Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[jwoodie]

(i.e., anyone who questions their politically correct dogma) as a means of defending their own position? Is arguing that the earth is more than 6,000 years old the best they can do? I don't care if we descended from apes or not, but the currently popular "explanation" that inter-species transformation simply "occurs" over "millions of years" is profoundly dissatisfying, particularly in the complete absence of supporting archeological evidence.

Even the biological definition of "species" has been changed to fit this narrative: It used to be that different species would be unable to mate and have offspring capable of further reproduction (e.g., horses and donkeys producing sterile mules). Now this has changed to muddy the distinction between localized adaptations (like polar bears) and separate,genetically incompatible species. Thus have been created "hybrid species" and other euphemistic terms for dealing with these unanswered questions.

The longest running biological experiment in human history has been the specialization of dog breeds over the past 5,000 years, resulting in the greatest size variation (100+ times) of any animal that has every existed on Earth. But at the end of the day, they are all still dogs biologically capable of producing viable offspring. Why haven't they developed into different species?

 

[PredFan]

You have that backwards. It is the Creationists who have been attacking the Evolutionists. The Creationists are tyhe ones who have no proof, no evidence, to back up their claim and all they can do is attack evolution. They've been doing that since the time of Darwin.

 

[PredFan]

(i.e., anyone who questions their politically correct dogma) as a means of defending their own position? Is arguing that the earth is more than 6,000 years old the best they can do? I don't care if we descended from apes or not, but the currently popular "explanation" that inter-species transformation simply "occurs" over "millions of years" is profoundly dissatisfying, particularly in the complete absence of supporting archeological evidence.

You are again incorrect. There is quite a lot of archeological evidence. Right off the top of my head, the horse for example. Fossils we have show a fantastic view of their gradual development.

Even the biological definition of "species" has been changed to fit this narrative: It used to be that different species would be unable to mate and have offspring capable of further reproduction (e.g., horses and donkeys producing sterile mules). Now this has changed to muddy the distinction between localized adaptations (like polar bears) and separate,genetically incompatible species. Thus have been created "hybrid species" and other euphemistic terms for dealing with these unanswered questions.

Actually, polar bears can mate with other bears and produce offspring. It just wouldn't be natural because they aren't attracted to each other.

The longest running biological experiment in human history has been the specialization of dog breeds over the past 5,000 years, resulting in the greatest size variation (100+ times) of any animal that has every existed on Earth. But at the end of the day, they are all still dogs biologically capable of producing viable offspring. Why haven't they developed into different species?

That's easy, mainly because humans have interfered. Those dogs are the result of careful controlled breeding. Dogs that don't conform to the desired standard are taken out of the gene pool either by being destroyed or not allowed to breed further.

You show a severe lack of knowledge of evolution. Perhaps that's why these things puzzle you. Remember that evolution is the survival of the fittest. If a species is the most adapted to it's environment, then it won't change. The crocodile for instance, it is so perfectly adapted to it's environment that it hasn't evolved further in millions upon millions of years. Just becuase a lot of time and generations have passed doesn't mean that a species has to change. That's not how evolution works.

 

[newpolitics]

It is fallacious to say evolutionists attack creationists, and leave it at that. It is actually creationists who have been attacking and trying to deface and debunk science since its inception. Any explanations that rivaled the churches were banished. It seems as if theists are programmed to believe they are the victims When in fact, they are the insecure aggressors.

 

[zombiehunter696]

It is actually creationists who have been attacking and trying to deface and debunk science since its inception.

And failing, and then once they realize they can't do it, they start the personal attacks and other logical fallacies. Then they lie about what famous scientists have said by cutting out relevant information that changes the meaning completely. Then when called out on their dishonest tactics, they just rinse and repeat.

 

[TNHarley]

Same reason for the vice versa.

Quote:
It is actually creationists who have been attacking and trying to deface and debunk science since its inception.
Yep. Ask Galileo

 

[LittleNipper]

You have that backwards. It is the Creationists who have been attacking the Evolutionists. The Creationists are tyhe ones who have no proof, no evidence, to back up their claim and all they can do is attack evolution. They've been doing that since the time of Darwin.

You have it BACKWARDS! Every college and university that boasts a Christian foundation (and that is quite a few if not most), began to allow liberal interpretations of creation and the acceptance of evolution so as not to seem ridged and controlling. The science departments allowed evolutionists to eventually head the departments in an effort to promote investigation and "modern" research and study. This was all done in the name of a well rounded education; however, the evolutionists (once they gained control of the science departments) began to exclude and eliminate anyone who stood against their interpretation of the data. This continued until everyone who considered Biblical investigations of value retied or left. All one has to do is read the threads (even here) to find that evolutionists are very exclusive and make fun of everything Creationists have to say, EVEN when creationist findings are proven. The issue at stake is if GOD exists. Evolutionists do not need GOD (or so they have concluded). And most evolutionist are at best agnostics with little desire to rock their boat, which has becoame a cozy home for them from which to preach their Cosmos Tales. Personally, I have no problem with Christians working with atheists. The problem is that atheists do not like Chrisitan thought and wish to shove it into ones personal closet and away from public display... That cannot be denied.

 

[Sallow]

Creationists want their theory taught in secular schools.

That's like asking Secular science be preached in Churches.

 

[LittleNipper]

Same reason for the vice versa.

Quote:
It is actually creationists who have been attacking and trying to deface and debunk science since its inception.
Yep. Ask Galileo

Your little joke of an icon, says more about your opinion towards Chrisitans, and Creationists than your words.

 

[Sallow]

Same reason for the vice versa.

Quote:
It is actually creationists who have been attacking and trying to deface and debunk science since its inception.
Yep. Ask Galileo

Your little joke of an icon, says more about your opinion towards Chrisitans, and Creationists than your words.

Lighten up Francis..

 

[TNHarley]

Same reason for the vice versa.

Quote:
It is actually creationists who have been attacking and trying to deface and debunk science since its inception.
Yep. Ask Galileo

Your little joke of an icon, says more about your opinion towards Chrisitans, and Creationists than your words.

Humor against your religion, princess?

 

[LittleNipper]

Creationists want their theory taught in secular schools.

That's like asking Secular science be preached in Churches.

The search for truth is the entire reason for education to exist. If all one is looking for is a secular excuse for living, why bother teaching anything at all? And the fact remains that both home schoolers and christian institutions are coming under pressure to teach "secular" theories, while all the secular institution need only explain secular opinions.

 

[LittleNipper]

Same reason for the vice versa.

Quote:
It is actually creationists who have been attacking and trying to deface and debunk science since its inception.
Yep. Ask Galileo

Your little joke of an icon, says more about your opinion towards Chrisitans, and Creationists than your words.

Humor against your religion, princess?

And you like gay jokes, pumkin?

 

[LittleNipper]

Same reason for the vice versa.

Quote:
It is actually creationists who have been attacking and trying to deface and debunk science since its inception.
Yep. Ask Galileo

Your little joke of an icon, says more about your opinion towards Chrisitans, and Creationists than your words.

Lighten up Francis..

Look who's shallow

 

[SteadyMercury]

Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

Because they are backwards rubes who when it comes down to it prefer to believe in magic.

Sounds worthy of attack to me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is fallacious to say evolutionists attack creationists, and leave it at that. It is actually creationists who have been attacking and trying to deface and debunk science since its inception. Any explanations that rivaled the churches were banished. It seems as if theists are programmed to believe they are the victims When in fact, they are the insecure aggressors.

Very true.

It’s also an effort on the part of creationists to conjoin church and state in violation of the First Amendment, an attempt to codify Christian dogma into secular laws. It’s perfectly appropriate for Americans to defend their religious freedoms when attacked by creationists and others on the radical Christian right.

Proof of creationists’ desire to conjoin church and state is found in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), where the Supreme Court ruled that creationism was indeed religion, that its being taught in Louisiana public schools was in violation of the Establishment Clause, and where the law’s intent was to only foster religious practice, not to further a legitimate secular purpose.

 

[TNHarley]

Your little joke of an icon, says more about your opinion towards Chrisitans, and Creationists than your words.

Humor against your religion, princess?

And you like gay jokes, pumkin?

Are you asking me if I want to participate in gay jokes with you? Cause if not, I don't understand the relevance..

 

[Sunshine]

(i.e., anyone who questions their politically correct dogma) as a means of defending their own position? Is arguing that the earth is more than 6,000 years old the best they can do? I don't care if we descended from apes or not, but the currently popular "explanation" that inter-species transformation simply "occurs" over "millions of years" is profoundly dissatisfying, particularly in the complete absence of supporting archeological evidence.

Even the biological definition of "species" has been changed to fit this narrative: It used to be that different species would be unable to mate and have offspring capable of further reproduction (e.g., horses and donkeys producing sterile mules). Now this has changed to muddy the distinction between localized adaptations (like polar bears) and separate,genetically incompatible species. Thus have been created "hybrid species" and other euphemistic terms for dealing with these unanswered questions.

The longest running biological experiment in human history has been the specialization of dog breeds over the past 5,000 years, resulting in the greatest size variation (100+ times) of any animal that has every existed on Earth. But at the end of the day, they are all still dogs biologically capable of producing viable offspring. Why haven't they developed into different species?

Well genetics have not changed. Offspring tend toward the average. They do not evolve upward. I think the Sitchen work about why there is no missing piece is rather compelling.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

Because they are backwards rubes who when it comes down to it prefer to believe in magic.

Sounds worthy of attack to me.

And I suppose you don't drink until you're blind drunk, smoke cigarettes like a chimney, and sport a dumb tatt that you'll be sorry for in 15 -20 years. So, that accounts for you're sophistication and intelligence --- I'm so impressed.

 

[LittleNipper]

Humor against your religion, princess?

And you like gay jokes, pumkin?

Are you asking me if I want to participate in gay jokes with you? Cause if not, I don't understand the relevance..

Neither did I understand the social relavance of your original comment.