Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[zombiehunter696]

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.

Teaching established scientific theories is science classes is indoctrination? What world are you living in?

 

[PredFan]

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.

Dead wrong, and you probably know that.

 

[konradv]

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

 

[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...

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?

99.999% of the people who argue against evolution know very very little about it. That is the reason they are confused. The real sad thing is that you could explain it to them but they'd wake up tomorrow and return to thinking that humans evolved from apes.

 

[zombiehunter696]

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.

Not in the real world. Maybe in the fantasy world you live in though.

Evolution is based on a huge amount of evidence accumulated over the last century and a half. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't change that fact.

 

[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'."

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!

The above only proves you do not know how God's nature was designed and the observations were of a normal change that happens periodically and have nothing to do with variations leading to new species. What one sees is one species called finches. Just like black men are human no matter what Darwin imagined and white men are not an emerging superior race...

 

[zombiehunter696]

99.999% of the people who argue against evolution know very very little about it. That is the reason they are confused. The real sad thing is that you could explain it to them but they'd wake up tomorrow and return to thinking that humans evolved from apes.

Take a look at LitteNipper's post about the finches on the Galapagos. This moron posted an "attack" on evolution that actually confirms what the theory predicts.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Except when it is established fact by science. Teaching kids religious fairy tales as myth is indoctrination. Teaching mods demonstrable scientific facts is the right thing to do to keep our populations keen on the reality before us.

 

[zombiehunter696]

The above only proves you do not know how God's nature was designed and the observations were of a normal change that happens periodically and have nothing to do with variations leading to new species. What one sees is one species called finches. Just like black men are human no matter what Darwin imagined and white men are not an emerging superior race...

/facepalm

Just ignore the fact you posted evidence for evolution like the good little creationist you are.

 

[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...

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?

99.999% of the people who argue against evolution know very very little about it. That is the reason they are confused. The real sad thing is that you could explain it to them but they'd wake up tomorrow and return to thinking that humans evolved from apes.

We have more in relation with a pig then we do with apes. 100% of the people who argue against Creationism know very little of anything spiritual.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

No one is saying that. Try learning about evolution. Descent with modification.

 

[S.J.]

Except when it is established fact by science.

It isn't established fact.

 

[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'."

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!

The above only proves you do not know how God's nature was designed and the observations were of a normal change that happens periodically and have nothing to do with variations leading to new species. What one sees is one species called finches. Just like black men are human no matter what Darwin imagined and white men are not an emerging superior race...

You are so profoundly ignorant of evolution, you should probably just not say anything.

 

[PredFan]

99.999% of the people who argue against evolution know very very little about it. That is the reason they are confused. The real sad thing is that you could explain it to them but they'd wake up tomorrow and return to thinking that humans evolved from apes.

Take a look at LitteNipper's post about the finches on the Galapagos. This moron posted an "attack" on evolution that actually confirms what the theory predicts.

Profound ignorance.

 

[PredFan]

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?

99.999% of the people who argue against evolution know very very little about it. That is the reason they are confused. The real sad thing is that you could explain it to them but they'd wake up tomorrow and return to thinking that humans evolved from apes.

We have more in relation with a pig then we do with apes. 100% of the people who argue against Creationism know very little of anything spiritual.

Yeah, thanks for posting more evidence of evolution.

 

[newpolitics]

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?

99.999% of the people who argue against evolution know very very little about it. That is the reason they are confused. The real sad thing is that you could explain it to them but they'd wake up tomorrow and return to thinking that humans evolved from apes.

We have more in relation with a pig then we do with apes. 100% of the people who argue against Creationism know very little of anything spiritual.

Incorrect. We have more in common with apes than any they any other genus.

 

[PredFan]

Except when it is established fact by science.

It isn't established fact.

Doesn't have to be.

Compared to the Creation fairy tale, evolution is an absolute certainty.

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

Except when it is established fact by science. Teaching kids religious fairy tales as myth is indoctrination. Teaching mods demonstrable scientific facts is the right thing to do to keep our populations keen on the reality before us.

A moron is a word ignorant people use to label others they disagree with but cannot explain why... Darwin clearly thought the finches were various species called finch. He had no clue that the beaks only represented variations within one species that interbreed freely. And what you say is correct. Unless one is willing to try to explain various interpretations of data but limit one's presentation to the explanation of only one view (secular or not) that instructor, institution, etc., is indoctrinating and not teaching anything. And the public school system of the United States has been proven to not be much better than a place for target practice by individuals such institutions previously indoctrinated... And it has had 50 years of teaching evolution.

 

[PredFan]

Again, in an answer to the OP. It is the creationists that attack evolution. Not the other way around. As can be seen in abundance in this thread alone. Creationists MUST attack evolution simply because they cannot defend creationism. There are no facts, there are no observations to be made, there is no data to be tested and one cannot observe something being created from nothing.

Thye have no choice but to attack evolution in an attempt to if not totally discredit it, but to bring it down to the level of myth so as to be on an even keel with creation. Then they try to say that creation should also be taught in schools.

Unfortunately for them they fail repeatedly.

 

[S.J.]

Except when it is established fact by science.

It isn't established fact.

Doesn't have to be.

Compared to the Creation fairy tale, evolution is an absolute certainty.

Thanks for admitting it isn't fact.