Inside the Mind of a Creationist (Hope is Alive in California!)

Metro: Silicon Valley Weekly Newspaper ^ | April 21, 2005 | Najeeb Hasan

[gobucks]

"My background," he admits, "did not lend itself to me being a creationist."

So true for many of us! (Funny, I wonder why that is 'so true for many of us?)

[thejokker]

wacko-nut jobs like this do not further a conservative agenda.

[HankReardon]

Is that an accurate drawing of the giraffe-human evolutionary link? AMAZING! Put it in text book!

[Physicist]

Funny, I wonder why that is 'so true for many of us?

Because we're not ancient Hebrews?

[Labyrinthos]

To the proponents of Creationism a/k/a Intelligent Design, I once again offer the following challenge: Other than your religious faith and your criticisms of the Theory of Evolution, please provide at least one objective piece of evidence to support your view. Again, I'm not interested in your religious beliefs or Genesis or any other Biblical verse. Nor do I care about the negatives of Evolution. Just identify the positive evidence in support of your position.

Please note that I have issued this challenge on several threads, but have only received a single reply from a person who could not follow directions.

[Maceman]

The earth, according to Hofland, is about 6,000 years old. God created it in six 24-hour days. And, of course, evolution is just a theory.

Creationists are an appalling embarrassment to the conservative agenda.

There may in fact be limitations or shortcomings in Darwin or current theories of evolution. Einstein find the limitations of Newton's theories, after all.

But raising rational scientific challenges to Darwin does not legitimize idiotic fantasies like the one posited by Hofland, above.

Creationists need to understand that whether their view is accurate or not, it is NOT scientific, and therefore cannot be appropriately taught in any science class -- except perhaps as an object lesson in what science is NOT.

The thought that there are conservatives on FR who wave the Bible around as a scientific counter-argument to Darwin is a totally embarrassment to the credibility of this site.

[CobaltBlue]

*Ping.*

BTW, I've tried this myself, although face to face, not on line, and so far haven't had any response but doubletalk.

[DesertSapper]

You are asking for "objective" evidence of a supernatural event?

Why not take it on faith like we have to with macro-evolution? You know as well as I that evolution is taught as fact in schools when it is not fact - it is a theory that attempts to codify "scientific" observations. Many of these observations are not factual and some have even been recanted by science - yet they remain part of the logic that produced the theory. That is NOT objective science.

Creationism isn't currently being taught in public schools and thus are being required to prove the validity of the "theory". Darwinism is being taught and never went through this process of providing proof to be added to curriculums. Why the different standards?

I am a creationist that firmly believes in micro-evolution (according to its "kind"). Though I doubt all of it is in direct contradiction with the Bible, macro-evolutionary theory has yet to provide provable answers.

At what point do we finally admit to school kids that Darwinism is only a theory and there are other theories?

[SuzyQue]

Re: #8 - Wow! You ask for double talk and you get double talk!

[Bones75]

"The earth, according to Hofland, is about 6,000 years old. God created it in six 24-hour days. And, of course, evolution is just a theory.

Most people around here will shake their heads and wonder how anyone could think that in this day and age. "

I am one of those people. Clinging to anceint fairy tales is not helping the conservative nor the Christian cause. But hey, to each his own.

[DesertSapper]

Nice come back. Trite . . . but nice.

Hopefully, if your read my comments repeatedly, you can understand them in time.

There is hope for all.

[Realism]

"My background," he admits, "did not lend itself to me being a creationist."

Born again?, in lack of a better term. Many who find god later in life tend to be, let's say enthusiastic. It's not necessarily a bad thing but can be annoying for those who have more of a comprehensive attitude toward life.

[bigcat32]

Macro-evolution is a fairy tale for atheists.

[DesertSapper]

Your scriptures may be fairy tales but mine aren't.

You are more than welcome . . . even encouraged . . . to read the Word of God. We creationist, Bible-believing Christians are a rather inclusive bunch and will welcome you all.

God bless!

[Mr. Jeeves]

The earth, according to Hofland, is about 6,000 years old. God created it in six 24-hour days. And, of course, evolution is just a theory.

What's the Edge of the World like, Mr. Hofland, and where do the ships end up when they sail off of it? ;)

[DesertSapper]

True, but as Bones75 said in #10, "to each his own".

Atheism is a non-prophet organization. ;>)

[DesertSapper]

Interesting point you made in that snide remark aimed at Mr. Hofland:

The flat earth theory (taught as fact) was based on scientific observations of the time. They were dead wrong, but it was the "science" of the time.

I wonder what theories will be the norm 200 years from now?

[bigcat32]

Your use of "scientifically minded" has me confused. Are you really throwing that out as proof of your intellectual superiority or are you just trying to bait people?

[DesertSapper]

Personally, I believe Darwin was either a misguided research scientist with incorrect assumptions or a calculating fraud.

Hey, but that's just me. To each his own, right?