we, creationists

[...]because we are treated like retards, sub-humans, bigots, cavemen and hypocrites. Just look at the language you use, full of insults, disdainful, mocking and condescendent[...]

"(this formula and alike were used in the same obsessive manner in the former communist block countries - where i come from - to explain the utter superiority of communism over capitalism)" ??

Well, it is also the same formula that allows us to read DNA, to go to the moon, and to know that the earth revolves around the sun. It may be that people have said unkind things to you, and that is not good, but it also does not strengthen your argument for "creationism;" it's a seperate issue.

One reason scientifically minded people don't take creationism seriously is because it has not a leg to stand on. Creationists like you have no evidence for your beliefs...it's all someone's opinion based on wishful thinking. When pushed to the limit...when all of your arguments have failed...you creationists retreat into "I believe because I believe." Small wonder you are not taken seriously by modern and sophisticated minds. And yes...this attitude does smack of ignorance and narrow mindedness.
I believe in evolution not because it's intellectually fashionable, or because I love to poke fun at delusional creationism. I believe in evolution because that's where the facts and evidence have led me. It makes total sense to me and there is overwhelming evidence to support it. All you need do is provide evidence for creationism and god...and this whole argument will go away. But since you cannot provide evidence for your beliefs, because there is none....this arguing will persist.

You don't read our sites;to those of you who say you did, have you ever heard of "they will look and not see, listen and not understand"? How long did you read?What did you look for? What we have to say, our ideas, or how wrong we are?

If the arguments for evolution are so decisive how come the creation movement is on the rise?

This is for all posters on this thread


So, you want proofs that there is a god (or several). The universe we're in, the extremely fine tuned laws of physics and the unspoken complexity of life ARE the proofs (Romans 1:20 - God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that MEN ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE - emphasis mine).
If you manage to prove that all these came from NOTHING than there is no god, but if you fail than your failure is a PROOF that there is a god. It's really that simple, there are really just two possibilities: NOTHING made us or God made us. It really all depends on humanists to prove or disprove God not us. WE have nothing to prove - YOU have! (or, put it differently, if we prove evolution wrong then we proved there is a god).
This is our SCIENTIFIC evidence that there is a god: your magnificent failure - it's really your problem you don't see how magnificent it is - in explaining our existence out of nothing. Your theory of man's origin from NOTHING is a thread with several segments missing or tattered (and the rest of it doesn't look good either). This thread to be valid - to do it's job, to describe the continuum of events that brought us here - CANNOT have a single missing part otherwise it fails its purpose. I'm going to point out just two missing parts.

1)The emergence of first living organism from the primordial soup. It's called soup because had a lot of water. Water is an innocuous thing to us but it's a killer for large molecules and you need very large molecules for life (google for hydrolysis). They would be shredded away at the very moment of their creation. Further more, for life, these large molecules at some point have to become amino acids, not any type but all left-handed amino acids and all chemical processes known by man to produce amino acids so far yield 50%-50% right handed and lefthanded. Did you know that we still need to extract sugar from plants because the one we synthesize chemically still has the same problem of 50-50 right and left hand? After you have the left-handed amino acids you need to assemble them together in mind boggling structures. A living cell has unbelievable complex chemical pumps and mechanisms in its membrane to protect itself to not be dissolved by water. When dies the protection stops working and the cell is dissolved by water. It never comes back to life neither another smaller organism emerges from it although it has everything it needs for life inside that cell. The same happens with a whole animal corpse, but bacterial decomposition takes the lead much faster than the water.

Then we have the oxygen problem. Oxygen is highly chemically active. Simply put, it destroys everything. It's a lot worse then water. Living things use it's destructive power as energy source. For that they need first to protect themseves against it and then learn how to use it. Why would at some point these initially anaerobe protoorganism produce oxygen and give out for free such a huge amount of energy and AT THE SAME TIME to develop a costly protection against it? Why not keeping that resource for themselves and use it at night? Why so much generosity, isn't that against the idea of "survival of the fittest"? As far as I know oxygen before life is out of the question in scientific community.

What answers have "scientists" to these issues? Well, they all go like: "it is believed", "probably", "there are things that we'll never know", "there are several possible explanations", "we generally agree"

2) mutations. Mutations + natural selection are supposed to be the engine that added genetical information to turn microbes in microbiologists. Mutation is a cosmeticized name for accidents. You cannot say accidents + natural selection = humans, mutations + natural selection = humans sounds a lot better. We don't deny mutations, they are a scientific fact (sic!). And there are a lot of cases when they are beneficial (like when mutated flying insects on small islands lose their wings are less likely to be thrown in the sea by the wind and soon all become wingless) But they don't add information to the gene
pool, they just resort it, switch it on or off and mostly simply lose it (what would you expect from an accident?).
Presently there is not known case of gaining information mutation amongst so many documented cases. I read once of a proclaimed case of upward mutation of a bacteria in Japan that used to feed on sugars but when nylon entered the scene it "evolved" and "learned" to feed on nylon. They identified the mutation proclaimed as a gain of information. Actually it was a switch that luckily was not fatal, but bacteria LOST it's capability of digesting sugars and gained the nylon. If they'd have a bacteria with the same appetite for sugars and the benefit of feeding on nylon in the same time, yes, that would be evolution. As for antibiotic resistance "evolution" of germs read for yourself my post is already too long.

PS. Please don't mistake the science that brought us planes, cars and computers with the "science" that brought us evolution. Their association is outrageous and drives people to believe that if scientists are so smart and build those marvels then of course they got it right when it comes to our origins. The real science is done in the PRESENT tense. You propose a model and set up an experiment to prove it or disprove it. That lifeless thing called experimental set-up that happens in the PRESENT time is telling you if you're right or wrong not a committee of "scientists". Mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake that's how real science goes. And you know you're wrong when the damn thing doesn't work, and finally when it does then you're right. You show it to the others working in the PRESENT and you are a scientist. If you can't make it work you're not. Everything is now not thousands of years ago or in the future. Only to the present we have access not to past or future.
I know that blueprints for a cell phone are OK without even reading them. Because I have the phone in my hand in the PRESENT and it's working (not probably or maybe or from time to time).
What working "damn thing" evolutionist scientists produced? Books, documentaries, drawings and what else? How do I know if they' right? Because they are "scientists"?!?!? You gotto be kidding me! The only way they can do science is when they turn the past into present, when they build a time machine! We take our gear and travel eons of time in the past and put our
microscopes and lab equipment on those damn protocells. We come back in the present and rethink our theories, we'll have new predictions and go back in the past to verify them. And on and on and on countless of times. Now that's science!

reading these boards i can see why we, creationists so rarely post here. because we are treated like retards, sub-humans, bigots, cavemen and hypocrites. Just look at the language you use, full of insults, disdainful, mocking and condescendent.

And as the parent of two metally challenged children, I don't appreciate the word "retards". So take your creationist-agenda-of-propoganda and go away.