Why do people laugh at creationist? This is why - Page 7

Hurricane LOL · #61 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultiman

I feel disgraced by those videos that guy is just an idiot. I don't understand how people can just parade around like that and make statements without any proof.

Watch this video, and open your eyes.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj...eature=related

General AI · #62 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008

I love these parts part:

Quote:

On June 5, 2006, Hovind pled nolo contendere as charged to three counts: constructing a building without a permit, refusing to sign a citation, and violating the county building code. Hovind was ordered to pay $225.00 per count. The plea brought to an end the 5-year criminal (misdemeanor) court battle over a $50.00 building permit. In June 2006 Hovind complied with the county law. Hovind estimates he spent $40,000 in legal expenses on this case. On June 19, 2006, the delinquent 2003-2005 property taxes/penalties for Dinosaur Adventure Land were paid in the amount of $10,402.64.

Quote:

In 1996 Hovind unsuccessfully filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying federal income taxes claiming he wasn't a citizen of the US and did not earn income. Hovind was found to have lied about his possessions and income. He claimed that as a minister of God everything he owns belonged to God and he is not subject to paying taxes to the United States on the money he received for doing God's work.

Quote:

At the time of the arrest Magistrate Davis, over Hovind's protests, took away his passport and guns. However, Hovind argued that he needed his passport to continue his evangelism work. He said "thousands and thousands" were waiting to hear him preach in South Africa the following month. But Davis sided with Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Heldmyer, who argued that "like-minded people" might secret Hovind away if he left the country. In relation to the guns, Davis said "ownership was not the issue." Because of reports of weapons on the Hovind property, the indictment was originally sealed for fear that "the arrest of the defendants in this case could pose some danger to agents." More than a half-dozen guns were seized at the Hovind's home, including an SKS semiautomatic rifle. Also "During an IRS raid at the home, agents found cash stashed 'all over the place.' About $42,000 was seized."

Who knew Hovind was so sly?

Publik Uprising · #63 (**permalink**) 06-28-2008

I was searching for a definition for something and I accidentally came across this "wonderful" site:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan...onscience.html

Quote:

What should Christian teens believe about creation science?

If you attend a Bible-believing Christian school, or a strong, Bible-believing Christian church, you probably have no problem accepting creation science. You also probably know the weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
But if you have never heard the scientific reasons for accepting biblical creation over evolution, you may think evolution is fact and anything else is nonsense.
As Bible-believing Christians, we accept God's Word, the Bible, as authoritative and true. God's knowledge and wisdom are far above our own, so we accept Him as the expert on anything He wants to comment on. People who imply they know better than God are displaying careless arrogance. We cannot take them seriously.
In the beginning …

Something that God does comment on is how the world began.
The only one who was here in the beginning was God. No scientist. No skeptic. No representative from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Just God. So if we want to find out what happened in the beginning, whom should we ask? The one to ask is God. Not an evolutionary scientist or a skeptic, or a representative from the ACLU. Just God.
And God tells us in His book, the Bible, that He created the universe . in six days and in perfect condition. He tells us that He created:

light on the first day
the firmament (visible arch of the sky) on the second day
trees and plants on the third day
the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day
birds and water creatures on the fifth day
land animals and humans on the sixth day.Creation science upholds God’s Word

As Christians, we believe that anyone who is wise enough to use God as their authority, instead of using human theories, is going to get the important facts right.
When we look for people who do use God as their authority we find conservative Christians and creation scientists clearly falling into this category. Thousands of highly qualified scientists and scientific researchers believe the creationist view. So it is not true to say (as atheists and non-Christians sometimes do) that those who believe God's Word are uninformed, untrained people.
Creation science organizations exist worldwide, and their arguments for creation and the truth of the Bible, as opposed to the theory of evolution, are excellent.
We therefore believe that Christian teens should support the creation science view. It conforms so well with what God tells us in His Word (the Bible), that we believe it is the only view of science that Christian teens should support.

And this: http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html

Quote:

Three problems for atheistic evolutionists

Evolutionists who reject God and miracles have three huge problems to explain.
Problem No. 1
How did the universe come about?

There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.
Atheistic evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.
For more information on the origin of the universe, see Models of the origin of the universe, by Dr. John Rankin.
Problem No. 2
How could living creatures come from non-life?

No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers. Life invariably comes from something that is already alive.
Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals.
But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!
Dr. Kennethe Poppe says in his book Exposing Evolution's Weakest Link,
“There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.”
For more information on abiogenesis (the theory that contends organisms originated from non-living material), see the CreationWiki article, Abiogenesis.
See also Origin of Life questions and answers, by Answers in Genesis.
Problem No. 3
How could new genetic information arise?

There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.
To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.
But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were not present in the ancestral species?
The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there . therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.
Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.
For more information on macroevolution, see the CreationWiki articles Macroevolution and Macroevolution has never been observed.
See also Speciation Questions and Answers by Answers in Genesis.
We believe that the evidence is stronger for those who believe the Bible's account of creation . that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”.

EmptyProduction · #64 (**permalink**) 06-28-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publik Uprising

I was searching for a definition for something and I accidentally came across this "wonderful" site:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan...onscience.html

[/list]And this: http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html

Who cares.

There's always going to be creationists propaganda on the internet.

BORAT IS FOLLY · 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publik Uprising

I was searching for a definition for something and I accidentally came across this "wonderful" site:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan...onscience.html[/list]And this: http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html

Let's put up some refuted arguments and say they weren't refuted!

You have to wonder how they have the audacity to take shots at non-believers.

TooMuchButtHair · #66 (**permalink**) 06-28-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publik Uprising

I was searching for a definition for something and I accidentally came across this "wonderful" site:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan...onscience.html

[/list]And this: http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html

Seriously? That's the stupidest argument I've ever seen, but let me refute a bit of it:

Three problems for atheistic evolutionists

Evolutionists who reject God and miracles have three huge problems to explain.

You can start right there - not all proponents of evolution reject god. Ken Miller is a prominent biochemist and evolutionary biologist who is also a devote Catholic. He does believe we evolved from simple eukaryotic cells, though.

Problem No. 1
How did the universe come about?

What does the explanation of net energy with relation to astrophysical phenomena have to do with incorrect gene duplication and natural selection? That first problem is the sign of true ignorance.

Problem No. 2
How could living creatures come from non-life?

Good question. As a man with a Bachelor of Science IN BIOCHEMISTRY from a prestigious university, I am extraordinarily qualified to answer that question. All the components of life are, by definition, not alive, and can be found in nature. Creating nucleotides in a lab (even in low level organic chemistry classes) is a trivial thing to do. Anyone who has taken the full sequence of junior level biochemistry will probably be able to spend five hours in a lab and create a self replicating polymer that is, by definition, not alive.

The largest component of a cell, the cell wall, is also not alive. However, if you throw phospholipids in water, they automatically create micelles. Nothing is alive yet - we've just let the laws of chemistry do their thing, but we're amazingly close to something that fits the definition of life. The final component, sort of, is metabolism. That's a much larger and further reaching topic, and as a whole it's incredibly complicated, but broken down to it's individual parts, it's absurdly easy to understand.

Life from non-life? It's simple. Scientists want to do it in a lab, but are afraid that the micro organism they create will be something radically different than what our immune system has evolved to fight.

Problem No. 3
How could new genetic information arise?

What is information? If they mean new genes, we've seen them arise thousands of times in hundreds of different organisms. The term 'information' isn't used in biology or biochemistry once. New genetic information in the form of mutations happens all the time. We're all born with about 100 mutations, at least. Most of them are harmless, with about .01% being harmful, and .01% being beneficial. Natural Selection dictates that the harmful ones won't get passed down, but the beneficial ones, aka the new genetic information, will get passed down.

The proposition that speciation has never been observed is a direct lie. Isn't bearing false witness a serious sin? Why do creationists keep doing it? Speciation has been observed hundreds of times in the short time we've been studying evolution.

None of those things are problems to evolutionary biologists, and some don't even have a damn thing to do with biology at all.

sC DeLAy · #67 (**permalink**) 06-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmptyProduction

I laughed at creationist stupidity and humorous editing at times.

This is only 4 of 24 videos.

"1 drop of world will cover the water" haha good stuff.

That proved jack.

I'm a creationist myself, and I still LOLed at those videos.

Who said those people speak for every creationist on the planet?

EmptyProduction · 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sC DeLAy

That proved jack.

I'm a creationist myself, and I still LOLed at those videos.

Who said those people speak for every creationist on the planet?

If you believe the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs living with humans, and so on then these videos apply to you.

If you don't believe in those things then you're simply not a christian creationist

sC DeLAy · #69 (**permalink**) 06-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmptyProduction

If you believe the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs living with humans, and so on then these videos apply to you.

If you don't believe in those things then you're simply not a christian creationist

I believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, although I don't believe it's 6,000 years old. If you can understand that.

That wasn't even my argument. All I'm saying is that the people in most those videos don't speak for every creationist. Obviously.

**NiceGuy** · #70 (**permalink**) 06-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by sC DeLAy

That proved jack.

I'm a creationist myself, and I still LOLed at those videos.

Who said those people speak for every creationist on the planet?

They're examples of Creationist stupidity. Perhaps you should be interviewed next, to show that not all creationists have crackpot, crackpipe ideas of how things came to be.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes