Questions I'd Love to See a Creationist Answer

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, they do. It is well-known that creationists like Faraday, Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Keppler, Ramsey, and Steno invented modern science. In fact, Wikipedia says that creationist Nicolaus Steno is considered the father of both geology and stratigraphy.


God could easily have created the light from the stars simultaneously with the stars themselves.


Actually, the word "antibiotic" was a termed coined by Paul Vuillemin, a student of the creationist Louis Pasteur, the father of bacteriology.


I personally don't find that the idea of evolving from knuckle-walkers to be offensive at all. I believed it myself once.

Species change for complex animals like mammals requires geographical and or climatic isolation of one part of the population from the other.

Even with punctuated equilibrium, in the complex species discernible evolutions takes tens of thousands of years at minimum.

ruveyn

No they don't. Oil originates from the fossilized remains of ancient living organisms that were heated up deep inside the crust.



You can just as easily say that God created the universe and everything in it, including our memories, 2 seconds ago and we wouldn't know the difference. By Occam's Razer, the best explanation is that the light really did take that long to reach us.



So what? A lot of the scientists you've mentioned lived before Darwin proposed his theory. Besides, this still doesn't change the fact that the adaptations observed in bacteria and viruses demonstrate natural section and evolution in real time.



And what changed your mind? Do you even know how science works? Just because there are gaps in our knowledge, it does not mean we have to stuff God into those gaps to explain them. That is called the God of the gaps.

So? They worked before Darwin, and most of them in unrelated fields. I don't care about a physicist's opinion when we're talking about evolutionary biology. It's quite dishonest of you to try to label these people as creationists.


Firstly, was Vuillemin a creationist as well, or just Pasteur? And Pasteur was around when evolutionary theory was just starting to develop, it was of course challenged before being accepted.
Second, it doesn't matter who coined the term "antibiotic." What matters is that their development is based on the theory of evolution. So put up or shut up- show that evolution is false by using an older type of antibiotic next time you get sick. It should still work just fine on the newer strains of bacteria if you're right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

The question I would like creationists to answer is why do you continue to believe this in light of overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Darwins theory has been out for over 150 years and for every minute of its existence creationists have been desperately trying to find flaws which they have been unable to do. Tens upon tens of thousands of man hours have been spent trying to do this and yet they can not even find the slightest Chinese in this theory. The opposite is in fact true, since Darwin wrote "On the origin of species......" evolutionary theory has expanded to the point where he would have to go to uni for decades to study it.

The 'great white hope' of creationism that of irreducible complexity had its champion in the bacterial flagellum with the likes of Behe jumping up and down yelling 'eureka'. That particular flagellum has now been shown to have a less complex cousin, and yet creationists still bang on as if irreducible complexity has substance.

But then you lot are slow on the uptake. The idea of heliocentrism has been around since pre biblical times (quite possibly proven 150 years bc), in the 1500's Copernicus pretty much proved it. Until 1758 books proposing heliocentrism were on the catholic Index Of Forbidden Books. So if it took you lot 2000 years to accept the mountains of evidence showing how the earth revolves on an axis, in an elliptical orbit around the sun and not the other way around, creationism will most probably be hanging around in wilful obtuseness for several centuries to come.

Therefore, Creationism is true?


Also. It is well-known that geocentrist Aristotle "invented" logic, Geocentrism must be true.

I was still trying to figure out when Faraday or Newton worked in the field of oil exploration geology - the context of the original question...'

1. Oil is not created by floods. It is created from intense pressure and heat from deep inside the earth, that cooks the remains of dinosaurs and other long-extinct species.

2. Perhaps the stars were created before the Earth was.

3. I use modern antibiotics.

4. I am not offended. The Bible never stated the step-by-step process that God used to create animals and humans. However, animals were created first. So it leaves a lot of room for debate. And one "day" in the time of Genesis was probably 50 days.

I don't know. I'm a Christian, but I am not one who takes the Bible literally.

I did not write that. If you'd actually read my post, you would of seen that, that was a quote from JetLag. I actually pointed out that those scientists lived before Darwin. And I believe in evolution, purely based on the evidence for it. Evolution is not even a matter of belief. It's a fact.

Last edited by Jono on 07 Oct 2009, 9:53 am, edited 3 times in total.

I get it. However, the biological origin of oil is still the most commonly accepted explanation and its the reason why the oil geologists know where to find oil.

Yes, I actually replied from your post and I messed that up, sorry about that

No perhaps about it. The stars definitely ignited before planets were formed after the initial event/big bang. At least per-space sciences/physics.

No problem.

wrong! peppered moth evolution

And simple mutations to the Hox genes create big variations in limb size, type and placement in metazoans, including vertebrates. Thats fish to mammals to men. Even micro evolution can rapidly lead to speciation.

Also, doesnt firefoxes spell checker suck? Speciation and metazoan are not in its list? And I have found spelling errors too!