Evolutionists - What do you know about Creationism?

[shawn001]

Mestemia here is some of that empirical evidence that you and others have been asking for:

Posted same thing on the other thread:

As pointed out there are different concepts of creationism.

The one which I believe in says that we were created from water and clay.

Doesn't science say that the human body is mostly water?

Your using science?

What are all life forms on Earth made out of, what element? Do you know and if you don't know look it up and where it actually came from. I would be interested in your answer.

 

[Krok]

The one which I believe in says that we were created from water and clay.
Doesn't science say that the human body is mostly water?

We don't contain clay, so you're wrong already.

 

[JustWondering2]

Your using science?

What are all life forms on Earth made out of, what element? Do you know and if you don't know look it up and where it actually came from. I would be interested in your answer.

Ew ew gee can I answer that for him??? It's so easy......GOD didit!!!:sarcastic
Such a simple answer that even a child can understand, like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy! Sadly those are all nothing but fairy tales that I realized were just that as I grew up and became more educated. I'd like to hear his answer as well! I bet he's never heard of Nucleosynthesis!!!! Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's so my easier to just say GOD didit. But so much more interesting to know the how instead of assuming the who!! IMHO

 

[Quintessence]

If no one teaches me anything about creationism I will be inclined to assume you have nothing to teach

I could teach you my brand, but mine is without a doubt NOT the brand of creationism virtually everyone thinks of when they hear that word. *shrug*

As for the question posed by the OP, I know little of forms of creationism outside of the one(s) I believe in. I am simply not interested in the dominant form of creationism in my culture, as Christian mythology posits a separation between "creator" and "creation" that I do not subscribe to. I am particularly uninterested in Christian creationism that (in my opinion) misuses mythopoetic storytelling by taking such accounts as literal truth.

 

[Me Myself]

I could teach you my brand, but mine is without a doubt NOT the brand of creationism virtually everyone thinks of when they hear that word. *shrug*

As for the question posed by the OP, I know little of forms of creationism outside of the one(s) I believe in. I am simply not interested in the dominant form of creationism in my culture, as Christian mythology posits a separation between "creator" and "creation" that I do not subscribe to. I am particularly uninterested in Christian creationism that (in my opinion) misuses mythopoetic storytelling by taking such accounts as literal truth.

I am after the """ SCIENTIFIC""" explanation.

That said, I am always curious about people's beliefs Do share

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I must admit my understanding of creationism is limited, primarily to the Abrahamic tradition in depth while several others in a much more vague fashion... that said, and I mean this with no malice and utmost respect none I have encountered account for all of the scientific evidence thus far identified.

I do however accept the possibility that such creation stories (and the capacity for divine intervention in obtaining the current configuration of the universe) are true at least in a metaphorical respect - though significantly far from a literal interpretation would need to be used. As a result of such an acceptance, I do not believe it ill advised to discontinue further investigation of the various creation stories - since I remain open to them at a metaphorical level while at the literal level of interpretation I have already learned sufficient to disbelieve those creation stories I have encountered so far.

 

[Orias]

I know for sure, that creationism was created

Oh would of thunk such a thing would such a darned good point.

I'll throw in there too that evolutionism itself has evolved throughout the years.

 

[Gharib]

But, there is no clay in humans.

Just like there is no water right?

 

[beerisit]

Just like there is no water right?

Nah eselam, just not enough water, Everest and all that.

 

[Gharib]

So, you accept one process which is essentially identical to the other with only time being the relevant difference. LOL!

:slap: No. Nice try though.

Lets see the "essentially identical changes" of the following example.

1. Micro evolution - Monkeys hair clolour turns lighter during summer and darker during winter.

2. Macro evolution - Monkey turns to human?

I know almost everyone is going to take this the wrong way so I might as well give a hint. Do you know what this smiley represents :sarcastic

 

[Gharib]

Your using science?

What are all life forms on Earth made out of, what element? Do you know and if you don't know look it up and where it actually came from. I would be interested in your answer.

What do you mean by 'You're using science?"

And for the second part, I don't even know what to search for. What should I type?

Don't even know hot it is related to my statement of us being created from water?

 

[Gharib]

We don't contain clay, so you're wrong already.

Just like we don't contain water. Yeah science got it wrong big time. :faint:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Lets see the "essentially identical changes" of the following example.

1. Micro evolution - Monkeys hair clolour turns lighter during summer and darker during winter.

Wrong. That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution ("micro" or "macro")

2. Macro evolution - Monkey turns to human?

Also wrong. No form of evolution claims that monkeys "turn into" humans, or that any coexisting species can evolve into the other. Your understanding of both micro and macro evolution is nonexistant.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just like we don't contain water. Yeah science got it wrong big time. :faint:

What are you talking about? Humans contain water, but we don't contain "clay".

 

[Gharib]

Wrong. That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution ("micro" or "macro")


Also wrong. No form of evolution claims that monkeys "turn into" humans, or that any coexisting species can evolve into the other. Your understanding of both micro and macro evolution is nonexistant.

I'll add 1 to the tally of those who failed to understand my example.

hover over the smiley please :sarcastic

 

[Gharib]

What are you talking about? Humans contain water, but we don't contain "clay".

We don't contain water, that's such a lie.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'll add 1 to the tally of those who failed to understand my example.

hover over the smiley please :sarcastic

So you were just being sarcastic? Do you have an actual, non-sarcastic response?

Also, you don't appear to understand how to use sarcasm.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We don't contain water, that's such a lie.

So, you're not going to say anything worthwhile?

 

[beerisit]

So you were just being sarcastic? Do you have an actual, non-sarcastic response?

Also, you don't appear to understand how to use sarcasm.

Sarcasm is an art form that needs to be nurtured and practiced. Not much chance of that when you gotta pray five times a day.
Oh I'm sorry.

 

[Caladan]

Since eselam has not answered yet (I believe I asked this three or four times). Let me ask again, in bold.

You already told us you know nothing about biology or evolutionary biology (your words). And yet you reject it and argue against it.
Well since you reject it, you must studied and understood the alternative.
So what do you know about Creationism? what books do you read? did you take any courses?
Really, give us anything to work with.