Common Creationist Arguments

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/index.shtml ^

[JediGirl]

didn't see this in the Ultimate Crevo Thread List, so I decided to post it. Even if it's there, this will be refreshing.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Well, this is sure to generate a lot of intelligent discussion... : )

Regards,
Snidely

[stanz]

Thanks. Another bookmark.

[Valpal1]

This kind of obtuse navel-gazing ignorance is a classic European cultural mindset which has unfortunately been adopted by many Americans

Ah, the evils of western civilization!

[Rippin]

This article has a lie index of about 62% and stupidity index of about 86% for a total BS index of about 75%. Most creationsists are not violent theocratic crusaders, they are common sense Americans who simply want schools to teach the truth about the serious scientific problems with evolutionary theory. These are well-documented by scientists with no religious axe to grind, yet thousands of evolutionist zealots will treat you like a complete fool if you raise any questions about the received dogmas of evolution.

Rippin

[truenospinzone]

Great article, the salient points of which will never in a million years be discussed rationally by the FReeper Fundies here.

[Dog Gone]

Interesting article. It correctly identifies many of the common attacks on the theory of evolution which are not logical.

There are many people who believe in the theory of evolution who also believe in God and consider themselves Christians. But many other Christians do not believe their faith to be genuine or valid.

That's an unfortunate fact.

[Dimensio]

Most creationsists are not violent theocratic crusaders, they are common sense Americans who simply want schools to teach the truth about the serious scientific problems with evolutionary theory.

Unfortunately, for most of them their notion of "scientific problems" stems from their lack of understanding of science.

[Dimensio]

"I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Saviour, for whose Kingdom it stands, one Saviour, crucified, risen, and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe."- Dan Quayle, participating in a modified Pledge of Allegiance at the "Reclaiming America" conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 1994.

Can anyone verify the truth (or lack thereof) of this disturbing quote?

[Junior]

Bump for further perusal.

[Junior]

Bump for further perusal.

[Frapster]

Umm... this guy has painted Christianity with such a broad brush that he's completely guilty of the very thing he's accusing Christians of from the beginning. A truly open mind is not offended or threatened when anothers religion restricts what they consider to be the truth and, conversely, not the truth. This man is so obviously offended and threatened that he's not better than any back-woods Bible-thumper declaring the kid in a karate class as a follower of pagan religions and is destined for hell.

I got about 1/4 of the way through this article and had to stop - when someone accuses someone of following faulty logic and then does the very same thing himself right on its heels then I get the feeling that this person is just stirring up grief. Thankyouverymuchpleasedrivethrough.

For example - it's not OK for Christians to point to extra-Biblical texts that have examples of creation accounts. But it's apparently ok for this author to hold up the example of the Golden Rule and then point out how "unspecial" Christianity is because so many other religions have this very principle as well.

Frankly - this guy just doesn't get it. The core to this whole issue is whether there is a God or not. He wants to argue doctrine and semantics and disqualify a religion based on past and even current abuses and completely ignores that any ideology or religion that exists in the world today is guilty of the same things Christianity is guilty of. And if they aren't it's because they just haven't been in existance long enough - give them time.

Essentially - trying to argue any points with this person is futile. He's so bigoted himself against Christianity that in the end we'd either be in fisticuffs or agreeing to completely disagree and live in different hemispheres.

[Harrison Bergeron]

ii. It demands "proof" of a scientific theory. However, the act of demanding "proof" merely betrays ignorance of scientific methods. Unlike mathematical theories, scientific theories are not "proven". Competing theories are judged on their consistency with observation, and the best theory wins (science itself is an evolutionary process in that respect). If science demanded absolute "proof" of theories, then we wouldn't have any theories at all. Even the theory of gravity can't be "proven"; it can only be shown to be consistent with observation.

This is what worries me most. One of the greatest claims of Western civilization is the Scientific Method. I like to think of the reported words of Alexander Graham Bell, apocryphal or not, when he said "What has God wrought?" You can't have it both ways. There is just something misguided and immature, AFAIC, in applying an article of religious faith to the scientific domain, i.e. Creation Theory. What's next? Labeling the Resurrection "Heavenly Teleportation Theory?"

[Exnihilo]

These threads are always full of the same idiots trying to undermine each other's intellect with name calling so they don't ever have to actually debate the issues. Terms like "fundie" and statements like "they don't understand science" are not arguments, but attempts to stifle argument because let's face it, a fundie and/or someone who "doesn't understand science" shouldn't be argued with anyway because "clearly they are not rational" etc., etc. It's rather nauseating.

When you ask them to define "Creationist" you get ominous silence in return. God forbid we should pin down some definitions so these twerps can't broad brush everyone who dares to question Darwinian orthodoxy.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"The core to this whole issue is whether there is a God or not. "

So... you're saying that if I take the theory of evolution as serious science then I don't believe in God? I think we've identified where the break is in the comm link.

[Exnihilo]

I love the scientific method. It's a pity that the theory of naturalistic evolution cannot be subjected to it.

[Exnihilo]

Harrison, the crux is not God's existence per say, but naturalism specifically. Plenty of people believe in evolution of some kind but are not naturalists.

[Psalm 73]

"...equally accepting of Buddhists, Taoists, Christians, Hindus, Wiccans, Muslims, and others, including atheists."

Because all of the above belief systems have some very basic differences, only ONE of them can be The Truth.
There cannot be many truths.
The question of diety(s) can only have one correct answer.
Surley we must be tolerant of the beliefs of others, for this is a free country.
But being tolerant of another viewpoints is not the same as a ringing endorsement.

On the other hand, certainly Creationists are roundly derided by macro-evolutionists - who are themselves (as a whole) not very tolerant of differing viewpoints.

[f.Christian]

Yeah---evolution has created a philosophical bigotry--tyranny---a chokehold---deathgrip on the American consciousness...

makes Catholicism and popery look really tame!

[Harrison Bergeron]

"These threads are always full of the same idiots trying to undermine each other's intellect with name calling...

God forbid we should pin down some definitions so these twerps...

Heh heh.