What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

The New Individualist ^ | 1/2006 | Ed Hudgins

[Dimensio]

And who are you materialist atheists to define what "science" is?

Creationist lie #283: all who accept the theory of evolution are atheists.

I should add creationist lie #283a: all who believe that science only studies the natural universe are atheists.

Science shouldn't be limited to naturalism.

How can the scientific method be applied to the supernatural? Be specific.

[Coyoteman]

If you are strangely implying that science should tackle the supernatural, you are very mistaken.

One man’s “magic” is another man’s engineering. “Supernatural” is a null word.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[WildHorseCrash]

If there is no God, then life has no meaning. Period.

No, it just doesn't have the meaning that you presently think it has or think it should have. And, if it is true you can't imagine meaning in life absent a God, I'd fear that you are missing out on much of that which makes humans humans and life livable.

To think there isn't anything out there greater than yourself is arrogant beyond belief.

First, "greater than yourself" need not be God, nor even supernatural. Second, to be certain, without proof, that there not only is a God, but your opinions of him are Truth, and all the other religious views of all the other people now alive and who have ever lived which disagree with you are Lies (damnable lies, at that) is the height of arrogance.

[Dimensio]

Then tell me, where does an atheist find meaning?

I have friends.

We're just an accident; a random bunch of chemicals in some mindless universe. How can that be anything but depressing?

Why should it depress me?

[connectthedots]

Let's see, on one hand we have a mountain of fossil evidence going back nearly 6 million years...

That is an interesting claim. A mountain of fossil evidence?

Check out This post and explain to me why a published environmentalist would say transitional fossils haven't been found because they don't exist?

So which is it? Is there a mountain of fossil evidence or is there none?

An insurmountable problem for evolutionists is that most of them recognize different significant problems with their 'theories', yet their explanations must necessarily imply that other 'theories of evolution' must be wrong. the disagreements within the environmentalist community is so vast, how can anyone honestly claim that evolution is a fact?

Just how many different theories of evolution are there?

[Texas Eagle]

If we can demonstrate to them that the basis for ethics lies in our nature as rational, volitional creatures, then perhaps we can also reassure them that men can indeed have morality—yet never fear to use that wondrous capacity which allows us to understand our own origins, the world around us, and the moral nature within us.

That's a big "if".

[connectthedots]

They were not glued to trees to get specific results, you liar.

Then, why were they glued to trees?

[Coyoteman]

the disagreements within the environmentalist community is so vast, how can anyone honestly claim that evolution is a fact?

The Theory of Evolution is a theory. (Disagreements are over small details, nothing for creationists to get excited about.)

Just how many different theories of evolution are there?

Just one, and its a real good one too.

From an NSF abstract:

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.

[Junior]

Check out This post and explain to me why a published environmentalist would say transitional fossils haven't been found because they don't exist?

You know, you could've linked to the site directly rather than to one of your posts with the link embedded. Note, an evironmentalist is not a biologist or a paleontologist. Should I go to a lawyer for my medical checkups?

Please name a few of the "insurmountable problems" evolution has. You'll probably find they don't exist, having arisen from creationists' ignorance of biology in general and the theory in particular.

[Junior]

In what way do evolutionists not agree? Be specific. Like I said, these misconceptions might arise from an abyssmal ignorance of the actual theory.

[Retain Mike]

All natural macro processes (those happening at less than .3 times the speed of light) result in matter moving to ever greater levels of disorder. More ordered forms of matter are only possible with large energy inputs, because so much is lost as entropy. I would like someone to approach the evolution problem mathematically.

[Dimensio]

All natural macro processes (those happening at less than .3 times the speed of light) result in matter moving to ever greater levels of disorder.

Demonstrate this.

[connectthedots]

You know, you could've linked to the site directly rather than to one of your posts with the link embedded. Note, an evironmentalist is not a biologist or a paleontologist. Should I go to a lawyer for my medical checkups?

The link was to a thread posted by Patrick Henry, and I wanted to be honest about the context. The article that is the subject of that thread is from the university of Pittsburgh and is certainly pro-evolution.

Note, an environmentalist is not a biologist or a paleontologist.

What a desperate comment. Based on your statement, one should not listen to any environmentalist who is not also a biologist. What are your credentials?

[Dimensio]

What's the point?

I derive enjoyment from socializing with them. It's all just temporary.

So is everything in life. Why do you want things to be other than temporary?

Without an afterlife, everything is futile.

Why? Why are things not futile with an afterlife? Is your life so empty and devoid of meaning that the thought of an afterlife what keeps you going on? Honestly, if the things you have now don't give you satisfaction and enjoyment, how the hell are you going to enjoy yourself for eternity?

You might as well be a mass murderer.

But why would I want to be a mass murderer?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Then, why were they glued to trees?"

In ONE picture out of dozens, two moths were glued side by side on a tree to show the difference in the coloration between the dark and the light type and to insure a good picture. That's it. ALL the rest of the moths were pictured as they were found in the field. There was no fraud done in those multiple studies.

In nature photography, it is a very common practice to pin insects down. They are too difficult to keep still for the type of pictures that you would usually want in a magazine. The type taken for the study were not done that way, except for the one of both moths; this picture had no scientific value outside of showing the color variation.

Creationists need to do a little research before making the same old mistakes over and over.

[Dimensio]

Then, why were they glued to trees?

To fully illustrate the colour contrast. Insects in the wild don't always rest in the best poses.

If it was fraud, what was the purpose of the fraud? What false claim(s) was the gluing of the moths attempting to spread