Is there anyone here who actually believes in Creationism? If so, why?

Is there anyone here who actually believes in Creationism? If so, why?

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-in-the-everday-world/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/why-do-men-have-nipples/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22028006
biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=vFUx_KC1bHQ
biblehub.com/genesis/1-31.htm
biblehub.com/genesis/2-1.htm
biblehub.com/hebrew/3117.htm
pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Everything went too right, its weird.

Yes. Faith.

Any other answer is wrong.

I done grew up from a little boy inta a big grown man! How comes I ain't grown into a beaver?!

Everything went too right, it's weird huh?

Why so limited user?

I fucking hate this argument.

The human body is barely functional and filled with structures that don't do anything. Some even make life harder.

If the earth weren't hospitable to humans then we would never have fucking developed in the first place.

If it were any less perfect we wouldn't be here! And it's far from "perfect" in any fucking way. We just happen to be smart enough to live outside of our natural habitat.

The only way anyone can make this argument is by being mind-numbingly ignorant of the world around them.

Faith is knowledge for people who are too lazy to learn.

What else you need? Holy Spirit completes where your faith alone can't.

Spirits don't exist.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Also existence of consciousness

Demons exist and they take the form of heretical beliefs.

Holy Spirit is simply God.

There is no 'why'

It is a belief within and without, every believer who attempts to reason it with these garbage arguments and supports the rape of science should blow their fucking brains out

>hurr it's too perfect

k

The human body holds the soul, the soul is what is made in the likeness of God.

>what is atmospheric equilibrium?
But, like, who cares when humans are still evolving and happen to have organs from the grass eating days? If it ain't absolutely perfect then there's absolutely no chance of some sort of conscious intervention.

>b-b-but isn't God infallible
Nope, that's a strawman, Aquinas only did the omni god thing to appease the Catholic church who only did it to one up polytheists.

Face the fact, biological things are required to be imperfect so as survival and selection to actually work, some things need to fail for other things to succeed. Equality is unnatural. You bitching about imperfection is like a child bitching that it can't have ice cream for dinner.

And remember, your consciousness just "randomly" emerged from natural laws. That's right, just a random emergent property, nothing to see here, absolutely no indication of another consciousness behind those natural laws.

prove that. prove any part of that.

>And remember, your consciousness just "randomly" emerged from natural laws. That's right, just a random emergent property, nothing to see here, absolutely no indication of another consciousness behind those natural laws.
Yeah. There unironically isn't.

Yes, because there is as much evidence for Evolution as there is for the Holocaust, and they both follow a similar pattern:

1.) A bunch of Jews and shitlibs rabidly affirming its truth and viciously attacking any naysayers
2.) No actual definitive evidence exists, what does exist is at best circumstantial and thinly tangential
3.) The theory itself is highly implausible and completely improbable if you actually run the numbers
4.) Many "examples" that were put forth in support of it that have been proven to be hoaxes or deliberate fictions
5.) There are laws in place to prevent schools from teaching anything that deviates from its dogma


That being said, even if evolution were proven to be true, it would do absolutely nothing to disprove God.

My booze cabinet says otherwise. Checkmate atheists.

Creationism is a myth made by people that can't handle the idea of death and dying.

Fear is the mantra of the creationist and that's why they deny basic knowledge.

>The theory itself is highly implausible and completely improbable if you actually run the numbers
What numbers are you even referring to? Be specific if you have a specific point to make.

Me but not in its fullest.

>Why?

Because there is some math that doesn't add up. Its so coincidental that it makes you wonder. But it could also be influenced by one of the universal constants that work together to give you that result.

One example: the difference in size between the moon and the sun and the difference in distance between those two and the earth so we have eclipses. Its weird.

Could be God or it could be some species that we could consider godlike. Idk.

What i think happened: someone or something created the universe (i have no idea how you do that so don't ask) and then left it on its own to grow and evolve by a defined set of rules that they set up or are the fundamental constants of existence and what we see now is the result of billions of years of doing things by those rules.

>Demons exist and they take the form of heretical beliefs.

Then why does god tell mothers to put their babies in microwave ovens?

>A bunch of Jews

The creation myth comes from the Jews. Do you even use your brain?

I trust in the fact that I do not know how the world or universe was created and that i can only get a general idea.
I also accept the fact that I am not arrogant enough to assume that there is or is not a god or that human beings being as fledgling as they are, have an answer for any of those questions.

Prove that your consciousness is not an emergent property of natural laws naturally existing in our natural universe. Prove that the fact that consciousness isn't an inherent eventuality of evolving life.

Failure to do so is admitting that there's actually consciousness in this universe, which we're all part of.

So you don't exist?

>barely functional
>parts serve no purpose

Blatantly false.

There is nothing heretical about microwaving babies.

> I don't understand science
> MUH RUNNING NUMBERS

Not an argument.

>That being said, even if evolution were proven to be true

Proven so repeatedly to be true that evolution is already a rock solid science.
scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-in-the-everday-world/

scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-in-the-everday-world/

cancer
male nipples

>Prove that your consciousness is not an emergent property of natural laws naturally existing in our natural universe. Prove that the fact that consciousness isn't an inherent eventuality of evolving life.
Doesn't work like that. You're making that proposition. You have to prove it. But on the point of "inherent eventuality of evolving life": Why do you even believe that? There's no reason to other than being extremely antropocentric and having a faulty understanding of what evolution is.

What purpose does the septum in your nose have?

You sound like a naïve teenager who thinks he has discovered the world and the truth, being atheist, vegan, whatever other shit.

Im no creationist, but saying that "the human body is barely functional and filled with structures that don't do anything"...
Prove that, prove that phrase.

No it does not. No you do not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

As for barely functional, take Bio in college.

>Many "examples" that were put forth in support of it that have been proven to be hoaxes or deliberate fictions
Yes, by other scientists who also happens to believe in evolution.

...

If there's a 1 in trillion or more chance that things would have developed "too right", and the 1 in that trillion is the only one that can be around to observe this fact, it's not too strange that we're here talking about it, now is it?

I can't believe people still believe in this fucking nonsense. Creationists have been BTFO time and time again for years now.

Cancer is a mutation caused by external factors, not inherent in life.
Male nipples exist because they form before gender is decided.

Try again.

And no, you're the retard that out and said "hurr prove that," you haven't even made a proposition yourself whereas I have, whereas even "the soul is goddddd" kid even did.

>Why do you even believe that?
Because if it were otherwise, there would be absolutely no point. Are you an optimist?

>There's no reason to other than being extremely antropocentric and having a faulty understanding of what evolution is.
Ad hominem.

vestigiality is not an argument for the futility of a structure. Lots, if not all, of vestigial parts have a function.

For barely functional, did you take bio in college? did you go to college?

this.

Yes. Kent Hovind.

>
>Cancer is a mutation caused by external factors, not inherent in life.
It is inherent in life you fucking idiot! It doesn't have to be caused by external factors!

>Male nipples exist because they form before gender is decided.
What exactly is your point? They're still useless vestigial structures.

>And no, you're the retard that out and said "hurr prove that," you haven't even made a proposition yourself whereas I have, whereas even "the soul is goddddd" kid even did.
What the fuck are you even trying to say here?

>>Why do you even believe that?
>Because if it were otherwise, there would be absolutely no point. Are you an optimist?
So in other words "muh feels"?

>>There's no reason to other than being extremely antropocentric and having a faulty understanding of what evolution is.
>Ad hominem.
Are you pretending to be retarded? That's not even what that term means!

Cancer is a mutation you dumb nigger.

answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/why-do-men-have-nipples/

That only hurts your evolutionary argument.

Literally a simple Google search

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22028006

Cancer is a disease, and as a disease, it may be considered inherent to life. But is not an argument for saying it's "barely functional", it's an argument for saying that its not perfect.

Eh. I'm a soft creationist. The evidence is damning. Especially for young earth creationists. I choose to believe in a creator regardless. Religion has done nothing but enhance my life and give me purpose. If I am wrong, I am wrong, and I will die and turn to dust. Having gained nothing and lost nothing. Same as everyone else. If I am right I have gained everything and found truth. Perhaps it seems absurd, but life is absurd and there is no room in our short lives for half measures.

Yeh but all the science men are probably jews so.. so.. so it's all made up anyway!

>Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why is there god rather than no god?

kek, now that's a solid argument.

Dear God, heavenly father, are you incapable of making a post without a fallacy? You're not even using the good ones, just mostly ad hominem.

Of course not everything in human biology makes sense, it arose from genetic processes. Randomness is part of the process, of course some things exist for quite literally no reason.

Could you design a better method of designing biological creatures? I think God makes a lot more sense from a computer programmer who designs things for a living than a dreary biologist who analyses already designed things. Keep classifying and making up names for shit as if it's of any importance.

Actually, to be honest, you just shit me with your single line response to my opening post. Consciousness is a beautiful thing and the fact that it naturally emerges from laws defined either at the big bang or within the first 100,000 years of existence is enough "proposition" that I need.

You totally dodged that.

Did you just change your IP? Same posting style...

>It is inherent in life you fucking idiot! It doesn't have to be caused by external factors!
No, cancer is formed from carcinogens and mutations, like radiation. Nothing is designed to fail and if it were it'd be a very quick evolutionary dead end, thus the system itself seems to tend towards more and more complex things.

Again, from laws defined in the big bang. Spooky.

>What exactly is your point? They're still useless vestigial structures.
No, they're not, because they're useful in women.

>trying to say here?
That he has no proposition of his own and has consistently dodged mine with that one liner, my fault for sarcasm.

>"muh feels"
Very mature.

>That's not even what that term means!
He literally tried to discredit my point by implying a faulty understanding of evolution is of any importance to the argument. He did it against other posters as well, in fact he's kind of bad at forming arguments.

I'd sincerely hope he's not anyone's tutor or mentor.

>And remember, your consciousness just "randomly" emerged from natural laws. That's right, just a random emergent property, nothing to see here, absolutely no indication of another consciousness behind those natural laws.
Read up on chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics. Synchronicity and chimera states develop in chaotic systems all the time, and it seemingly makes no sense.

I'm starting to become confused (and yes my ip did change).

Explain concisely what exactly your argument is. The more posts you make the less sense it makes.

It's Catholic teaching that the creation stories of Genesis all the way through Noah's Ark are myths. The creation stories are simply an attempt by early peoples to understand how things came about. They are NOT meant to be taken literally. If you take them literally then you are an idiot.

If we're talking about spandrels, the mother of all spandrels is the enormous human brain. It originally arose as an adaptation for some functions in humans' ancestral past, but the complexity of the human brain produces many by-products that are not properly considered to be functions of the brain. Religion, reading, writing, fine arts are all functionless uses or by-products rather than true fitness-enhancing, co-opted spandrels. These are features of interest to psychologists, but such by-products are a mountain to the adaptive molehill.

tldr - creationism = male nipples

This is very true actually, every priest with a brain also says this. The Bible is an allegory, not a history book. Sadly, many fools and fanatics didn't get the point.

Yes because God created the earth.
biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm
>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Apollo 8 Christmas Message
youtube.com/watch?v=vFUx_KC1bHQ

biblehub.com/genesis/1-31.htm
biblehub.com/genesis/2-1.htm
>but muh 6 days can't be real
YOM, means day but also age, eternity, period, forever, etc.
biblehub.com/hebrew/3117.htm

The natural laws of the universe lead to my consciousness, I think therefore I am, therefore my consciousness came from the universe and I can prove the universe has at least one naturally occurring consciousness. It emerged naturally from the laws of the universe, one of which being evolution. It therefore came from the universe and is part of the universe.

I have a theory that Gnostic arguments in favour for God's existence are naturally rejected to most people. You simply can't reject the matrix.

To really busy your nut, the exact same God I'm describing is found within exodus 3:14. I have reason to believe the same way I'm convincing you is how Moses convinced ancient Egyptian intellectuals.

>The more posts you make the less sense it makes.
Literally the incredulous fallacy. You still haven't addressed shit. You're still arguing horrifically.

And be kind, it's 330am where I am.

Well, I don't think that the whole Bible is an allegory.
The first ten or so chapters of Genesis are Myth while the rest of the Pentateuch is Legend.
However, there are books like Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles which have historical basis although they are not necessarily a literal account of historical happenings.
As for the New Testament, much of what is said about Jesus is at least partly based on fact which came down to the authors of the Gospel through the oral tradition. Mark's is probably the most historically accurate since it was written around 60 A.D I believe and presents Jesus in a more human sense. John's on the other hand is probably the least historical as it was written near 100 A.D.

tl;dr: Bible is not allegory and has some historicity to it.

>God created the heavens and the earth
I conceptualize God in a sense presented by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Contra Gentiles 1:1, that is to say as a prime mover.

God did not literally make the Earth by snapping his fingers or something like that, but rather he set the universe in motion which would eventually lead to the creation of the Earth and humans by extension.

im still waiting for a proper argument on the futility of body parts and the "barely functional" human body.

Wiki about nipples:
Their advantage in females, in terms of reproductive success, is clear. But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them. Interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them.

Nipples have a function for humans (as the subject of the discussion is about the human body and it's supposedly unfunctional parts, and not about the sexual dimorphism in humans).

As our knowledge of the universe increases, God's domain decreases--another part of the book becomes cherry picked as allegory.

pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW

I'm going to sleep but here. All the evidence anyone would ever want is out there for a young earth.

>Interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them.

VERY contemporarily. Only within the last couple hundred years have life spans reached such a length that nipple cancer has a big impact. Certainly not far back enough to impact evolution.

im sorry, then it's not a complete allegory, but also should not be taken too literal. About Jesus and the Gospel, i fully agree.

I believe the Catholic understanding today is that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, but not controlled by him or something like that.

So, this leaves room for error since humans are fallible.

Yes.
Men have nipples. They are useless. We have them because women have them.
Women have orgasms. They are useless. They have them because men have them.
Not every trait has an adaptive explanation.

>im still waiting for a proper argument on the futility of body parts and the "barely functional" human body.
I don't know what you mean by this. Maybe I'm just getting to the party too late.

I don't belive in it at all, but they have good arguments like why the recorded human story began almost the same time as the Bible says the Earth was created and the unreliability of carbon method of measuring the age of things. Also, fossils don't take millions of years to develop.

...

why the hell should I give a fuck?

I'm actually not arguing horrifically. You're just not making much sense. There isn't a whole lot to argue.

The second paragraph onward is just for lack of a better word dumb. Not necessarily the content but the way it's presented that makes it difficult to exctract the content of the argument.

You have a theory of what? Exactly what the fuck are you trying to communixate to me and what the fuck does it have to do with the argument at hand. I have a suspicion that we're actually having two different conversations and perhaps we need to clarify what we're saying.

My argument is that the world isn't "too perfect" to have been the result of random processes for two reasons. The first being that it's far from perfect and the second being that once a set of rules have been defined a system will continue to operate under that ruleset and even a simple set of primatives can lead ro staggering complexity given enough time.

Evolution is observed every day in viruses and bacteria.

Just sayin.

>once a set of rules have been defined

Who defined the rules user?

Tell me why you call the human body barely functional.

Nobody knows. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, an idiot, or a lying idiot. There are some thjngs that we legitimately just don't know.

>Lots, if not all, of vestigial parts have a function.

The plica semilunaris sure does play a huge role in our species.

you got the wrong user, chilote

That's a different guy. Barely functional is hyperbole but it's obviously far from optimal even just given the form and functions already within. Also to answer your question yes im a college student. I majored in biology for 2 years before switching to mathematics.

No, it's difficult to extract a counter argument. How about you own up to that? As respectfully as possible, fuck you I'm going to sleep.

One day you will believe. That's my parting curse for you.

>absolutely no indication of another consciousness behind those natural laws.
You're just passing the buck, m8. Whence came the first consciousness, and why does your logic not apply to it?

Well, that goes without saying of course, but wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that God made the rules and set the universe in motion?

After all, everything must come from something, so the laws must have come from something.as well.

And since God is eternal and the universe is not, it seems to me that it is likely that God set down such laws upon setting the universe in motion.

>believes in Creationism
Not comparable with evolution

Creationism attempts to explain what happened before time and the universe began.

Evolution only explains what happened starting with the 2nd species on earth. It does not attempt to explain the origin of life in the mutiliverse

It functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage via the lacrimal lake, and to permit greater rotation of the globe, for without the plica the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement.

and that is just wiki dude. it doesnt need a huge role, it just has a role.

The older I get, the more I believe there is a higher being or beings

oh dios mio

I believe in God making everything but not the young earth theory.

I just think it makes more sense that an all powerful being made everything instead of some random explosion. My theory is that the Big Bang and evolution are right, but God did it.

Just my opinion, take it as you will.

That's not uncommon. People start to fear death more as it approaches, and crave a way out through supernatural fantasies.

You're legitimately stupid.

Fat tissue management may be far from optimal, i'll give you that. But the rest of the systems work like a charm, pretty close to optimal.

Glad at least you studied biology a bit.

>My theory is that the Big Bang and evolution are right, but God did it.

You know that's the lamest, most retarded theory of all, right?

It's not a fear of death, it's a realisation of how well everything works in nature and how I into all of that, the things that have happened to me so far in life, it makes me more at ease at the thought of death

>All the evidence anyone would ever want is out there for a young earth.
>Can't tell the difference between real evidence and gibberish
>Hoping you're so stupid you'll fall for the same nonsense I did

That second comic is literally "I AM SILLY"
You're getting cucked because you turned your back on God, swede, and your people have nothing left, that's why you're going to die out.

>
>Well, that goes without saying of course, but wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that God made the rules and set the universe in motion?
no. There's no evidence of that and tonnes of evidence to the contrary.

>After all, everything must come from something, so the laws must have come from something.as well.
Not necessarily. We don't understand enough to make a judgement about that.

>And since God is eternal and the universe is not, it seems to me that it is likely that God set down such laws upon setting the universe in motion.
That presupposes that god exists. rather than hypothesizing god as a being and then working backwards to flesh out its nature you've seen a gap between a hypothesis and an observation and filled it in with the same hypothesis. I could make up an entirely new set of rules for the unjverse to work under that would be consistent with reality and also incorrect if I simply started with the presupposition that my hypothetical theory was right abd explained every observation around it.

Humans are the only advanced sentient species out of millions of others...

Spacetime is non-linear, how long were days at the start of the big bang when matter itself was being injected into the void darkness? 7 of God's days to create the universe and all were billions of normal years each due to the low matter content of the universe and non-linear spacetime.

Face it heathens, Jesus is Lord.

What about the kiwi wings or the palmaris longus in some humans?

...

Did you mean non euclidian?

>how well everything works in nature
Things work in nature "well enough". That's the minimum criteria that needs to be met, and that's where it stops. Consider the thousands of species that go extinct through no fault of their own (or ours). Consider amazing adaptations that some species have (eg. avian respiratory system, tissue regeneration in some amphibians, etc.) that would make other species unstoppable, and yet they lack them because what they have was acceptable.

Consider how hostile our own planet was to life during the history of the earth. I see no evidence of intelligence in this, because if there was indeed a creator, planning ahead and taking care in his work was not his style. At best, he was a "let's try this and see what happens, lol" type of guy.