Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[LittleNipper]

A Christian view:
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1479-false-charges-against-creationism

 

[PredFan]

A Christian view:
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1479-false-charges-against-creationism

We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?

 

[jillian]

(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?

you don't expect us to take you seriously, do you?

 

[LittleNipper]

A Christian view:
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1479-false-charges-against-creationism

We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?

We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?

Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism

 

[S.J.]

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.

No, believing in magic would be to accept the notion that one species somehow became another.

 

[jillian]

A Christian view:
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1479-false-charges-against-creationism

We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?

We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?

Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism

because creationism isn't science.

science is science.

i hope you're no longer confused.

 

[nitroz]

What this cartoon is really saying is that Christians should not be allowed to say anything that is contrary with what anyone wishes to do. Believe whatever you wish, just don't tell anybody --- you may offend them and hurt their feelings.

No. What this says is that Christians are not the ones who rule this country. Everyone else is entitled to the same rights, opinions, and liberties as Christians. To be told "no" is not prosecuting your beliefs. The OP claims that Evolutionists harass and prosecute Creationists, when it's really the other way around.

 

[LittleNipper]

We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?

We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?

Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism

because creationism isn't science.

science is science.

i hope you're no longer confused.

Views and opinions are not science. Evolution is founded on interpretation of data and not actually seen repeatable events. As such, there are various interpretations that can be applied. But no one can say with absolute certainty this is how the events occurred --- one must speculate or accept divine revelation. True scientific method demands full observation & repeatablity.

 

[LittleNipper]

What this cartoon is really saying is that Christians should not be allowed to say anything that is contrary with what anyone wishes to do. Believe whatever you wish, just don't tell anybody --- you may offend them and hurt their feelings.

No. What this says is that Christians are not the ones who rule this country. Everyone else is entitled to the same rights, opinions, and liberties as Christians. To be told "no" is not prosecuting your beliefs. The OP claims that Evolutionists harass and prosecute Creationists, when it's really the other way around.

Christians are not the only ones who accept Creationism. However, we now live in a country that only respects a secular point of view and promotes that at the exclusion of anything of a spiritual nature. To tell a homosexual that NO you should not be allowed to adopt or have children outside such a sexual experience is not perecuting their beliefs either --- but try explaining such to them... My son knows both evolution and creationism ----- how about your kids? Are they as will informed? Do you deny there is contention?

 

[zombiehunter696]

No, believing in magic would be to accept the notion that one species somehow became another.

Reality is a bitch ain't it?

Observed Instances of Speciation

We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?

Creationism isn't science in any way, shape, or form.

Views and opinions are not science. Evolution is founded on interpretation of data and not actually seen repeatable events. As such, there are various interpretations that can be applied. But no one can say with absolute certainty this is how the events occurred --- one must speculate or accept divine revelation. True scientific method demands full observation & repeatablity.

We already know you have no idea how science or evolution works. You don't need to keep reminding us.

 

[LittleNipper]

"Consider if you will something that helped get this evolution lie going. It concerns Darwin's example of "evidence for evolution", the variation among finch beaks among finch birds on the Galapagos Island, off the coast of South America. You'll read about this in nearly every biology textbook. But you will nearly always never be told the truth.

It is true that the finch beaks differ in size according to the habitats that they live in. One study of finch beaks actually showed that during a period of drought in the Galapagos Islands the beaks increased in size slightly. Darwin would have you believe that this is because that during a period of drought the average beak size increases so the birds could eat the larger tougher seeds that are available dry periods. The differences in beak sizes are in the area of tenths of a millimeter (as thick as a thumbnail). This was acclaimed as a confirmation of Darwin's theory. Many evolutionists got very excited about this.

But what happened next that evolutionists do not want you to know?

When the rains returned, the birds beaks returned to normal, when the smaller seeds became available to the birds. This showed that this was actually a cyclic variation that allowed the finches to survive in dry weather. And this could not lead to a new species.

The National Academy of Science's booklet on evolution to teachers conveniently left out the part about the beaks returning to normal, even though they knew of it. They even had the gall to speculate in their booklet about what might happen in 200 years - that this might even produce a 'new species of finch'."

 

[PredFan]

A Christian view:
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1479-false-charges-against-creationism

We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?

We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?

Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism

This thread is about the false notion that evolutionists attack creationists. It's not about why we don't teach creation in schools. Try to stay on topic.

 

[PredFan]

We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?

Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism

because creationism isn't science.

science is science.

i hope you're no longer confused.

Views and opinions are not science. Evolution is founded on interpretation of data and not actually seen repeatable events. As such, there are various interpretations that can be applied. But no one can say with absolute certainty this is how the events occurred --- one must speculate or accept divine revelation. True scientific method demands full observation & repeatablity.

Creation is founded on absolutely nothing at all, it cannot be interpreted from any data, it is not repeatable, and no one can say with any certainty how any of it occurred. Creation has no observation or repeatability.

 

[PredFan]

"Consider if you will something that helped get this evolution lie going. It concerns Darwin's example of "evidence for evolution", the variation among finch beaks among finch birds on the Galapagos Island, off the coast of South America. You'll read about this in nearly every biology textbook. But you will nearly always never be told the truth.

It is true that the finch beaks differ in size according to the habitats that they live in. One study of finch beaks actually showed that during a period of drought in the Galapagos Islands the beaks increased in size slightly. Darwin would have you believe that this is because that during a period of drought the average beak size increases so the birds could eat the larger tougher seeds that are available dry periods. The differences in beak sizes are in the area of tenths of a millimeter (as thick as a thumbnail). This was acclaimed as a confirmation of Darwin's theory. Many evolutionists got very excited about this.

But what happened next that evolutionists do not want you to know?

When the rains returned, the birds beaks returned to normal, when the smaller seeds became available to the birds. This showed that this was actually a cyclic variation that allowed the finches to survive in dry weather. And this could not lead to a new species.

The National Academy of Science's booklet on evolution to teachers conveniently left out the part about the beaks returning to normal, even though they knew of it. They even had the gall to speculate in their booklet about what might happen in 200 years - that this might even produce a 'new species of finch'."

Look! A Creationist is attacking Evolution.

/THREAD

 

[LittleNipper]

We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?

We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?

Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism

This thread is about the false notion that evolutionists attack creationists. It's not about why we don't teach creation in schools. Try to stay on topic.

Try to consider the topic at hand and keep your bias to yourself. I've never read such a comment directed towards anyone in agreement with your values and opinion.

 

[zombiehunter696]

"Consider if you will something that helped get this evolution lie going. It concerns Darwin's example of "evidence for evolution", the variation among finch beaks among finch birds on the Galapagos Island, off the coast of South America. You'll read about this in nearly every biology textbook. But you will nearly always never be told the truth.

It is true that the finch beaks differ in size according to the habitats that they live in. One study of finch beaks actually showed that during a period of drought in the Galapagos Islands the beaks increased in size slightly. Darwin would have you believe that this is because that during a period of drought the average beak size increases so the birds could eat the larger tougher seeds that are available dry periods. The differences in beak sizes are in the area of tenths of a millimeter (as thick as a thumbnail). This was acclaimed as a confirmation of Darwin's theory. Many evolutionists got very excited about this.

But what happened next that evolutionists do not want you to know?

When the rains returned, the birds beaks returned to normal, when the smaller seeds became available to the birds. This showed that this was actually a cyclic variation that allowed the finches to survive in dry weather. And this could not lead to a new species.

The National Academy of Science's booklet on evolution to teachers conveniently left out the part about the beaks returning to normal, even though they knew of it. They even had the gall to speculate in their booklet about what might happen in 200 years - that this might even produce a 'new species of finch'."

This proves you have no idea how evolution works 100%. This observation is exactly what we would expect if evolution by natural selectio were true. Thanks for posting evidence for a position you're trying(and failing) to argue against.

Get thee to a basic biology class!

 

[S.J.]

As a Christian, I don't care what anyone else chooses to believe, or what they choose to teach their own children, but don't be pushing your fantasy on me or my kids. Believe what you want but teaching a theory to a captive audience (school children) as fact, is not education, it's indoctrination and should not be allowed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?

Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism

because creationism isn't science.

science is science.

i hope you're no longer confused.

Views and opinions are not science. Evolution is founded on interpretation of data and not actually seen repeatable events. As such, there are various interpretations that can be applied. But no one can say with absolute certainty this is how the events occurred --- one must speculate or accept divine revelation. True scientific method demands full observation & repeatablity.

Evolution is a theory predicated on facts and documented evidence, such as fossil records and rock formations demonstrating the surface of the Earth is constantly changing, which is the engine of evolution.

Creationism is religion, predicated on Christian doctrine and dogma, devoid of any facts or documented evidence.

As the Supreme Court noted:

In this case, the purpose of the Creationism Act was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint.

Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.

Edwards v. Aguillard

The issue, therefore, is not the ‘legitimacy’ of evolution as science and theory, or ‘various interpretations' of either evolution or creationism, but the fact that creationism is nothing more than religion, and by placing it in public schools the state is in violation of the Constitution.

 

[S.J.]

Evolution is a theory predicated on facts and documented evidence,

No, it's based on a lot of assumptions that require huge leaps of faith.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(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...

We do not descend from apes. Science does not claim that. We share a common ancestor with apes. You are using old talking points. Were you home schooled?