, they are all always evolving.

Think of it this way: Species A evolves into A and B, A is better fit so B dies off. Then A evolves into A and C, A is better fit so C dies off. Now, millions of years later, we have species A, can we say that A has not been evolving this whole time?

Please provide the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE showing your theory of Species A evolving into B, then B dying off.  There is no physical evidence of species changing from one to another completely different species, contrary to what you may think.  According to evolution, there should be countless fossils of these "transitional species."

Now who claimed sharks did not evolve ?



Oh, and there are megalodon fossils for the fossil seekers out there.
I certainly would not have wanted to share the same waters with such a beast o.0

PS.
The small, friendly looking green one is the current state of evolution : The great white shark...

[jcoin200]

 Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

Furthermore please explain this.  I am dying to know where these transitional half species fossils can be found.

[guybrushthreepwood]

There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Lol at expecting there to be fossils of microscopic bacteria. Do you want some fossils of oxygen as well?

[Peter Lambert]

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

Furthermore please explain this.  I am dying to know where these transitional half species fossils can be found.

The fossil record does not produce a fossil for every individual. As was shown in the microbe study I linked earlier in the thread, a number of changes in the genetic record can develope without changing the organism, but then they can be switched on all at once.

IIUC: Fish did not evolve from exoskeletal invertebrates. Something like flatworms -> roundworms -> segmented worms -> chordates -> vertebrates.

Have you noticed that there are transitional animals still alive today? Like the coelecanth, which is a lobe-finned fish, transitional between the fish and tetrapods.

How do you account for vestigial organs, if not a sort of transitional evolution?

There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Lol at expecting there to be fossils of microscopic bacteria. Do you want some fossils of oxygen as well?

Actually, there are plenty of fossils of microbes. But not all microbes form fossils. Many animals leave very few fossils. Like frogs: there are very few fossils of frogs, but the few fossil frogs found show that they have been around a long time.

[hilariousandco]

Furthermore please explain this.  I am dying to know where these transitional half species fossils can be found.

What do you mean half-species? Are you really asking for a fish with legs or wings or something?

[BitChick]

Again. you are spouting pure bullshit.

Evolution has all the peer reviewed proof which is why its the current accepted theory.

Creationism has none of that because there is no proof, only belief - which in scientific terms is bullshit.

But what if all of the "peers" have the same bias?  In fact, many brilliant scientists have been ostracized for presenting any scientific data that appears to promote the creationist viewpoint.  If there was absolute proof that there was an intelligent designer it would be completely disreguarded because based on the "scientific" community's opinion there cannot be such a thing.  

As for your claim that creationism is "only" a belief, there is NO proof of evolution either.  It takes faith to believe in evolution just as much as it does creation.  Why?  Who was there there millions and billions of years ago to prove what happened? Evolution is a theory.  But the scientific community treats the theory like it is a proven fact.  That should be troubling to everyone.

[hilariousandco]

Again. you are spouting pure bullshit.

Evolution has all the peer reviewed proof which is why its the current accepted theory.

Creationism has none of that because there is no proof, only belief - which in scientific terms is bullshit.

But what if all of the "peers" have the same bias?  In fact, many brilliant scientists have been ostracized for presenting any scientific data that appears to promote the creationist viewpoint.  If there was absolute proof that there was an intelligent designer it would be completely disreguarded because based on the "scientific" community's opinion there cannot be such a thing.  

As for your claim that creationism is "only" a belief, there is NO proof of evolution either.  It takes faith to believe in evolution just as much as it does creation.  Why?  Who was there there millions and billions of years ago to prove what happened? Evolution is a theory.  Please stop acting like it a proven fact.  That is not a very scientific way of approaching anything.  

What if all the creationists have the same bias? (they do). Biologists and scientists look at the evidence and piece it together. Proof of a designer wouldn't be disregarded, but there isn't going to be any proof, and you don't need it anyway. If there was absolute proof of evolution you would disregard it like you do now. Gravity is only a theory but I don't see you questioning that. Belief in evolution takes faith based on evidence and the facts we have. Belief in god takes faith based on nothing but 'it says in the bible'.  "Who was there there millions and billions of years ago to prove what happened?" Who was there thousands of years ago for the creationists explanation of things? And please stop acting like god is a proven fact.

[the joint]

Look, if you want to debate a point, that's fine.  But can you at least debate against something relevant to my position?

*ugh*

I find it irritating to say the least if me pointing out that the entire foundation for your line of argument is 100.0% false... is regarded as not relevant (?!).
Frankly, that's about as relevant as it can possibly get. That's a point that isn't even debatable anymore to any degree as it's just a complete error in plain sight negating your entire argumentation.

Put in other words : if an entire bulding collapses into itself because its foundation was built on sand and made of grossly inadequate materials - you really don't discuss whether the window dressing in that building was appropriate or not.

I'm not going to debate anything when it's clear you have no idea what I meant in the first place.  You don't get to tell me what my position is, that's my job!

Hmkay, so it looks like I scored a direct hit dead-center, sorry to hear that the truth hurts you.

PS.
If that statement of yours that I quoted was not intended to read what it clearly read, then you had more than enough time to correct or specify.
Since you didn't, I assume it's exactly what you meant and naturally represents your position. If that for some really wicked reason is not the case, please stop discussing in internet forums for a while and work on your communication skills ASAP (reason : you'd basically be incapable to express your position in writing !? )

You didn't score anything -- we're not even playing on the same board.

I'm not going to debate against someone who adamantly claims he understands the arguments I present when he clearly does not.

The reason that it's clear you have no idea what I'm trying to say is because you pulled the "he said something that doesn't epitomize the glory of the scientific method, so he obviously must hate anything and everything resulting from the scientific method" straw man of of your you-know-what.

Science leads to technological developments which are arguably the greatest contributor to the continually-improving quality of life on Earth.  I would never deny its utility.

I suggest you reread what I said, recognize that you're simply framing my arguments into a context you're more familiar with, and then apologize.