A group for those without religion, as well as those who oppose it.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
Media RSS Feed Report media Don't Understand creationists (view original)
Don't Understand creationists
embed
share
previous next
 
Post comment Comments
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Oct 2 2012, 9:44pm says:

I like to eat toast for breakfast

+8 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 2 2012, 9:45pm replied:

so do i, so how about ribs-
you like those?

+6 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Oct 2 2012, 9:46pm replied:

ya, dem good ol' stem cells taste lovely. Good with cheese and liquidated cows

+5 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 2 2012, 9:53pm replied:

ok...
tri you need to stay off the drugs bubby.

+6 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Oct 2 2012, 9:51pm buried:

(buried)

God could have only needed the rib for DNA purposes, that way Eve was a perfect clone of Adam with only a gender difference. i once saw a sermon about genetics on youtube, if anyone wants me to locate it for them then just tell me, i wont take the time to find it if i know that nobody will watch it anyways.

-12 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 2 2012, 9:56pm replied:

there is a problem with that- any children would most likely have been naturally aborted because of lack of genetic diversity.

its kinda basic biology- if screwing your sister and having children can cause defects what do you think would happen if you were able to screw a female clone of yourself?
O wait creationism isnt science so it wouldnt talk about that, probebly encourages incest...

+14 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Oct 3 2012, 7:46pm buried:

(buried)

Not if there is every single gene possible, and all those genes are flawless without even he slightest mutation that can cause deseases.

-6 votes     reply to comment
xxT65xx
xxT65xx Oct 11 2012, 5:27pm replied: Online

Haha of course, god would need a DNA sample... And ribs are of course the best source of DNA imaginable. Because screw hair.

+2 votes     reply to comment
ComradeWinston
ComradeWinston Oct 4 2012, 3:27pm replied:

Hahahahaha, oh gods dammit that is just beautiful. I haven't seen ridiculously biased logic like that in at least a week or two.

+5 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Oct 2 2012, 10:14pm says:

The rib is the only bone in the human body that not only has the ability to repair itself, but it can regenerate itself.

He didn’t CLONE a copy of Adam.
In a 2003 article in Science Newstitled "From Bone to Brain," and subtitled, "Transplanted male bone marrow makes nerve cells in women and girls," the following excerpts were taken:

An unusual study of the brains of women and girls who had received transplants of bone marrow from men indicates that marrow cells can transform into nerve cells. Researchers found that each female brain had nerve cells containing a Y chromosome, presumably derived from the transplanted bone marrow.

Over the past several years, numerous research groups have reported that bone marrow, the source of a person's blood cells, can transform into cells of the skin, muscle, heart, liver, and even brain. These lab and animal studies have raised hopes that bone marrow or cells derived from it could repair hearts, cure neurological disorders, and treat many other medical conditions.

Some investigators, however, have challenged the bone-marrow results. The stakes are high because of the politicized debate over whether adult stem cells, such as those in bone marrow, are as promising a therapeutic tool as stem cells derived from embryos are.

Again the article in Science Newsreports:

Another research team's unpublished findings mirror Mezey's study. Last year, Martin Korbling of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and his colleagues employed the same Y chromosome-based strategy to discover bone-marrow-derived skin, gut, and liver cells in a half-dozen women who had received marrow transplants before dying. Now, Korbling tells Science News, "We have data showing similar results in midbrain and cortex tissue."

+2 votes     reply to comment
Admiral-165
Admiral-165 Oct 3 2012, 7:27pm replied:

Alright so here is the original article Triangulum copied off of (Thinking for yourself can be hard, but at least source your plagiarism)

Godsaidmansaid.com

First of all, i wouldn't expect a 13 year old to have any grasp of biology, however I do. Mostly because i went to school and learned about it. If you take the time and effore to research stem cells you'll find that what you're saying, errr rather, copying, makes no sense.

Everything that was said is technically true, stem cells can derive into other types of cells (because they have no focuses on one specific section of DNA yet), they can be used to repair damage to organs and such. However grow an entire human out of a rib is biologically impossible. What's even funnier is that no sources that the article you copied supported that claim either...

"Researchers found that each female brain had nerve cells containing a Y chromosome, presumably derived from the transplanted bone marrow."

Well yes, that's because the stem cells were added to brain tissue, and that is most likely where the Y chromosome came from. This is not proof of anything besides the fact that: male stem cells added to female tissue sample will form nerve cells with Y chromosomes. So this basically proves that stem cells function like we already knew they did.

"Over the past ... other medical conditions" I addressed this before, they can repair human organs, even grow new ones. But not an entire human with one rib.

As for the last quote, again the stem cells are added to skin tissue and derive into skin tissue. Nothing ground-breaking about this.

~
It seem to me this is the ramblings of an uninformed creationist, and you are just blindly parroting it. Read and research what you copy before you paste it please. Saves me the time of explaining blatantly obvious biology to someone who could've easily done it themselves...

+3 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Oct 2 2012, 10:17pm says:

...And the Lord God taketh stem cells from Adam, the first man, and putteth them into a perti dish with Chemical X. And he waiteth until the cells greweth into the first woman, Eve.

Bob 6:334 xD

+3 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 2 2012, 10:26pm replied:

It would make more sense if the first humans was a female, since females have the most important organs for new life coming into existence. You can make a baby without a male (e.g. cloning or asexuality), but you cannot make a baby without a female.

+2 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Oct 2 2012, 10:29pm replied:

but cloning would not allow for variation. We would be wiped out in a split second by diseases and change to the environment.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 2 2012, 10:36pm replied:

You are right about variation- the problem is, that the Y chromasome is a actually a fragmented X chromasome.

and some animals reproduce asexualy and do survive.
but disease can be a major problem.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 2 2012, 10:40pm replied:

It was just an example. You can also put manipulated DNA in a ovum to give birth to a human of any variation. This idea is called "designer baby", but I think this marketing idea is just disgusting. However, a god could use this method to run the engines of evolution.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 3 2012, 12:34am replied:

yes that is possible, in a sense
but most creationists cannot and willnot except that,
because misogyny is to them better than evolving from an ape like ancestor.
of course not all are that way, i was an evolutionist christain- and the majority of christains on this site and in the real world hated me because of it.
so becomeing an atheist changed nothing for me.

+2 votes     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Oct 3 2012, 2:30am replied:

To be honest, I believe both sides have some truth and some error in their theories about the earth's origin. Both sides use the scientific method to perform their research, both sides have peer-reviewed results, and both sides have some holes in their arguments. I actually think that a little bit of both is correct, but posting the details would take a long time, and it probably start the internet equivalent of World War III. Truth be told, I've always found it amusing as to why people are so interested in the world's origin, when they have no idea about the world's current situation!

+1 vote     reply to comment
Velancious
Velancious Oct 3 2012, 3:23am replied:

Many creationists though don't use the scientific method... a lot of their arguments aren't real arguments and don't address the actual issues. Kent Hovind's ice shield comes to mind; not just is it the stupidest idea I've heard, it also has been proven to not work.

A creationist usually isn't out to explain phenomena; they want to direct the issue to having no scientific explanation other than "god dun it". That's the problem.

In the creationists world, there is no explanation in the end except "god dun it".

+4 votes     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Oct 3 2012, 3:29am replied:

Yet of all things, we're supposed to believe that "chance dun it", or "time dun it".

I guarantee that no matter how long you stare at a pool of dirty water, life will not appear in it.

0 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 3 2012, 3:59am replied:

And I can guarantee you, that your guarantee is not even worth to mention. Because for the thing you are talking about, "a pool of dirty water" and "no matter how long" is as much accurate as if you would blindly throw a stone into a sandbox and say "lets see what will happen".

If you want to be honest, than try it the scientific way by reconstructing the environment you think that life came from. In case of abiogenesis and spontenious generation it is a difficult task, because every part of our world is conterminated with life and proteins already. Just to mention the biggest problem.

+5 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho
Sarge_Rho Oct 3 2012, 4:29am replied:

Jaing, Then you don't understand science. At all.

+4 votes     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Oct 3 2012, 11:54am replied:
Helge129 wrote: Jaing, Then you don't understand science. At all.

Since I'm obviously so dumb and uneducated, perhaps you could explain some things to me.

Perhaps you could explain to me why the very existence of a fossil actually indicates rapid burial. Or perhaps you could explain why the supposed Geological Column of evolution is in mismatched or reversed order in many undisturbed areas of the world. Perhaps you could explain to me why the supposed evolutionary ancestors of many modern creatures have been found alongside and underneath their "descendants". Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why the remains of many of mankind's supposed evolutionary ancestors have been discovered to be physically and mentally superior to humans, which contradicts the evolutionary theory of gradual improvement. Or perhaps you could tell me why the sickle-cell anemia mutation, one of evolution's most revered example of beneficial mutation, causes a person to not properly absorb food and oxygen, has a 25% chance of killing the carrier's children, and increases the risk of malaria infection for their other offspring.

Please, enlighten me.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 3 2012, 1:29pm replied:

because evolution isnt improvement just change via genetic drift and sexual selection. it can be an improvement or in some cases lead to failer.

you clearly dont understand it otherwise you would get this.
if you look at all the evidence together it shows evolution to be correct while showing creationism wrong.
that with the fact that creationism doesnt follow the scienctific method nor is its work peer reviewed or tested clearly shows it has no basis in reality or science.
now quite spamming the atheist page with creationist garbage
you can do that on the christain page, i am sure they wont mind a bit.

+4 votes     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Oct 4 2012, 12:21am replied:

Natural selection, a fundamental component of evolution, states that creatures more "well-equiped" for their environment will outlast the others. If **** neanderthalensis and Cro-Magnon were more physically fit to survive than **** sapiens, than according to the theory of natural selection, they should have replaced **** sapiens. Interestingly, they seemed to have survived alongside each other, as Neanderthals have been found with chain mail armor.

Deer_Hunter wrote: that with the fact that creationism doesnt follow the scienctific method nor is its work peer reviewed or tested clearly shows it has no basis in reality or science.

Interestingly, Sir Francis Bacon, the very man who developed the scientific method was an "uneducated creationist". Secondly, assuming that creation scientists don't follow the scientific method is rather absurd, seeing that many of them were former evolutionists who realized the flaws in the theory. Thirdly, all "peer-reviewed" means is that scientists other than yourself believe your work is valid. When the majority of a scientist's colleagues are all firm evolutionists who would have nothing to do with creationist research, then asking someone to examine your work would be utterly pointless. That's exactly why none of Galileo's work was peer-reviewed, because the majority of the scientific community was against him. The majority of modern scientists are evolutionists, so getting a science journal editor to find someone to peer-review their work is quite easy. Now, creationists are avoiding this problem altogether by starting their own scientific journals, so this argument is pretty pointless, since many creationists DO have their work peer-reviewed by more open-minded colleagues.

In case you want to hear creationist scientists' opinion: Creation.com

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 4 2012, 1:04am replied:
Jaing_Skirata wrote:Natural selection, a fundamental component of evolution, states that creatures more "well-equiped" for their environment will outlast the others. If **** neanderthalensis and Cro-Magnon were more physically fit to survive than **** sapiens, than according to the theory of natural selection, they should have replaced **** sapiens. Interestingly, they seemed to have survived alongside each other, as Neanderthals have been found with chain mail armor.

In theory it is true so far. But keep in mind that there was an ice age about 10.000 - 15.000 BC and when the glaciers molt, the cold temperatures went to the north, the neanderthalers werent suited for the north climate any longer and the more adaptable **** sapiens took over. The neanderthaler wasnt better in all aspects. In fact, he was well equiped for cold climate zones, not for current temperatures.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 4 2012, 1:44am replied:
Jaing_Skirata wrote:Interestingly, Sir Francis Bacon, the very man who developed the scientific method was an "uneducated creationist". Secondly, assuming that creation scientists don't follow the scientific method is rather absurd, seeing that many of them were former evolutionists who realized the flaws in the theory. Thirdly, all "peer-reviewed" means is that scientists other than yourself believe your work is valid. When the majority of a scientist's colleagues are all firm evolutionists who would have nothing to do with creationist research, then asking someone to examine your work would be utterly pointless. That's exactly why none of Galileo's work was peer-reviewed, because the majority of the scientific community was against him. The majority of modern scientists are evolutionists, so getting a science journal editor to find someone to peer-review their work is quite easy. Now, creationists are avoiding this problem altogether by starting their own scientific journals, so this argument is pretty pointless, since many creationists DO have their work peer-reviewed by more open-minded colleagues.

The problem is creation scientists have nothing to hold as evidence. The majority of scientists dont belief in evolution, they know that the massive amount of evidence are speaking for evolution so that the flaws and holes arent saying that evolution is false. Scientists are heavily debating about every discovery they found and make sure that it is as accurate as possible. Science is truth seeking, not truth knowing like religious beliefs, thats the difference between science and creation science.

Science journals dont publish something that cannot be tested or verified by evidence or experiments. If creation science would even half as good as you claim, they would get their articles published in those journals.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 4 2012, 2:26am replied:

creationism tries to find evidence to back up its unchanging claims. science gathers evidence and then tries to interpret it as logically as possible, changing or discarding old theories or ideas as it goes. creationism only take evidence that fits there goals and ignores or tries to invalidate the rest- which is the majority of evidence in the case of creationism. thats not science science adapts and changes to better explain phenomenon
creationism just stays the same and trys to invalidate anything that isnt god dun it.
and peer review is a critical part of the scientific method without it any claims could be claimed to be science, others must review and even retry your work in order for it to be considered valid otherwise it could be false positive bias or evene an outright lie.
and because creationism isnt peer reviewed it cannot be taken seriously and has to remain in the same catagorie as UFOs scientologies e-meters and ghosts also known as not real science.

+3 votes     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Oct 5 2012, 12:12am replied:
Deer_Hunter wrote: creationism tries to find evidence to back up its unchanging claims. science gathers evidence and then tries to interpret it as logically as possible, changing or discarding old theories or ideas as it goes. creationism only take evidence that fits there goals and ignores or tries to invalidate the rest- which is the majority of evidence in the case of creationism. thats not science science adapts and changes to better explain phenomenon

Tell me, how is evolution's "chance dunnit' any different than "God dunnit"? You can try to say that it isn't chance, but it's more than obvious to many capable scientists that the theory evolution is nothing more than the belief that a combination of chance and time created the universe. What is the opposite of Intelligent Design? Unintentional Design, aka chance.

You've probably heard of the Miller Experiment, which is one of evolution's most revered examples of how scientists created life. Here's something you should read about it: Apologeticspress.org

Truth be told, it's actually quite pointless to debate evolution here, since none of us are ever going to convince the other one that they're wrong. I suggest we find more satisfying and productive things to do, like beat the crap out of each other in a match of Warband multiplayer.

Still, there would be too much lag. I doubt you even play Warband. Long story short, we're just wasting precious modding time.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 5 2012, 2:38am replied:
CrazyOldTeenager wrote:Tell me, how is evolution's "chance dunnit' any different than "God dunnit"? You can try to say that it isn't chance, but it's more than obvious to many capable scientists that the theory evolution is nothing more than the belief that a combination of chance and time created the universe. What is the opposite of Intelligent Design? Unintentional Design, aka chance.

No, the theory of evolution explains how the first life form on earth evolved into multi-cellular life forms and evolved into the diversity of life we know today, or even further. You can imply evolution ***some*** principals of evolution to other things like machines, civilisation or AI, but it doesnt change the fact that evolution is about biological aspects. NOT the beginning the universe, evolution has nothing to do with the universe itself to begin with.

No so called "evolutionists" says that evolution is the theory of all the universe, no one Ive ever met. Its only creationists who said such ridiculous thing. For the universe we have plenty other theories that explains it far more better than evolution ever does.

CrazyOldTeenager wrote:Truth be told, it's actually quite pointless to debate evolution here, since none of us are ever going to convince the other one that they're wrong. I suggest we find more satisfying and productive things to do, like beat the crap out of each other in a match of Warband multiplayer.

Its pointless because there is a huge lack of understanding between those who actually understand what evolution is and how it works, and those who dont and fear that they lose something (morals, god ect.) through it.

+2 votes     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Oct 5 2012, 6:51am replied:
DetoNato wrote: ...and those who dont and fear that they lose something (morals, god ect.) through it.

No, I'm not worried that evolution is gonna take away my morals. I'm mainly worried that it would take away my common sense and logic.

Okay, I'll quit the cheap shots.

Anyway, to more important matters.

*grabs bowl of spaghetti*

+2 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 5 2012, 10:27am replied:

sigh do i have to send you some of my understanding evolution and basic biology lessons to? chance dun it is one of the most inacurate definitions of evolution ever.
have you ever heard of sexual selection? gene flow? this is really hardly random.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho
Sarge_Rho Oct 4 2012, 3:12am replied:

..And then we came along, being able to run longer and faster, ate all their food. Their diet was 100% meat, they probably couldn't even eat plants. We could.

Creation Science is an oxymoron.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 3 2012, 9:16am replied:

its not chance and time.

i explained this on one of the forums

+3 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Oct 3 2012, 7:44pm says:

Maybe this should go to the forums....

0 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Oct 3 2012, 10:53pm replied:

it would only get eccelsia spammed there- so it may best stay here.

+5 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Oct 4 2012, 6:04am replied:

Or in other terms: the forum is infested with ecclesia pestilence.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Image Details
Type
Other
Date
Oct 2nd, 2012
Size
487×532
Options
URL
Embed (big)
Embed
Share
Report Abuse
Report media
Add Media
Members only