What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

The New Individualist ^ | 1/2006 | Ed Hudgins

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Morality is defined by men.

I'll bet there are few women who may not agree with that.

Anyone who says I am immoral is no different than any preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner.

The mythical rights of women or men are also meaningless. The very concept of rights is also founded in religion. Since the enlightened person is freed from any primitive superstitions about some ‘God’ they are free from having to worry about rights. Only raw power counts, and humans are just meat puppets for the powerful.

[PatrickHenry]

The thread is dead. Long live the thread!

That would violate the Second Law of Thermopylae.

[Skywalk]

Bats DO fly, though. No feathers :)

[spunkets]

" The very concept of rights is also founded in religion."

The concept was formulated by men.

"the enlightened person is freed from any primitive superstitions about some ‘God’ they are free from having to worry about rights."

Wrong. That's simply an empty claim. You are free to engage in defining rights and the morality to protect them, but you will not be excused from violating those rights. They are protected, or ivolated, not by God, but by men.

"Only raw power counts, and humans are just meat puppets for the powerful."

You mean like the devine right of kings placed here by God? Or, the right of any group whatsoever to dictate with authoritarian power? Romans 13 says to obey them, because God put them here. I say that's bogus. We have rights and a moral code which are designed to protect the life and inherent sovereignty of will we were born with. Other men agree. I suppose you will have to resort to raw power to attempt to force our submission.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Romans 13 says...

If “morality” is defined by men, as you say, what has the Bible got to do with it? Why even bring it up? Because you are just one of those pathetic anti-Christians?

Morality is entirely rooted in a presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior. It is based on a false premise, esoteric hobgoblins that have no substance.

Anyone who says I am immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner.

You are not going to slap a new label on it hoping (and praying) I will not notice.

You are a blithering moron.

[Fester Chugabrew]

A possible re-construction of history by comparative morphology of the genome or the fossil record requires inferential leaps of faith that may be reasonable, but they are not empirical. Possibilities and probabilities of intelligent design also require inferential leaps of faith when organized matter that performs specific functions is recognized. Neither common descent nor intelligent design are, in the strict sense, empirical science. They only make use of empirical science, from which they make reasonable conjecture.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I simply refuse to waste time better spent elsewhere writing a response to someone who starts off with childish insults."

Your further retreat is also noted. :)

BTW, you came out on this thread with ad hominems, and have not stopped with them.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yeah, and that's even worse! They created drawings based on Haeckel's drawings."

How do you know they were based on his drawings and not on actual photos? I have yet to see a creationists who could tell the difference.

[xzins]

The good ole days really did have text books that "conflated" abiogenesis and evolution. I used those text books. I remember.

[xzins]

It was certainly discussed as part of evolution when I took 9th grade biology, but that was before micro and molecular biology clearly proved that abiogenesis is impossible. It's sort of like a pink elephant in a room full of evolutionists. They all know its there but no one is willing to talk about it.

That's the impression I get, too.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So, were/are airplanes created, or are they the result of random chance?"

They were imperfectly designed by human beings.

"Can't you evolutionists come up with a united front. The problem with evolutionists is that they can't agree on hardly anything about how evolution actually works, if it works at all."

Yes, they can. Creationists just can't stop lying about what scientists says.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[countorlock]

Ever see this verse?

Jeremiah 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

The theory of evolution is thousands of years old. And it's always been a religion.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Exactly. So as a scientist you cannot say that purpose is absent. But you did say it that it is absent. That was a philosophical statement, not a scientific statement. In the middle of your supposed scientific refutation of those who believe that purpose plays a role in natural phenomena, you said that it does not. You did not say that you believe that it does not on a philosophical basis. You claimed science on your side. But you cannot do that from within science. You mix philosophy in with your science and don't even realize it. That's bad science and bad philosophy. Your opponents are much more aware of what they are doing. They don't claim that science and philosophy can be neatly separated but that even within science, scientists involve philosophical assumptions.

You can continue to insist that purpose is absent from the evolution of an eye. But your basis for insisting cannot be a scientific one.

[metmom]

The observation and interpretation of the data is made by a fallible human scientist who is starting with some basic assumptions about his theory or experiment. Granted, some science is pretty reliable, like chemical reactions and physics. There can be objectivity to a great degree when measuring changes with instruments, but not all science is so hard and fast.
A naturalistic approach to science is presumed because, we are being constantly told on these threads that science deals only with the natural and not the supernatural because the supernatural is outside the realm of science so science cannot address it. That is starting with a presumption that biases your interpretation of data and perhaps your observation of it.

[spunkets]

"Granted, some science is pretty reliable, like chemical reactions and physics. "

That includes biochem and in particular, the biochemical foundation for evolution. That includes the mechanisms of Genetics.

"science deals only with the natural and not the supernatural because the supernatural is outside the realm of science"

That's right, because the supernatural is not subject to the scientific method. That's a fact, not a presumption.

[highball]

Creationists are the one group on FR that can be counted on to flat-out lie on a routine basis. It's an accurate observation.

Sad but true.

[spunkets]

"what has the Bible got to do with it? Why even bring it up?

You brought it up.

"I will not notice."

Obviously.

[TChris]

But the point being made was that "submission" is not "morality", it's "Islam"

ROFL!

Your conclusion is that all devout, faithful Christians (and Jews too, as far as I understand) are really Muslim? Any religion which expects submission to God is really Islam? That's a laugh!

[TChris]

Evolution is about how living organisms change over time. There's no reason to explain the Creator.

Except that evolution overextends itself beyond the evidence, reaching from observable, minor change within a species to explaining the very existence of all species. It's not that evolution doesn't take place at all, it's that evolution simply isn't as powerful as so many scientists seem to faithfully believe.

The Creator made the species, not evolution. Man has always been man; apes have always been apes. Differences in each are easily observed as genetic changes over successive generations. No geneticist has ever been able to even guide the process to result in a new species. Nature certainly never has alone.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" The Creator made the species, not evolution."

Unsubstantiated assertion.

"Man has always been man; apes have always been apes."

We ARE apes.

" Differences in each are easily observed as genetic changes over successive generations."

And fossil genetic fragments called ERV's demonstrate the common ancestor we share with other apes.

" No geneticist has ever been able to even guide the process to result in a new species. Nature certainly never has alone."

Speciation has been observed. What has NEVER been shown is the genetic stop sign that creationists claim exists that would prevent a population from continuing to diverge from the parent species.