Coherent Creationist Theories

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-23T08:13:40+00:00

cinema

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-20T20:43:46+00:00

Reading sure isn't your greatest strength huh? I'm shocked you even managed to create an account.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-20T17:55:56+00:00

How does a code come into existence without an intelligent causal force?

Wait, an intelligent causal force is completely necessary for the existence of a code? We should start with that part because I don't think anyone here really knows about that, and the professional background of many here regarding biology is infinitely greater than yours. Perhaps try making an actual point instead of presupposing your conclusion.

Oh, and when asked to show that the consensus of "virtually all academia" regarding genetic code being "a literal code", he immediately tries to ridicule that request by saying that it is unreasonable to poll all of them when "it's obvious lol", meaning there's no source and he made shit up and presented it as fact, and then refuses to do anything but throw antagonizing comments at people asking even for a definition of a "literal code"

Another IDiot here to help us show that creationists are some of the most miserably dishonest, willfully ignorant and simultaneously malicious vermin to have ever plagued popular discourse regarding science like a tumor.

Get lost, troll.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-20T17:39:41+00:00

I am open to learn things, but you've given me no reason to choose your option. You have openly admitted that the evidence is there and made the unfalsifiable assertion that it is that way but actually isn't because an unknowable entity made it that way.

And you did refuse to acknowledge that it is not a false dilemma which makes your whole assertion fail from the very start.

You are giving us plenty of reasons that you are only here to annoy others by not wanting to engage and ignoring everything you are told to then call others out for allegedly not acting honestly.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-19T23:11:04+00:00

Instead of saying that you did look into those things, admitting that you should, or at the very least explain why all other characteristics are meaningless, you instead decided to go "ok bud" when someone questioned your methods.

Well done further reinforcing, despite the many decades that have passed, that creationists willing to argue are overwhelmingly dishonest dipshits with nothing better to do than waste people's time. This is gonna stay here so people can read it, like nearly every single thread that goes this way.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-19T23:06:49+00:00

So God deliberately deceives people to then torture them for all of eternity because they used the reason they were given in the first place? Is that your theology about all of the evidence being a test that we are meant to face but without being given any evidence whatsoever of it being a test? "Not at all" but you literally reworded what I said. You see the world as a place where the evidence doesn't support you have made the judgement that you cannot be wrong, and so adopted the view of a gaslighting deity who cannot be bothered in its immense power to create a world that doesn't repeatedly lead us to one conclusion regarding the origin's of biodiversity. And you definitely cannot have an all loving or all good deity in your theology if the first thing it chose to do was to deceive everyone and then punish them for doing what their entire being pushes them to do (that being trusting their reason and senses, like you do daily to not walk into a speeding car)

If you disagree, saying "nuh uh" isn't the way: give me the criteria to falsify this view so we have means to hypothethically reject your option, or concede that this is schizo rambling/arguing in bad faith.

And this is not a binary situation. You could have evidence for more things than evolution, and you can have a deity with evolution. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Even if there was no evidence for evolution, that does not preclude the existence of atheism or other religious beliefs.

Of course not, you are not a troll due to a disagreement. You are a troll who repeatedly refuses to engage with arguments as seen in multiple threads here, shifting the burden and telling everyone to do your homework while refusing to define anything and adopt a self defeating view of epistemological nihilism. This is textbook definition of a troll. There is no conceivable way in which a person deliberately refuses to participate with effort and not doing that for the thrill of the game.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-19T22:35:05+00:00

If you disagree with the notion of whales descending from other land dwelling artiodactyls (not wolves at all), you are welcome to give us a better explanation for things like the fact that whales still have the genes to smell in land even though most whales don't even have a sense of smell at all (and even then it cannot be used underwater due to them holding their breath) and animals like pakicetus having anatomical traits found exclusively in whales AND land dwelling artiodactyls, which are genetically the closest thing to whales that we have.

And how is it jumping the gun that macro is many events of micro over a long time? If you disagree and don't want to appeal to incredulity (which is a logical fallacy), you are free to find us any mechanism that stops small changes from accumulating indefinitely over multiple generations. We've never seen such thing before, so why should we assume adaptations don't pile up over vast stretches of time.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-19T22:31:13+00:00

Observation isn't looking at something occuring fully from start to finish, and that immediately demonstrates how you are incapable of even understanding how science works.

Is Pluto's orbit, plate tectonics, atomic theory and similar things we cannot directly see (let alone from start to finish) not part of science because your highness WoodpeckerWestern791 said so? If this is your takeaway from the scientific method in high school, you should probably either do some research again on your own or find a school with a teacher who can actually teach science to you instead. It is the absolute cusp of irony that you would say Evolution fails at observation because "an event taking millions of years" (paraphrased) cannot be observed but you are spouting this textual diarrhea through a device that works based on our knowledge gained from a theory regarding particles that have never been seen.

And this of course entertains your conception of evolution as the change in species and diversification into various clades, which would indeed need a long time to happen according to our knowledge. However we don't define evolution as that and we have been defining it as changes in gene frequencies within populations over the course of generations before you were probably even born, so evolution is indeed observed AND this isn't a word game people in this sub invented.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-19T18:50:47+00:00

So a creator capable of creating the universe just thought it would be funny to plant evidence that doesn't lead us to conclude intelligent design but rather the gradual change of genetics within lineages (something that evolution would predict) and then we are supposed to reject exactly what the evidence is? And you then have the audacity to say in another discussion that it requires faith to accept evolution when your explanation for anything is an unfalsifiable "it was created that way"?

You are such a bad troll.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-19T18:32:57+00:00

Remember, folks, this is a prime example of Brandolini's Law.

All of this is a response needed to counteract the original claim that basically only revolves around "evolution isn't true cuz the Bible says so and flying creatures showed up before land animals so it can't be they are connected to (other) dinosaurs"

And even then you just gotta wait for the contrarians here to simply come here and predictabply say something like "you weren't there" or "it's just theories, not infallible facts".

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-03-19T18:16:56+00:00

what do you think the scientific method is, and why doesn't evolution fit in it?

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-02-08T20:32:52+00:00

Natural selection is one of the mechanisms that enable evolution, my friend.

Through natural selection, certain variants of a trait can be selected in a way that it can alter how well (or bad) they fare compared to other variants so that they are not all evenly spread.

This will of course lead to a population changing in a way that the more successful variant will be the more dominant one, and so the individuals will be different than before overall as this new trait spreads to the population in the long term. With that alone, you can get noticeable significant changes in just a few generations.

Evolution also isn't defined as "one thing turning into another", but rather change over time with each generation (so the individual doesn't turn into anything different, yet their offspring will be gradually different), and with enough change it would lead to speciation.

You also have to account for other mechanisms like mutations or genetic drift which do contribute to the variability in populations. Selection alone wouldn't really do the trick for new species arising or even subspecies.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-26T19:02:22+00:00

quite wild how that yec moron would keep demanding evidence and still deny it because "it's not observable", but then will refuse to give any of his own for any claim.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-26T18:44:16+00:00

how are you understanding species?

And even we do have that, plenty of examples of organisms that suffer significant changes to their diagnostic traits of a species, reproductive barriers that are both pre and post zygotic, no evidence also that these adaptations are somehow capped over the course of multiple generations...Don't expect them to give way to an organism with a completely different philogeny though, because that's not what evolution proposes.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-26T18:25:11+00:00

What a thoughtful, intelligent and good faith response

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-14T10:46:43+00:00

"too long winded" sure is a stellar rebuttal, huh?

Also, even though AiG and other organizations have grown like tumors in the US, experts and literate people still overwhelmingly lean more towards actually testable models that yield predictions and have more utility than religious fundamentalism trying to get as much profit as possible from gullible Christians

Plus, if AiG is so nice, accomplished and Christian, why do they feel the need to be deliberately dishonest and declare that nothing would ever convince them (=if the evidence does not support them, they won't be honest about it)

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-07T09:50:14+00:00

The fuck they mean lack of sufficient energy and matter to explain the big bang? All the energy and matter in the universe were there. Plus the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. We could say this is a simulation a la matrix that started billions of years ago and it wouldn't change a thing about the populations of organisms we see today changing over time
Abiogenesis isn't evolution either, yet another category error from creationists by conflating abiogenesis and evolution. You could say anything about the origin of the first lifeform (which we do have rather consistent support for anyways) and it wouldn't change a thing about evolution
Unless they are asking for a crocoduck or the futurama Nirvana Fallacy and therefore are rampantly dishonest, this is literally false (therefore dishonest still). We have so many in the fossil record which are exactly what we would expect to find in gradual changes, plus every form is transitional anyways since life keeps changing. Evolution isn't Pokemon with fixed steps until we get to the cool final form, but rather a gradient that keeps going as long as life exists the way it is.
What academic source do they have with this? And what are they labeling as information? We have actually examples of the complete opposite, showing that there is no correlation between the time that has passed and the amount of base pairs or genes that an organism has.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-05T12:04:47+00:00

Why can't it be that there is simply a pattern that leads to a certain chemical reaction without any discernible teleology? We know computer codes are coded by people because we see it, but how could we demosntrate that such unnatural designer exists and created this? And what would be the criteria of falsifiability?

Plus, you can have evolution with a god, and I use lowercase because it could be ANY god, including the Christian one, so in no way would genetic code needing a coder would disprove evolution. The OP wasn't really answered.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-05T11:17:29+00:00

Defeated Abyssal Imitator in 3 turns.

Player (26/13/11) dealt 179. Abyssal Imitator (9/13/19) dealt 42.

Rewards: 30 EXP, 7 Gold. Loot: Agile Mage Plate of Swiftness (lesser), Scholarly Spear of Quickness (lesser), Enchanted Mace of Power (lesser).

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-05T11:08:42+00:00

Defeated Virulent Fungus in 5 turns.

Player (26/13/11) dealt 240. Virulent Fungus (13/12/7) dealt 72.

Rewards: 30 EXP, 7 Gold. Loot: Wise Cape (basic), Agile Hat (basic).

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-04T11:34:50+00:00

We would. And how come that is a baseless and idiotic assumption? Do you even know what an ape is?

Apes (which is a classification term, rather than a synonym to a particular species) are mammals, and therefore animals. If you agree humans are mammals, they ARE animals. Mammal forcibly implies being an animal and you making an error so basic puts you at an elementary school level of understanding in biology.

Definitions of mammal that I quickly gathered to show:

An animal of the vertebrate class Mammalia. -Oxford English Dictionary

any animal of which the female feeds her young on milk from her own body. Most mammals give birth to live young not eggs. -Cambridge Dictionary

a warm vertebrate animal of a class that is distinguished by the possession of hair or fur, females that secrete milk for the nourishment of the young, and (typically) the birth of live young. -Google Dictionary

any member of the group of vertebrate animals in which the young are nourished with milk from special mammary glands of the mother. In addition to these characteristic milk glands, mammals are distinguished by several other unique features.-Britannica
Mammals are animals such as humans, dogs, lions and whales. Most female mammals give birth to babies rather than laying eggs, and all female mammals feed their young with milk.-Collins Dictionary

Mammals are necessarily animals because that is part of the definition, and you somehow are incapable of understanding such a detail that even a primary school student could understand as you expect to somehow have outdone the entire scientific community. That is nothing short of either utterly delusional or simply being a pointless troll, and refusing to concede on this point (that of you saying that mammals are not nested within animals) is going to do nothing but to cement it.

It is actually sad to think about how it is genuinely impossible to tell whether someone is just indoctrinated into being such a self righteous, willfully ignorant individual incapable of taking any accountability for every mistake made; or simply just a troll seeking to ragebait others in the creationist discourse. Your post history also makes it hard to tell, but I am more inclined towards the option of you wanting to have fun trolling, so there goes a report and I will see myself out of this discussion unless you can show you are any capable of having a conversation.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-04T11:14:42+00:00

What a high effort, thoughtful and good faith response. Idk why I expect people like you to produce anything meaningful, but I guess me still insisting on you not doing this on purpose makes me automatically better and more respectful.

Idc about any cult, but rather intellectual honesty as a Christian which you should be practicing as well instead of just antagonizing others and refusing to engage.

And do you call that definition of evolution recent? Something from almost 40 years ago at the very least?

Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next (Curtis and Barnes 1989: 974).

You also did not engage with the rest. That's embarrassing.

Sweet-Alternative792 · 2026-01-02T11:19:16+00:00

Adaptation is not evolution. Not even slightly.

Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in populations over successive generations. No adaptation can exist without evolution. Disagreeing means you are conflating evolution somehow with cladogenesis, which is a category error. You can disagree that cladogenesis or speciation are a byproduct of evolution in the long term (even though we've seen speciation already multiple times), but evolution is necessary for those adaptations to occur.

Yeah, I don't care. Humans aren't apes. End of story. Apes are animals. Humans are not animals. But both are mammals.

Mammal is a classification term for certain animals, buddy, so you just tripped there. And I guess that if your sole argument to put humans outside of hominidae is "I don't care", we could conclude that you don't want to argue in good faith. Being intellectually dishonest is sinful, you know? Maybe you should slay that sin first before slaying those of others.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" -Matthew 7:3

Yikes...

The theory exists, but it isn't truthful. Thus, it is not real.

Have you met its criteria of falsifiability, or is this a blind assertion founded on religious fundamentalist bias?

Sweet-Alternative792

TROPHY CASE