Are there any NEW Creationist arguments?

Quite. Are you familiar with Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages? Worth a read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that's not true they have made great discoveries in making one's self look like an idiot

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

dozens more like hundreds

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Creationist arguments have to be new every day, by definition. After all, they have to keep up with scientific advancements...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't understand....science doesn't refute the idea of god, I think it can support it. The universe is so much more beautiful and profound than they could ever imagine...it should be evidence of god's work.

What's keeping them from saying something simple like, "God created such a complex universe that from its birth, conditions were set so that men would eventually rise above all of his other creations and hold dominion over the earth". He created the universe in 7 days? Well...time is relative so I'm sure an omnipotent being could make eternity seem like weekend.

I don't know...I'm athiest but if I was a creationist, I'd try to use science to my advantage.

 

If anyone has Comcast on Demand there's a show on the Science Channel called "Through the wormhole". I'd suggest you watch it. It's very interesting. There's a growing suspicion amongst a few prominent scientists that we might be living in an "ancestral simulation".

I can't say that I personally believe in that theory but damn the idea itself is beyond fascinating. Another theory to throw in the mix, which actually raises more questions than it answers.

 

Basically evolution must've involved the adaption to materia that has exguisite properties for thinking, a soul.

-Fat ain't it.

 

What's a "soul"?

 

Something gingers don't have, apparently.

 

It's a material that has properties good enough to combine with the brain into simulated cognitive thought; even if it's small like that.

A soul is not fat.

 

Neither is a brick.
So what?

Wrong. What sort of material? Where is it located?

 

Get your own, and not someone elses.

It's, a particles, non atomic, that grows considerable in size.

 

My own brick?
Thanks, but I already have 5.

I bet it isn't.
What evidence do you have for this contention?

 

because a atom the size of a soul would've given you cancer in no time.

 

I think you're getting confused.
I'm asking about evidence for your contention about souls, not the properties of atoms.

 

I don't live by that ideology communism. I don't want people to have the same kinda stuff, I want them to have different stuff so that when we all fusion into a mess, we won't have the exact same memory, and die the bore death.

As for your question: A soul is a particle that digest problems and spit out solutions. Basically it gets in a charge/photon/whatever, and reacts too it differently based on what the charge/photon/whatever was, etc. This difference the brain registers and by it, it produces a result.

-More or less.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

And you STILL haven't provided any evidence.
In other words you're spouting insupportable nonsense.

 

It's a high dimensional particle that eats materia by changing its structure. Based on the structure change, the brain determins what the solution to the materia's problem was.

There are such things as high dimensional particles, and thereby the human has evolved with it.

 

Do you know what the word "evidence" means?
I don't want fairy stories.
I don't want inane babbling.
I want evidence.

 

Since you have 5, we remove them and shove them where you don't want them. That will surely solve the question "what is this for shit?"