Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[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.

Exactly. Creationism was, ironically, created in order to create a pretense that it rivaled the science of evolution. Creationism is a slight of hand, a trick trying to portray biblical stories as worthy of scientific and intellectual merit. Creationists are just flim flam men, nothing else.

I think the US is the only country in the world, certainly the only modern Western culture, that has a faction questioning the theory of evolution and trying to replace it in education with a flim flam theory like creationism. What is wrong with the USA?

I agree, however, I think there is cause and room for empathy, because they sincerely and deeply believe in something that contradicts modern science completely, if we are talking Intelligent Design to replace Evolution as an accepted theory by science. They are forced to present their beliefs using invalid arguments and non-scientific methods, and try their hardest to make it seem legitimate in front of the world, but can't do it. Imo, They should ditch beliefs for which there is no evidence, and scale back their interpretation of the bible to completely allow for modern science, removing all conflict. Many prominent christian thinkers are able to so this (ie., WL Craig, Ken Miller). Then they wouldn't have to put so much energy into this silly cause of theirs that they think is divinely inspired, and that they are fighting "for god" against the devil, in some manifestation, whether literal or figurative. They seem to paint themselves as the victim, which is ironic, considering they are trying to force their beliefs onto everyone, when there is no evidence to back up their mythology, or any scientific basis for distinguishing their religious account of the world from that of the Hindus, Muslims, ancient Greeks. None have any evidence. The bible does not correlate with Science whatsoever, and was obviously written by people who had no clue about the universe. To trust their opinion and put creationism in schools is therefore, truly narcissistic.

 

[eots]

I'm not saying my claim is valid because it hasn't been disproved. That you haven't gotten this yet is a little ridiculous. You hang onto this strawman like its your teddy bear. Evolution is upheld by supporting evidence and all current observations. There is no contradicting evidence that had yet to falsify it, despite 150 years of creationist attempts. Your narcissism in thinking we owe it to you to prove evolution is fucking enraging. Study the material yourself and stop acting like a helpless child.

Yet you are saying that all that evidence can be falsified or it isn't scientific. So, it can be accepted as true or rejected as false according to your own narrow little box. And yet Creationism is silly because one can find no way to disprove it...............

Educate yourself on the scientific method and you will fully understand his post.
Scientific theories are tested attempting to DISPROVE the theory under the scientific method.
On EVERYTHING in science.
And to date with hundreds of thousands of research testing evolution none of them was able to disprove it.

they are trying find evidence to support the theory...and with evolution there is some evidence to support but more importantly evidence that does not ...at this point is all theory a wide open for questioning

 

[newpolitics]

Also, it just so happens that for the first time in history, a non-religious paradigm is in play, because of the explanations offered by modern science, which can actually be demonstrated and is a far superior epistemology to that of religion, as evidenced by our progress since its having taken hold five hundred years ago. This pathway to truth differs fundamentally from that of the worlds religions. Implicit in the religionists' push for having their beliefs main-staged is an argument from popularity, that, because so many believe it, there must be some truth from it. This does not follow Though. So, they are pissed because they see science as this new kid on the block who comes in and pushes them around, and while is having its day in the sun, doesn't truly belong. They are waiting for the day when they can return things to the way "it ought to be," the way it was when their religious explanation was considered knowledge. What they fail to realize is that this will never happen, barring some global catastrophe in which all of our current information and understanding is lost, and we are forced to start over. Only then would we likely revert back to religious epistemologies until we again rediscover a naturalistic way to find truth, and the whole thing starts all over again. (I hope I am not inspiring any crazies to trigger a doomsday device to get this started). In summary, I guess I am remarking on how unique this period is for mankind, being that our knowledge is not dominated by men in robes on high, and authors from a truly ignorant era. That some want to bring us back to that, is offensive, and should be considered a threat. Albeit, a minor one.

 

[S.J.]

Damn, people are still trying to converse with S.J? Give it up. It's obvious he just doesn't want to understand what's actually going on and is just trying to instigate. Either that, or he's an idiot.

I mean, come on. The guy posts something stupid, gets told he's wrong and why, then repeats the same thing over and over. Then he claims people insult him because he's not "buying our theory" even though that's not even close to the reason. Just a straw man so he can act like the victim.

Hey stupid! I haven't posted anything for two days. I'm not even involved in the conversation any more but still you can't stop talking about me. Why is that? Perhaps because YOU are the instigator?

 

[Gadawg73]

Yet you are saying that all that evidence can be falsified or it isn't scientific. So, it can be accepted as true or rejected as false according to your own narrow little box. And yet Creationism is silly because one can find no way to disprove it...............

Educate yourself on the scientific method and you will fully understand his post.
Scientific theories are tested attempting to DISPROVE the theory under the scientific method.
On EVERYTHING in science.
And to date with hundreds of thousands of research testing evolution none of them was able to disprove it.

they are trying find evidence to support the theory...and with evolution there is some evidence to support but more importantly evidence that does not ...at this point is all theory a wide open for questioning

Scientific theories are held to a different standard than ordinary "theories".
Very different than the ordinary meaning of the word.
Scientific theories are based on sound facts have been repeatedly, in the case of the theory of evolution 100,000s of tests for over 100 years, confirmed through observation and experiment.
The theory of evolution is improved each and every time one of those hundreds of thousands tests, experiments and observations are done.
Scientific theories ARE the most RELIABLE, stand up to the highest rigors and most comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.
100% DIFFERENT from the word "theory" used in common language which implies that something is unproven or speculative.
But you will not hear that from creationists.They lie, cheat and make crap up all the time about evolution. Their faith is so shallow they have to.

 

[Hollie]

Yet you are saying that all that evidence can be falsified or it isn't scientific. So, it can be accepted as true or rejected as false according to your own narrow little box. And yet Creationism is silly because one can find no way to disprove it...............

Educate yourself on the scientific method and you will fully understand his post.
Scientific theories are tested attempting to DISPROVE the theory under the scientific method.
On EVERYTHING in science.
And to date with hundreds of thousands of research testing evolution none of them was able to disprove it.

they are trying find evidence to support the theory...and with evolution there is some evidence to support but more importantly evidence that does not ...at this point is all theory a wide open for questioning

Who is "they"? It seems obvious that you do not understand either the scientific method or the process of peer review that science is held to. The process of science is one that will assiduously test and challenge, there’s a HUGE difference vs. religious belief. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. By the way, eots which scripture (faith) is being discussed? Are we discussing, the catechism of the Papacy? Those church fathers? Or Luther and Protestantism? Perhaps that of Pentecostals? Or 7th Day Adventists? You, and others, may choose whatever religious doctrine but you’ll need to account for your beliefs holding sway over the others.

One cannot even make an intelligent and verifiable choice as to the varieties of “belief”, let alone use the theism of christianity to be the foundation of principles to determine knowledge. Religious beliefs are faith-based and as such detour around a need for proof, and thus cannot serve as the guidelines for knowledge (outside of their own assertions).

 

[JoeB131]

(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.

?

Just because you are too ignorant to understand the science doesn't mean the science isn't valid.

The archeological evidence is there. Museums are full of them.

Here's the problem I have with creationists. They have a theory, and nothing is going to dissuade them from that theory. Because once you accept change happens through natural selection and not your magic sky man thinking a platypus would be just hysterical, the rest of the religious horseshit just falls apart.

("Seriously, Gabe, it's a like a rat with a duck's bill!"

"Lord, you really have too much time on your hands!"

"Well, that's the problem with being eternal, I guess." )

 

[LittleNipper]

(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.

?

Just because you are too ignorant to understand the science doesn't mean the science isn't valid.

The archeological evidence is there. Museums are full of them.

Here's the problem I have with creationists. They have a theory, and nothing is going to dissuade them from that theory. Because once you accept change happens through natural selection and not your magic sky man thinking a platypus would be just hysterical, the rest of the religious horseshit just falls apart.

("Seriously, Gabe, it's a like a rat with a duck's bill!"

"Lord, you really have too much time on your hands!"

"Well, that's the problem with being eternal, I guess." )

Of course everyone sees change. What no one actually sees is one species changing into another species. The only place where there seems even a glimmer of that seems to be where there are primates (ape to man) similarities. But that view was developed when white (men like Darwin) imagined that black men looked more like apes then anyone else and already considered blacks as inferior (or a subculture) to whites if not subhuman. The reality is that there is no truth to this reasoning. And every indication is that Blacks are just as intelligent as Whites. They are variations WITHIN humanity, as there are among animals, insects, bacteria, etc... There is no more logic to human emerging from apes than there is fom dog owners evoling from their pets because they resemble each other... My view is that God created apes so that man might be amused at a caricature of himself, as we are of God ---- to keep humans humble.

 

[Underhill]

Educate yourself on the scientific method and you will fully understand his post.
Scientific theories are tested attempting to DISPROVE the theory under the scientific method.
On EVERYTHING in science.
And to date with hundreds of thousands of research testing evolution none of them was able to disprove it.

they are trying find evidence to support the theory...and with evolution there is some evidence to support but more importantly evidence that does not ...at this point is all theory a wide open for questioning

Scientific theories are held to a different standard than ordinary "theories".
Very different than the ordinary meaning of the word.
Scientific theories are based on sound facts have been repeatedly, in the case of the theory of evolution 100,000s of tests for over 100 years, confirmed through observation and experiment.
The theory of evolution is improved each and every time one of those hundreds of thousands tests, experiments and observations are done.
Scientific theories ARE the most RELIABLE, stand up to the highest rigors and most comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.
100% DIFFERENT from the word "theory" used in common language which implies that something is unproven or speculative.
But you will not hear that from creationists.They lie, cheat and make crap up all the time about evolution. Their faith is so shallow they have to.

Agreed.

When christians refer to creation as theory, what they really mean is a hypothesis.

 

[Hollie]

(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.

?

Just because you are too ignorant to understand the science doesn't mean the science isn't valid.

The archeological evidence is there. Museums are full of them.

Here's the problem I have with creationists. They have a theory, and nothing is going to dissuade them from that theory. Because once you accept change happens through natural selection and not your magic sky man thinking a platypus would be just hysterical, the rest of the religious horseshit just falls apart.

("Seriously, Gabe, it's a like a rat with a duck's bill!"

"Lord, you really have too much time on your hands!"

"Well, that's the problem with being eternal, I guess." )

Of course everyone sees change. What no one actually sees is one species changing into another species. The only place where there seems even a glimmer of that seems to be where there are primates (ape to man) similarities. But that view was developed when white (men like Darwin) imagined that black men looked more like apes then anyone else and already considered blacks as inferior (or a subculture) to whites if not subhuman. The reality is that there is no truth to this reasoning. And every indication is that Blacks are just as intelligent as Whites. They are variations WITHIN humanity, as there are among animals, insects, bacteria, etc... There is no more logic to human emerging from apes than there is fom dog owners evoling from their pets because they resemble each other... My view is that God created apes so that ma miht be amused at a caricature of himself, as we are of God ---- to keep humans humble.

You somehow managed to get everything wrong. An accomplishment of some merit.... I suppose.

Unfortunately, you have fallen victim to common distortions of evolutionary science typically furthered by fundamentalist Christian ministries. First, you attempt to equate evolution with "social Darwinism" and then further compound your error and ignorance by trying to connect "Darwinism" with eugenics. This is a tactic committed by many in the fundie Christian / anti-science cabal when they abused Darwinian theory to bolster their prejudices and fear of knowledge.

Evolution has provided humans with sentient brains that are uniquely capable of making rational decisions and evaluating the consequences of their actions... (at least some humans), to establish systems of ethics, and to override emotional fears and superstitions . We should use them.

Secondly, the "ape to man" nonsense is another grossly ignorant presumption that still finds victims of the fundie Christian persuasion. I would suggest you educate yourself regarding this type of ignorant claim as it makes you appear to be a clownish bufoon.

 

[Underhill]

As to the original question...

Studies show atheist are the #1 most untrusted group in the country. And the reasons why are easy to see if you set foot in any church. I grew up hearing about atheist trying to undermine everything we believed in.

It comes from the root belief that without god, there is no morality. It's why the Boy Scouts don't allow atheist in their group.

And it's incredibly stupid.

So when the question is asked, "Why do evolutionist attack creationists?" My response is simple. We are defending ourselves.

 

[newpolitics]

(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.

?

Just because you are too ignorant to understand the science doesn't mean the science isn't valid.

The archeological evidence is there. Museums are full of them.

Here's the problem I have with creationists. They have a theory, and nothing is going to dissuade them from that theory. Because once you accept change happens through natural selection and not your magic sky man thinking a platypus would be just hysterical, the rest of the religious horseshit just falls apart.

("Seriously, Gabe, it's a like a rat with a duck's bill!"

"Lord, you really have too much time on your hands!"

"Well, that's the problem with being eternal, I guess." )

Of course everyone sees change. What no one actually sees is one species changing into another species. The only place where there seems even a glimmer of that seems to be where there are primates (ape to man) similarities. But that view was developed when white (men like Darwin) imagined that black men looked more like apes then anyone else and already considered blacks as inferior (or a subculture) to whites if not subhuman. The reality is that there is no truth to this reasoning. And every indication is that Blacks are just as intelligent as Whites. They are variations WITHIN humanity, as there are among animals, insects, bacteria, etc... There is no more logic to human emerging from apes than there is fom dog owners evoling from their pets because they resemble each other... My view is that God created apes so that man might be amused at a caricature of himself, as we are of God ---- to keep humans humble.

We've seen speciation in a lab, as well as ring species that demonstrate speciation in the wild. So yes, we have seen one species turn into another, by definition. What your looking for, presumably, is a crocaduck, which evolution doesn't predict.

 

[LittleNipper]

Just because you are too ignorant to understand the science doesn't mean the science isn't valid.

The archeological evidence is there. Museums are full of them.

Here's the problem I have with creationists. They have a theory, and nothing is going to dissuade them from that theory. Because once you accept change happens through natural selection and not your magic sky man thinking a platypus would be just hysterical, the rest of the religious horseshit just falls apart.

("Seriously, Gabe, it's a like a rat with a duck's bill!"

"Lord, you really have too much time on your hands!"

"Well, that's the problem with being eternal, I guess." )

Of course everyone sees change. What no one actually sees is one species changing into another species. The only place where there seems even a glimmer of that seems to be where there are primates (ape to man) similarities. But that view was developed when white (men like Darwin) imagined that black men looked more like apes then anyone else and already considered blacks as inferior (or a subculture) to whites if not subhuman. The reality is that there is no truth to this reasoning. And every indication is that Blacks are just as intelligent as Whites. They are variations WITHIN humanity, as there are among animals, insects, bacteria, etc... There is no more logic to human emerging from apes than there is fom dog owners evoling from their pets because they resemble each other... My view is that God created apes so that man might be amused at a caricature of himself, as we are of God ---- to keep humans humble.

We've seen speciation in a lab, as well as ring species that demonstrate speciation in the wild. So yes, we have seen one species turn into another, by definition. What your looking for, presumably, is a crocaduck, which evolution doesn't predict.

So you believe man is moving toward godhood? And what I'm looking for is a new species that cannot have sexual ralations with the parent species to beget decendents. That would mean that a new species was genuine. As long as one breed can have children by another breed member, they are of one species.

 

[newpolitics]

Of course everyone sees change. What no one actually sees is one species changing into another species. The only place where there seems even a glimmer of that seems to be where there are primates (ape to man) similarities. But that view was developed when white (men like Darwin) imagined that black men looked more like apes then anyone else and already considered blacks as inferior (or a subculture) to whites if not subhuman. The reality is that there is no truth to this reasoning. And every indication is that Blacks are just as intelligent as Whites. They are variations WITHIN humanity, as there are among animals, insects, bacteria, etc... There is no more logic to human emerging from apes than there is fom dog owners evoling from their pets because they resemble each other... My view is that God created apes so that man might be amused at a caricature of himself, as we are of God ---- to keep humans humble.

We've seen speciation in a lab, as well as ring species that demonstrate speciation in the wild. So yes, we have seen one species turn into another, by definition. What your looking for, presumably, is a crocaduck, which evolution doesn't predict.

So you believe man is moving toward godhood? And what I'm looking for is a new species that cannot have sexual ralations with the parent species to beget decendents. That would mean that a new species was genuine. As long as one breed can have children by another breed member, they are of one species.

Where do you get this from?

I have already answered all of your issues.

 

[LittleNipper]

We've seen speciation in a lab, as well as ring species that demonstrate speciation in the wild. So yes, we have seen one species turn into another, by definition. What your looking for, presumably, is a crocaduck, which evolution doesn't predict.

So you believe man is moving toward godhood? And what I'm looking for is a new species that cannot have sexual ralations with the parent species to beget decendents. That would mean that a new species was genuine. As long as one breed can have children by another breed member, they are of one species.

Where do you get this from?

I have already answered all of your issues.

My issue is why can't scientists create life? Do you believe in God? Do you believe man is a decendent of a single celled organism? Is such upward evolution or downward evolution? Do you believe man is evolving to be a god?

 

[newpolitics]

So you believe man is moving toward godhood? And what I'm looking for is a new species that cannot have sexual ralations with the parent species to beget decendents. That would mean that a new species was genuine. As long as one breed can have children by another breed member, they are of one species.

Where do you get this from?

I have already answered all of your issues.

My issue is why can't scientists create life? Do you believe in God? Do you believe man is a decendent of a single celled organism? Is such upward evolution or downward evolution? Do you believe man is evolving to be a god?

What??? Stick to one topic, will you? Ill go ahead and answer because I am that bored.

I believe that no gods exist. Whether scientists can create life has no bearing on whether it happened naturally or not, so this does not mean natural abiogenesis is not possible just because we can't do it. That is preposterous, and does not follow, logically. Why would man be evolving towards being a god? That's a random question. Yes, I believe man evolved from a single cell that was created naturally. Upward an downward evolution? Define those terms, and maybe I can answer your question.

 

[LittleNipper]

Where do you get this from?

I have already answered all of your issues.

My issue is why can't scientists create life? Do you believe in God? Do you believe man is a decendent of a single celled organism? Is such upward evolution or downward evolution? Do you believe man is evolving to be a god?

What??? Stick to one topic, will you? Ill go ahead and answer because I am that bored.

I believe that no gods exist. Whether scientists can create life has no bearing on whether it happened naturally or not, so this does not mean natural abiogenesis is not possible just because we can't do it. That is preposterous, and does not follow, logically. Why would man be evolving towards being a god? That's a random question. Yes, I believe man evolved from a single cell that was created naturally. Upward an downward evolution? Define those terms, and maybe I can answer your question.

Yes it does! If life cannot be created artificially by very smart and intellegent individuals working together, it didn't come about "naturally". And if it didn't come about naturally, it must be the result of the SUPERNATURAL! That means GOD exists no matter what you wish to accept. Your starting at the wrong end of the ladder if you want proof that there is no God. You can pretend you have all the answers and the solutions are very scientific, but when push comes to shove, it counts as nothing if you cannot come up with a factual solution for why life should appear suddenly and you cannot achieve the very same with a little imagination...

 

[JoeB131]

Of course everyone sees change. What no one actually sees is one species changing into another species. The only place where there seems even a glimmer of that seems to be where there are primates (ape to man) similarities. But that view was developed when white (men like Darwin) imagined that black men looked more like apes then anyone else and already considered blacks as inferior (or a subculture) to whites if not subhuman. The reality is that there is no truth to this reasoning. And every indication is that Blacks are just as intelligent as Whites. They are variations WITHIN humanity, as there are among animals, insects, bacteria, etc... There is no more logic to human emerging from apes than there is fom dog owners evoling from their pets because they resemble each other... My view is that God created apes so that man might be amused at a caricature of himself, as we are of God ---- to keep humans humble.

While Darwin was undoubtably a racist, he also thought slavery was wrong.

People of Darwin's time thought that technological advancement was a sign of intellectual development, when it wasn't. But it was an easy mistake to make. We still make it today. And we whitewash Darwin's racism for the same reason we whitewash the racism of Jefferson and Lincoln.

But there is no Magic Sky Man being amused about anything. We simply evolved. We made up "God" to explain the things we didn't understand, but that didn't prove there was a God.

 

[Underhill]

Do you believe man is evolving to be a god?

This last question is hard to answer.

In some ways man already has. The things we are able to accomplish would have had people on their knees worshiping us 200 years ago.

But god hood implies something eternal and more powerful than anything we can attain on our own as individuals. But who can tell the future?

 

[newpolitics]

My issue is why can't scientists create life? Do you believe in God? Do you believe man is a decendent of a single celled organism? Is such upward evolution or downward evolution? Do you believe man is evolving to be a god?

What??? Stick to one topic, will you? Ill go ahead and answer because I am that bored.

I believe that no gods exist. Whether scientists can create life has no bearing on whether it happened naturally or not, so this does not mean natural abiogenesis is not possible just because we can't do it. That is preposterous, and does not follow, logically. Why would man be evolving towards being a god? That's a random question. Yes, I believe man evolved from a single cell that was created naturally. Upward an downward evolution? Define those terms, and maybe I can answer your question.

Yes it does! If life cannot be created artificially by very smart and intellegent individuals working together, it didn't come about "naturally". And if it didn't come about naturally, it must be the result of the SUPERNATURAL! That means GOD exists no matter what you wish to accept. Your starting at the wrong end of the ladder if you want proof that there is no God. You can pretend you have all the answers and the solutions are very scientific, but when push comes to shove, it counts as nothing if you cannot come up with a factual solution for why life should appear suddenly and you cannot achieve the very same with a little imagination...

So, you're saying that the ability of current scientist dictates what is possible in the universe? It seems as though you already think we are gods, that our capabilities determine what the universe is then capable of.How ironic. Therefore, because scientists were capable of far less fifty years ago, the universe was capable of less? How about 1,000 years from now? We might have the ability to create life by then. Does that mean abiogenesis would then be feasible to you? Your use of human capability as a standard for determining what is possible in the universe is just illogical, and there is zero logical connectivity between these two domains. As seems usual for creationists, you use an inductive argument to try to make this conclusion, and it is completely invalid. Our abilities are constantly changing, and have nothing to do with what may have happened, naturally, without any god or gods.