Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[zombiehunter696]

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.

Actually, scientists are the ones who admit they don't have all the answers. It's the religious loons who think they do. Typical projecting.

and that your intelligence is limited to the capacity of the human brain

Who said anything otherwise? We are aware of this. That's why we have the scientific method that is designed to weed out error to get as close as possible to the truth.

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.

I reject that notion because there is no evidence that it's there. There's no reason to assume there is one. The only people will massive egos are the creationists that think evolution and science are wrong or can't be trusted despite the fact they know nothing about them.

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

I have not. Got any evidence to back up this claim or did you pull it from your ass? If it's te latter, did it hurt because I'm sure you had to dig deep to get there? I'm an atheist activist, and I am quite happy.

 

[PredFan]

The Creationists much be in church this morning.

 

[Hollie]

Notice the creationists attacking evolution?

That’s the pattern, of course. As a rebuttal to components of evolutionary science, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Creation” ™ that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the General Theory of Creation ™ would predict that……”, and then supply some testable evidence to show specific circumstances of how, not just any gawd(s), but a unique gawd(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

All beliefs are not equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs. There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards, i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.

 

[zombiehunter696]

Notice the creationists attacking evolution?

That’s the pattern, of course. As a rebuttal to components of evolutionary science, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Creation” ™ that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the General Theory of Creation ™ would predict that……”, and then supply some testable evidence to show specific circumstances of how, not just any gawd(s), but a unique gawd(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

All beliefs are not equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs. There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards, i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.

They don't do that because they know(at least I hope they do) that creationism is not science. They claim to have all this evidence that creation is true, but when asked why they haven't presented it to scientists, they go off about some grand conspiracy against creation or something equally stupid.

 

[Katzndogz]

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...

It's like the interesting little fact that Jews were prohibited from eating pork and didn't get the food borne parasites pork carries.

What's really funny, and it can't help but amuse, we follow the bronze age food laws today. We just call it safe handling instructions.

Bronze age Jews prohibited mixing meat and vegetables in the same chopping and cooking utensils. It's called keeping Kosher. Imagine that, today safe handling prohibits the SAME thing.

California University suggests keeping Kosher.

http://homeorchard.ucdavis.edu/8121.pdf

They just don't call it keeping Kosher.

Those bronze age Jews were pretty smart.

 

[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.

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.

You show a severe lack of reading comprehension: I cited Polar Bears as an example of localized adaptation, not a different species. I also understand that natural selection involves survival of the fittest. What I don't understand (and neither do you) is how "evolution" results in inter-species transformation (i.e., change from one species to another species).

 

[zombiehunter696]

You show a severe lack of reading comprehension: I cited Polar Bears as an example of localized adaptation, not a different species. I also understand that natural selection involves survival of the fittest. What I don't understand (and neither do you) is how "evolution" results in inter-species transformation (i.e., change from one species to another species).

Some quick googling would get you what you want. There are plenty of websites that explain this kind of thing.

 

[MDiver]

DNA and genetic microbiology have ended evolution being listed in scientific circles as theory, and instead is now considered fact. Even mainstream religions are now accepting the fact of evolution.
As for the age of the earth, there is sufficient evidence that it's approximately 4 billion years old and that various fossils are far older than 6,000 years.
Take your pick:
Radiometric Dating
Carbon Dating
Uranium-Thorium Dating
Uranium-Lead Dating
Potassium-Argon Dating.
All point to a very old earth and lifeforms.
People who keep insisting that the earth is only 6,000 years old, are simply ignorant individuals who refuse to do their research and expand their minds and that's sad.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Jwoodie: On both sides, nobody appreciates someone else imposing their views without giving information or choice to the party being imposed upon. Nobody! So in response to such imposition, there are people on both sides reacting to people on the other. To be fair, I have found as much closemindedness as openmindedness on both sides; both willingness and unwillingness to open up and share information so this deadlock does not need to continue, nor lend itself to bullying. So it's not just one side or the other; and you cannot say all the people on one side are acting a certain way, because they are not. It really depends on the person in each case; and I do believe these issues can be resolved where there is no need to bully to try to push one's views over others.

(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?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

I find it is mutual. And if you look at people's reactions to whether Spiritual Healing can be proven using science, the resistance to THAT idea is also mutual: there are fundamentalists on both the side of religion and science who are not ready for things to change and for reconciliation, so any introduction of that idea makes them uncomfortable and they can start projecting their misgivings and past experiences and emotions. This resistance to change is only human. The false division between science and religion is compounded by fear, and only by embracing and opening up the process to include instead of exclude and reject people, will we make further progress. The boards and internet help, where people are learning how to dialogue and get past the mutual fear and projection of blame; but it is a healing and resolution process that takes people time, because both their emotions and minds/logic need to adjust to new input and ideas. Blaming people does not help but adds to the defensiveness; all people need and deserve more support and encouragement, not insult and denial, if we are going to resolve things!

 

[zombiehunter696]

People who keep insisting that the earth is only 6,000 years old, are simply ignorant individuals who refuse to do their research and expand their minds and that's sad.

Actually, it's people who have a vested interest in the world being that old. If they ever admitted that it's billions of years old, they'd lose a lot of money, and that's what it's about. MONEY!

I'm willing to bet that at least half of the popular YEC's don't believe the garbage they spew, but instead do it for money.

 

[LittleNipper]

Notice the creationists attacking evolution?

PredFan typed:
"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. Therefore you have to have some kind of filter. Creationism doesn't make it past my garbage filter.

One "theory" has absolutely no evidence to support it at all, and another has tons of evidence but cannot be proven beyond a shadow 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.

The Creationists must be in church this morning."

-------------------------------------------------------------

I must be missing something....

 

[zombiehunter696]

I must be missing something....

Yeah, a brain capable of thinking.

 

[konradv]

(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.



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.

You show a severe lack of reading comprehension: I cited Polar Bears as an example of localized adaptation, not a different species. I also understand that natural selection involves survival of the fittest. What I don't understand (and neither do you) is how "evolution" results in inter-species transformation (i.e., change from one species to another species).

What you call "transformation" should be called "progression". A dog will not turn into a cat and a goat will not become a bear.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

This thread is nearly pointless. As expected, before long it became one person saying that it was the other way around, that Creationists attach Evolutionists.

Really?

Is there a study or objective proof that one attacks the other more? This is all just subjective nonsense typical of USMB. I see more mature behavior from my two boys playing in their sandbox at home (they are ages 5 and 2 1/2.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Creationism is religion, a belief.
NOTHING evolution teaches attacks any religion in any way.
Evolution is science and subject to the scientific method.
10,000 colleges and universities teach evolution AS FACT.
2 teach it as not fact.
Any argument other than the theory of evolution is fact based on over 100 years of being subjected to the scientific method and that 9998 colleges and universities are all liberal for teaching it as fact is ignorant.
Read the Dover v. Kitzmiller case and get back to us. In that case a conservative Republican Bush appointed Federal Judge ruled that creationism/ID is a fraud when taught as scientific fact. They almost brought perjury charges against the witnesses for the creation team that fought the case attempting to teach creationism as fact in the public schools.
If creationism is something other than a religious belief why did your team have to lie in open court and depositions.
ID is repackaged creationism.

Who said that they lied? Can we always believe the government? The government does not lie to its citizens? A government moving towards totalitarianism does not wish to control its citizen? They almost brought perjury charges? How can they almost bring purjury charges if indeed purjury occurred? That so many institutions of learning would seek to ignore creationism is ignorance indeed...

The determiner of facts in a court case where YOUR TEAM requested a bench trial said they were liars.
Who else other than the Judge in a bench trial determines that?
You need an education in civics.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

You are correct that colleges, even the ones that are based on religion, are teaching evolution, but that isn't an attack on creationism. That is simply teaching science. What the creationists do is attack evolution DIRECTLY, and they do it constantly.

You're wrong buck-o.

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.

Respectfully, all scientific research is always subject to the scientific method.
Beliefs can never be tested by science.
Beliefs are never science. Creationism is based on religious beliefs.
You need a good community college Biology 101 course and a good Philosophy and/or Religion course also to show you the difference.
Religion is not science. A hockey team does not take the field against the SF 49ers.
That is what you are asking for. First YOU have to give some evidence that religious beliefs are science and subject to the scientific method.

 

[LittleNipper]

You are correct that colleges, even the ones that are based on religion, are teaching evolution, but that isn't an attack on creationism. That is simply teaching science. What the creationists do is attack evolution DIRECTLY, and they do it constantly.

You're wrong buck-o.

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.

Respectfully, all scientific research is always subject to the scientific method.
Beliefs can never be tested by science.
Beliefs are never science. Creationism is based on religious beliefs.
You need a good community college Biology 101 course and a good Philosophy and/or Religion course also to show you the difference.
Religion is not science. A hockey team does not take the field against the SF 49ers.
That is what you are asking for. First YOU have to give some evidence that religious beliefs are science and subject to the scientific method.

Respectfully, some "scientific" research is bunk. Science has its limitations. One of them is repeatablitiy and another observation. Respectfully, with all the selective breeding over thousands of years of tampering by man, a dog is still a dog. A new species is not yet observable. Yet, we are to believe that nature brought the dog into existance. So we observe variety within a species, but man --- who evolutionists claim has been around 100's of thousands of years (according to evolutionary fossil interpretation), and yet man could not repeat (with selective breeding) what some men claim nature did totally without forethought...

 

[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.

Respectfully, all scientific research is always subject to the scientific method.
Beliefs can never be tested by science.
Beliefs are never science. Creationism is based on religious beliefs.
You need a good community college Biology 101 course and a good Philosophy and/or Religion course also to show you the difference.
Religion is not science. A hockey team does not take the field against the SF 49ers.
That is what you are asking for. First YOU have to give some evidence that religious beliefs are science and subject to the scientific method.

Respectfully, some "scientific" research is bunk. Science has its limitations. One of them is repeatablitiy and another observation. Respectfully, with all the selective breeding over thousands of years of tampering by man, a dog is still a dog. A new species is not yet observable. Yet, we are to believe that nature brought the dog into existance. So we observe variety within a species, but man --- who evolutionists claim has been around 100's of thousands of years (according to evolutionary fossil interpretation), and yet man could not repeat (with selective breeding) what some men claim nature did totally without forethought...

Good point they also avoid living fossils that had ancestors dated back to as many as 325 million years or more and the organism today showed no evolutionary change.

 

[konradv]

Respectfully, all scientific research is always subject to the scientific method.
Beliefs can never be tested by science.
Beliefs are never science. Creationism is based on religious beliefs.
You need a good community college Biology 101 course and a good Philosophy and/or Religion course also to show you the difference.
Religion is not science. A hockey team does not take the field against the SF 49ers.
That is what you are asking for. First YOU have to give some evidence that religious beliefs are science and subject to the scientific method.

Respectfully, some "scientific" research is bunk. Science has its limitations. One of them is repeatablitiy and another observation. Respectfully, with all the selective breeding over thousands of years of tampering by man, a dog is still a dog. A new species is not yet observable. Yet, we are to believe that nature brought the dog into existance. So we observe variety within a species, but man --- who evolutionists claim has been around 100's of thousands of years (according to evolutionary fossil interpretation), and yet man could not repeat (with selective breeding) what some men claim nature did totally without forethought...

Good point they also avoid living fossils that had ancestors dated back to as many as 325 million years or more and the organism today showed no evolutionary change.

They're not avoided, rather they prove the random nature of evolution. While some species change rapidly and continually, some hardly change very at all. It has a lot to do with the pressure put on them by the environment and the ability of a change to provide advantage. If there's no environmental pressure on a species, the variations don't become concentrated in the survivors and they change very little.