Creationist, because something is too complex for you to understand..?

Question

Does that mean it had to be created by a God?

Answer 1

yup

Answer 2

I guess thats how they work it. My question to them is where did God come from. If he was always here (which is usually thier convenient answer) then what made him all of a sudden decide to make Earth and people. Somewhere along the line something had to make this all knowing all powerful being decide to make everything. What made him decide all of a sudden. He allready knows everything so its not like he could have had a thought pattern and then said, yeah thats a good idea.
I know I will get a bunch of convenient answers to this too. I can not possibly understand Gods plan. But you seem to have a perfect understanding of the world and how it was created and throw out all the evidence to the contrary. Creationist think they have all the answers. Sadly they have none.

Answer 3

You're right. Just because we don't have a simple answer for every question evolution asks does not mean that we are incapable of discovering the answers. "I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end. It's a challenge to seek the truth--not abandon the search, throw up our hands, and hide behind ancient, comforting superstitions.

Answer 4

Evolutionist... Just because science explores the mysteries of nature, does that mean that there is no creator.

So you would have me to believe that something can from nothing and then came to life and evolved into human beings who then answered all of the questions in the universe and then died and thats it... right? How meaningless a pursuit...

Answer 5

Honestly, I thought about this the other day 80-90% of the price of any product now is knowledge related, the rest is materials and parts.

the ipod can be magic if I don't understand the mechanics of it.
I can guess and If i had to figure it out, it would get into ipod-meta-physics, but that would eventually lead me to a higher knowing of the magical ipod and it's true nature

Answer 6

Because something is too complex to understand does that mean that we should invent un-believable stories and then convince ourselves to believe them?
Scientists have been firmly convinced of many things and later had to change what they had previously argued about. So is the atheist who will know the truth but too late.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxU1sfUhBfs&mode=related&search=

Answer 7

Not at all.
The issue is that evolutionists are blind to the depths of complexity.
For exapmle, the complexity of just the human eye is so great that it defies the supposed origin of random chance.
What becomes clear is the intricacy of design.

Answer 8

Which begs the question....what is the education level/IQ of creationists vs scientists?

Answer 9

Just because something is simple enough for you to understand, does that automatically mean that God didn't have a hand in it?

Answer 10

Thank God you smart athiests are here to keep us stupid christians in line. Of course we are too dumb to understand science... Can you.. Read on if you don't mind seeing some evidence on the creationist side of course youwill most likely just pass this over because I am telling you about it:

Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific
investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

"Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very
excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific
proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural
processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of
methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an
electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products
were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links
of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies,
newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came
from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under
these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never
formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday
chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that
has ever converted amino acids into a life form.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in
those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Then I realized
that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject
of chirality. Chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals.

Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar
properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear
identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other,
those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate
chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only
mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality
can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule
is called an optical isomer.

When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality,
there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the
right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance
process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two
optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few
scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing
in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a
catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids
and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical
isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in
the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made
up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these
nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L"
isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural
DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins
and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components
would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in
natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create
proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of
"R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if
there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer.
If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work.
If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if
there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which
process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process?
The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control
is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come
together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double
helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component
contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral
shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong
chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not
function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train
on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules
within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the
same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with
chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come
together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same
chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with
chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to
evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time.
However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science
in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain
everything, or chirality doesn't exist.