Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[Wicked Jester]

Anybody else notice how atheist types are some of the most unhappy, miserable, and intolerant people on the planet?

 

[S.J.]

Given that there is actual evidence bearing in evolution and none for god, it is more reasonable to conclude that science has better explanations, and one is therefore more justified in believing science over religious claims. The simple fact that religious claims require faith in order to be believed should tell you enough, if you are being honest with yourself.

A lack of physical evidence in one theory does not make YOUR theory any more legitimate by default.

Your exactly right. You should heed your own words. Attacking science or evolution doesn't make creationism or gods any more true or real. Science doesn't rest on the fallacy of a false dichotomy, unlike many Christians. It's conclusions are supported by the evidence, in fact many times drawn from the evidence itself.

Your evidence is not proof, and you fail to tie it all together. You have a lot of paths that lead to a lot of dead ends. The problem with evolutionists (like yourself) is that you are not open-minded enough to entertain the possibility that you may not have all the answers, and that your intelligence is limited to the capacity of the human brain. That's why you reject the notion that there could be a higher intelligent force in the universe that you can't take a picture of. Your own ego keeps you from thinking outside the box.

 

[rdean]

Anybody else notice how atheist types are some of the most unhappy, miserable, and intolerant people on the planet?

No, that would be religious fanatics. Think Pat Robertson, Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell to name a few past and present.

 

[rdean]

When you think about evolution and mystical creation, you realize what a difficult choice it is.

On one side, you have:
fossils
genetics
geology
biology
plate tectonics
radio carbon dating

on the other side, you have the imaginings of bronze age people who wore robes and sandals, many lived in caves and they didn't know to wash after wiping.

See what I mean? It's a very, very difficult choice to make.

Speaking of evolution, everyone get their flu shot? You need it every year because the virus is always evolving.

There is an interesting fact the Jews followed the Biblical ceremonial laws conerning hygiene (Read Leviticus) and were thought to be practicing witchcraft because they tended not to get infections as did the "gentile" population. So clever of these primitive bronze age people to figure out something that wasn't discovered until the late 19th century by "modern man"... The flu virus is adapting to its environment. So far, there is no proof that a virus has ever been anything but a virus or ever will be. PS> A flu shot can make one sick and may not even prevent the flu one contracts...

Jews tended not to get sick? You don't know that. You're just making it up. You don't know anything beyond what you have been told, whether it's a virus or a lion or a tiger or a donkey or a horse or a zebra. Hmmm, now why did I bring up those particular animals?

 

[newpolitics]

A lack of physical evidence in one theory does not make YOUR theory any more legitimate by default.

Your exactly right. You should heed your own words. Attacking science or evolution doesn't make creationism or gods any more true or real. Science doesn't rest on the fallacy of a false dichotomy, unlike many Christians. It's conclusions are supported by the evidence, in fact many times drawn from the evidence itself.

Your evidence is not proof, and you fail to tie it all together. You have a lot of paths that lead to a lot of dead ends. The problem with evolutionists (like yourself) is that you are not open-minded enough to entertain the possibility that you may not have all the answers, and that your intelligence is limited to the capacity of the human brain. That's why you reject the notion that there could be a higher intelligent force in the universe that you can't take a picture of. Your own ego keeps you from thinking outside the box.

Who said anything about proof? Proof is a term designated for mathematics, so lets leave it there. Evidence is the key, of which there is plenty in support of evolution, gravity, Earths's orbit, existence itself. You know nothing of my searches for god, or why I reject the notion. Your own ego would cause you to make knowledge claims about me based purely on assumptions garnered from little to no information.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Anybo, dy else notice how atheist types are some of the most unhappy, miserable, and intolerant people on the planet?

No, that would be religious fanatics. Think Pat Robertson, Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell to name a few past and present.

Really?

How about Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jung ll, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones, Idi Amin, Mao, Mussollini, Alfred Kinzey, Napoleon, Than Shwe, Charles Manson, and on and on and on?

 

[newpolitics]

Anybo, dy else notice how atheist types are some of the most unhappy, miserable, and intolerant people on the planet?

No, that would be religious fanatics. Think Pat Robertson, Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell to name a few past and present.

Really?

How about Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jung ll, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones, Idi Amin, Mao, Mussollini, Alfred Kinzey, Napoleon, Than Shwe, Charles Manson, and on and on and on?

The difference is, theists do evil things in the explicit name of religion (hating gays, minorities, or sinners) while atheists never have done something in the name of a lack of belief in god.

 

[newpolitics]

More importantly, only positive beliefs can cause action. A lack of belief can not inform action, as this makes no sense. Therefore, it can be easily argued that theistic belief itself causes evil, while the same can not be said for a lack of belief in the same gods.

 

[LittleNipper]

No, that would be religious fanatics. Think Pat Robertson, Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell to name a few past and present.

Really?

How about Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jung ll, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones, Idi Amin, Mao, Mussollini, Alfred Kinzey, Napoleon, Than Shwe, Charles Manson, and on and on and on?

The difference is, theists do evil things in the explicit name of religion (hating gays, minorities, or sinners) while atheists never have done something in the name of a lack of belief in god.

You might be surprised:
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad*Name - Listverse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry, but then these same institutions should be helping in any research to prove Creationism is correct and encouraging thinking outside the establishment box --- just as many Christians did long-ago for secular scientists. Keep the playing field equal and not exclusive or dogmatic. This is what will promote true learning and not mere memorization.

In order to do that Creationists would have to play by the same rules as Evolutionists, but they don't. Any sort of "proof" they have has been debunked by normal scientific inquiry. They refuse to acknowledge it, however, and keep repeating the same stories over and over again, as if they were unadulterated fact.

Oh boy konradv I just shared this in the other thread you avoid these days.

The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science 

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

This site is easily a better description of what happened on early earth.

Evolution of DNA

It's all conjecture and you understand the scientific method. This is not science this is nothing more then vivid minds at work.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

so because there are unknown variables, you'd equate something that is entirely faith-based and which has zero scientific basis?

It's done all the time with the evolutionary theory.

 

[Hollie]

Really?

How about Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jung ll, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones, Idi Amin, Mao, Mussollini, Alfred Kinzey, Napoleon, Than Shwe, Charles Manson, and on and on and on?

The difference is, theists do evil things in the explicit name of religion (hating gays, minorities, or sinners) while atheists never have done something in the name of a lack of belief in god.

You might be surprised:
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad*Name - Listverse
Criticism of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You’re not reading what has already been presented to you. You succumb to a common fallacy. I will note that Marxist-Leninist systems (among the greatest motivators of mass murder), are political Ideologies. No one can deny the excesses of the communistic regimes, and I deplore them, but Atheism was not a motivating factor for the excesses of Marxist-Leninist ideologies. I also note that they one by one have failed, and while China has experienced a resurgence of power since Tiananmen Square, I am sure that system cannot last either (though it's a sham system anyway-- they are as capitalist as anyone).

Atheism is not a moral system or philosophy; in fact, it doesn't address issues of good or bad in and of itself. Further, I’m not aware of any wars that were fought for the purpose of spreading Atheism. Has anyone heard of any wars being waged with the admonition, "god is not on our side"?

If you would like a roll call of the some of the wars initiated and waged for the purpose of promoting and installing a “correct” religious system over another “less correct” religious system, I’ll be happy to provide that.

 

[Hollie]

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.

so because there are unknown variables, you'd equate something that is entirely faith-based and which has zero scientific basis?

It's done all the time with the evolutionary theory.

Yet another comment from the intellectually crippled.

 

[PredFan]

So, because there are so many unknown variables I see more probability that man is mistaken with regard his theories, and many other things man does.

Given that there is actual evidence bearing in evolution and none for god, it is more reasonable to conclude that science has better explanations, and one is therefore more justified in believing science over religious claims. The simple fact that religious claims require faith in order to be believed should tell you enough, if you are being honest with yourself.

A lack of physical evidence in one theory does not make YOUR theory any more legitimate by default.

It absolutely does. One "theory" has absolutely no evidence to support it at all, and another has tons of evidence but cannot be proven beyond a shadfow of a doubt. There's a HUGE difference there. We can accept the theory that is supported by a lot of facts, and dismiss the theorythat has no facts what so ever. That's perfectly reasonable.

 

[PredFan]

Anybody else notice how atheist types are some of the most unhappy, miserable, and intolerant people on the planet?

Does lying to yourself make you feel better?

 

[PredFan]

A lack of physical evidence in one theory does not make YOUR theory any more legitimate by default.

Your exactly right. You should heed your own words. Attacking science or evolution doesn't make creationism or gods any more true or real. Science doesn't rest on the fallacy of a false dichotomy, unlike many Christians. It's conclusions are supported by the evidence, in fact many times drawn from the evidence itself.

Your evidence is not proof, and you fail to tie it all together. You have a lot of paths that lead to a lot of dead ends. The problem with evolutionists (like yourself) is that you are not open-minded enough to entertain the possibility that you may not have all the answers, and that your intelligence is limited to the capacity of the human brain. That's why you reject the notion that there could be a higher intelligent force in the universe that you can't take a picture of. Your own ego keeps you from thinking outside the box.

You are wrong. It is easily all tied together. The result of tying it all together is Evolutionary Theory.

There are no paths to dead ends, that exists only in the minds of the Creationists who argue from a severe lack of understanding.

We reject notions that cannot be proven, observed, or tested. I like to keep an open mind but the problem with doing that is that someone will always try to shovel garbage into the opening. Therefor you have to have some kind of filter. Creationism doesn't make it past my garbage filter.

 

[PredFan]

so because there are unknown variables, you'd equate something that is entirely faith-based and which has zero scientific basis?

It's done all the time with the evolutionary theory.

Yet another comment from the intellectually crippled.

He's the kind you don't even debate with. You just point and laugh.

 

[rdean]

Anybo, dy else notice how atheist types are some of the most unhappy, miserable, and intolerant people on the planet?

No, that would be religious fanatics. Think Pat Robertson, Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell to name a few past and present.

Really?

How about Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jung ll, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones, Idi Amin, Mao, Mussollini, Alfred Kinzey, Napoleon, Than Shwe, Charles Manson, and on and on and on?

A rather strange list.

Alfred Kinsey? Huh?

Jeffrey Dahmer was a baptized member of the Church of Christ.

Jim Jones was a Christian Preacher.

Charles Manson believes he is God.

Stalin and the others turned the state in a new kind of Religion. A religion where the state leaders are God.

Everyone on that list was seeped in religion one way or another. Except maybe Kinsey, he was a social scientist.

 

[PredFan]

Notice the creationists attacking evolution?