Common Creationist Arguments

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

[Rippin]

What about the serious problems with the Creationist Theory. Blindly biased ye are a bit maybe?

Some creationist theories do not fit well with our observations, others fit moderately well with many observations but are unfalsifiable, and therefore not properly science according to some definitions of science. The mainstream approach to this in public schools is to pretend that evolution has no serious problems and that creationism is not science.

Rippin

[gore3000]

"Your tirade on Clinton was in response to:"

Forgive me, please forgive me for insulting your hero.

Now to the real discussion. I refuted your post, very clearly very explicitly. The point I made was quite simple and quite incontrovertible: evolutionists have been lying for a long time, they have been making things up. Worse, even when caught, they keep telling the same lies. The best example of this is Haeckel's embryo pictures which for decades after they had been proven to be totally bogus, evolutionists kept them in textbooks to pervert the minds of innocent children.

Is that the way of science? To lie as long as you can? To refuse to make ammends for lies previously told? To continue to propagate a lie long after it has been proven to be a lie?

[VadeRetro]

I refuted your post, very clearly very explicitly.

As totally expected, you simply posted a response on a subject of your chosing, utterly ignoring the content of my post.

The misleading natue of Haeckel's drawings was not discovered for a long time. Creationists were not involved in the process anywhere, any more than they were in uncovering the Piltdown Man hoax. Creationists only spin the work of others to their own ends, contributing no content but smoke and mirrors.

"Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" is not literally, step-by-step true; you were never a fish, but you did once have gill slits. Nevertheless, the discipline of "Evolutionary Developmental Biology" is testimony to the scientific usefulness of the general principle.

"Evo-Devo"

[gore3000]

"Anyway, if any evidence at all can turn up and that's OK, as is certainly true with creationism/ID--nothing falsifies--then your alleged theory isn't a theory at all, or even a decent hypothesis. It has no implications. It tells you nothing about the real, observable, testable world."

Aaaah, Creationism, the evolutionist's strawman. I know a lot of people who believe man and all living things were created by God. None of them call themselves Creationists. They call themselves Christians.

The part of Christianity which is relevant to the discussion of evolution is the Bible's statements that God created all life and that God created man. This is what Christians believe. It is not a scientific theory, it is a religion. However, the fact that it is not a scientific theory does not mean that it is not true.

It is not Christians that started this fight, it was evolutionists who really were not interested in science, but in attacking religion. You can barely read any of these evolution threads without seeing evolutionists showing their rabid hatred of religion. Evolutionists are trying to use the good name of science to undermine religious belief and promote atheism. Christians are defending their faith against this attack.

The way the Christians defend it is simply by showing that evolution is not science: that evolution is not based on facts: that evolution is internally inconsistent: that evolution is contradicted by many things which real scientists have proven.

So the opposition to evolutionism is not creationism, it is not an ideology, it is not a scientific theory, it is not a theory at all. It is a criticism of evolution using the tools of science, reasoning and common sense. This is perfectly valid. In fact, criticism, analysis, reasoning, and common sense, are the tools of science itself and for you to call this criticism invalid is total nonsense. Science is criticism, and if your theory disdains criticism, if your theory abhors criticism, if your theory does not wish to stand up and defend itself from criticism, then it is an admission that evolution is not science.

[gore3000]

The purpose of evolution is not to attack Christian beliefs,

It certainly is, from the start Darwin, a hidden atheist, surrounded himself with atheists. It's prime teaching - survival of the fittest (aka might makes right) was adopted by the two most atheistic and barbaric ideologies of the 20th century - Nazism and Communism. The famous "monkey trial" (which BTW the evolutionists lost) was an attack on religion led by the most famous atheist lawyer in the country. The most prominent exponent of evolution nowadays is the virulent (and rather stupid, I might say) atheist Richard Dawkings.

However, perhaps the greatest proof that atheism is a direct attack on Christianity can be seen in the arguments of evolutionists themselves in their posts and in the articles that support evolution. Their constant refrain is that even though they have not found the answer for the materialistic creation of life and the bounties of nature, the answer will be found because it is impossible that the world, life and mankind could have been created by that deity which Christians call God.

[Dog Gone]

The Theory of Gravity has been adopted by Nazis and Communists too, so we must reject it. Okie dokie.

[gore3000]

Your article says:

The core beliefs of Christian Identity are so far astray from those of mainstream Christianity

Seems you are attacking Christianity by using as an example of the terrors of Christianity a group which Christians abhor. As I said, your post was totally slanderous of Christians, and now, in the words of your own "proof" you have shown me to be correct.

[gore3000]

There is a point in any investigation when reasonable people will say that facts are established beyond a reasonable doubt. that point has long been passed with regard to evolution.

Well, let's investigate evolution then in terms of reasonable doubt. You state that evolution has proof beyond a reasonable doubt of its theory. Let's see it - or do you wish to keep us in the dark?

[gore3000]

"Supposition, not fact."

Worse than supposition, not true at all.

Homo erectus lived from approximately 2 million to around 400,000 years ago.
from: http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/erectus/erectus-a.html

The erectus discoveries mostly date 1.2-0.4 million years ago and have been found widespread in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm

Homo erectus
Pronounced As: homo rekts , extinct hominid living between 1.6 million and 250,000 years ago.
from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/06008.html

[Vercingetorix]

"As I said, your post was totally slanderous of Christians, and now, in the words of your own "proof" you have shown me to be correct." -- gore3000

Don't be silly. No one in the history of your gore3000 existence has ever shown you to be correct.

The Christian Identity Movement, while it harbors the most delusional and irrational blelievers, nonetheless is a Christian sect. Formerly mainstream Christians have joined this group, including some prominent figures. It is indeed a form of Christianity. It's here, it's virulent, it's dangerous. To pretend it doesn't exist is foolish.

You can call it by some other name if you like but the folks that follow this depravity call it Christianity. It is, by the way, only one example. There are numerous other Christian sects committed to equally bizarre beliefs though perhaps less prone to violence.

It is impossible to lump all Christians under one banner. They are not all the same. "Virulent Christian sects" clearly does not refer to Christianity in general unless you are of the opinion that every Christian belongs to a virulent sect. If that is your opinion then your complaint makes sense. If that is not your opinion then the most probable other reasonable explanation for your disagreement might be your bona fide charter membership in the afore mentioned sect.

[VadeRetro]

Aaaah, Creationism, the evolutionist's strawman. I know a lot of people who believe man and all living things were created by God. None of them call themselves Creationists. They call themselves Christians.

The part of Christianity which is relevant to the discussion of evolution is the Bible's statements that God created all life and that God created man. This is what Christians believe. It is not a scientific theory, it is a religion. However, the fact that it is not a scientific theory does not mean that it is not true.

Thank you for admitting that "competing theories" (competing with evolution) have no place in science class. We seem to agree that none of these "theories" qualifies as even a theory, much less as a scientific theory.

So the opposition to evolutionism is not creationism, it is not an ideology, it is not a scientific theory, it is not a theory at all. It is a criticism of evolution using the tools of science, reasoning and common sense.

The opposition to evolution aspires to be taught as a "competing theory." It isn't one. You don't have a horse in the race. You're not addressing the question of what motivates the opposition. Modern science, not just evolution but geology, astronomy, nuclear chemistry--a lot of things most of the world believes to be outside the term "evolution"--seems to contradict your religion's creation myth.

You confuse cause and effect in your post. Your religion leads you to attack science because science has dared to "attack" your religion by finding contrary data. But science is not and cannot be about proving your preacher right.

[VadeRetro]

Click me!

[VadeRetro]

There are species around to be the ancestor of modern Homo sapiens.

I embarrassed you with data on another thread until you ran away and stopped answering. Like many another, however, you and your arguments are reborn every thread on square one, hoping to find fresh meat.

[Psalm 73]

"Argument from incredulity then?"

I think I tossed that in there for a couple of reasons.
One is that it IS a legitimate sticking point, and also because of the incredulity that is shown toward people who don't swallow the entirety of the evolution theory.
(ie, "I can't believe they actually think like this"!)
But not entirely necessary for my "degrees of faith" argument.

[Psalm 73]

"...if Creationism is to be taught in schools, I don't see any reason why it can't be Last Thursdayism Creationism."

Honestly, why does it bother you so that so many people believe in Creationist theory?
You don't get nasty and sarcastic like this when adding to other discussion threads?
Heck, for all you know, I could be the Attorney you sought advice from or the surgeon that operated on you.

[Dimensio]

Honestly, why does it bother you so that so many people believe in Creationist theory?

Actually my problem is with people trying to argue that creationism should be taught in science classes, or those who insist on the false duality of either evolution or Biblical creationism. The latter is the reason that I brought up Last Thursdayism -- it's a creationist worldview that is not Biblically based.

[Elijah27]

The misleading natue of Haeckel's drawings was not discovered for a long time.

But it has been known about for a long time. According to the Encyclopedia of Evolution (written by evolutionists), it was discredited in the year 1900. Why is it still being utilized today? I saw the entire series of pictures in a 1999 textbook, and it nowhere stated that this was a fraud. It was taught as a factual example.

There are pouch-like structures which form in the fish embryo and which look superficially similar to the pharyngeal pouches or grooves in the human embryo (these were formerly incorrectly called branchial (i.e., gill) grooves). However, whereas in fish this region develops gills, in humans it forms very important, and quite different, structures in the head and neck region, structures which have nothing to do with gills in either form or function.

These structures include several which contain cartilage (such as the voice-box, or larynx). So it is not at all surprising, in a fallen world, that there should occasionally be an aberration of normal embryonic development, such that a clump of laryngeal-type cartilage (for example) is incorrectly "seeded" in the side of the neck during development in the womb, and begins growing.

Author: Dr. Carl Wieland, "A Fishy Story," Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16, No. 4 (September-November 1994), pp. 46-47

[Psalm 73]

"Actually my problem is with people trying to argue that creationism should be taught in science classes..."

OK, so you would have no problem with public school science classes also delving into the problems with macro-evolution, and the differences between the various evoltionary schools of thought?
They seem to present it as a tidy package, all wrapped up and complete.
They never cover the threads that do not connect, but just assume that they will, in time.
It is not an exact science, even more in-exact (is that a word?) than human psychology.

[VadeRetro]

Again, you were never a fish. However, you were a unicellular not much distinguishable from a protozoan, then a colonial multicellular not much distinguishable from a slime mold, then a primitive chordate, then a vertebrate. Obviously, those pharyngeal slits don't develop into gills in the adult human, but no one was arguing that they do.

Did you follow the link in the post you're responding to? There's a whole discipline developing which amounts to tracing the history of the individual genes and their role as you move around the tree of life.

According to the Encyclopedia of Evolution (written by evolutionists), it was discredited in the year 1900. Why is it still being utilized today? I saw the entire series of pictures in a 1999 textbook, and it nowhere stated that this was a fraud. It was taught as a factual example.

I'm curious. So very many creationists seem to have seen this textbook. Do you recall the title and/or author?

[Dimensio]

"Actually my problem is with people trying to argue that creationism should be taught in science classes..."

OK, so you would have no problem with public school science classes also delving into the problems with macro-evolution, and the differences between the various evoltionary schools of thought?

Actually for a high school setting I think that the basics should be taught first (natural selection theory, mutation theory). If there's time, then go into the various different theories of how evolution occured over a span of billions of years. The more in-depth study of the various theories is probably best suited for college-level education though.

If there are holes or problems, they should be presented as they are. However, what should not be presented are the well-debunked strawmen like the myth about the earth's magnetic field decaying over time or the slowdown of the earth's rotation or the lie that if the planet were just a little closer to or further from the sun then all life would die.