Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- Kes0
In the United States, creationism is popular among the general Christian population, and considered to be scientifically irrelevant in the academic and scientific communities. According to a 2001 Gallup evolution poll on the origins of humans, 72% of Americans believe in some form of creationism (as defined above). About 45% of Americans assented to the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
Among the scientific community, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description of the origins of the universe and life on Earth. According to a 1997 Gallup poll, 55% of scientists ascribe to a completely atheistic evolution, with a total rejection of any deistic involvement. Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically literal creationism".
- JazX0
saw that coming a mile away. :)
- TheTick0
But they let bible quotes go on for 200+ posts? Well, no worries it is their site ..and it is supposed to be primarily about design. Plenty of other places on line to wax politically..
- CTRL0
I'm wondering if I'm gonna get a strike from QBN. I had one today at 9:50am...
- discipler0
"Creationism was never based primarily upon scientific findings or upon a scientific approach to uncovering the origins of life."
--------------------------
Response: Observational science cannot determine how life originated. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Both Evolutionists and Creationists must look at the available evidence and form a hypothesis. Furthermore, Creation science IS based upon scientifice findings. Consider such biochemical marvels as the clotting cascade, the chemistry of vision, the bacterial flagellum, a single strand of DNA. Philosophical Naturalism, the world view which undergirds Darwinism, cannot account for how such programmed biological "machines" could have come from 'pooof!' nothing. The only logical conclusion is that an intelligent designer created such marvels.
-------------------------
"Many modern forms of creationism, particulary Young Earth Christian creationism, were created to defend the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation in genesis, when evolution started to become scientific orthodoxy."
--------------------------
Response: Intelligent Design and Creationism is not about illegitimately imposing the dictates of faith upon science, but about raising rational objections to proposed Darwinian explanations of the biological world. The fact is that Darwinism is becoming an antiquated view with current scientific findings (see above). The thousands of transitional fossils that Darwin predicted would be uncovered, have not been. The fossil record is an embarassment to Darwinism and evolutionsists know this. Consider also the Cambrian Explosion - a recent discovery of thousands of complete species appearing in the fossil record when according to Darwinism, this should not be.
---------------------------
"Indeed, many creationist and anti-evolutionist arguments are directed in the form of attacks towards evolutionary theories."
-----------------------------
Response: Amen. Because there are tremendous holes in natural selection. I've listed just a few.
-----------------------------
"In this sense, evolution is a very powerful theory."
-----------------------------
Response: Lie. It is neither observable nor falsifiable!!! so, technically cannot even qaulify as a theory. A belief would be more accurate.
-----------------------------
"The belief can persist in spite of evidence to the contrary."
-----------------------------
Response: Materialists have yet to produce evidence to suggest that Creationism is invalid. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that a cognizant creative force is the author of all life. (see my examples above).
-----------------------------
"Science does not seek answers that fit a certain theory."
-----------------------------
Response: Correct, it SHOULD not. But Darwinists force fit the evidence to fit into a naturalistic model of origins.
-----------------------------
"Contrary to some claims, transitional fossils exist that show a gradual change from one species to another. "
-----------------------------
Response: False. There is not ONE SINGLE transitional fossil in existance that would suggest that one genome mutated into another, that one species became another. There are only fossil examples of microevolutionary adaptation which fit in perfectly with the Creation model. The burden of proof lies with the Evolutionist... produce one. They don't exist. If what Darwin taught was true, there should be thousands upon thousands demonstrating one species becoming another. This fact is devastating to Darwinism.
----------------------------
"It is mainly in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in America) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution rages."
-----------------------------
Response: This is likely true of Creationists, but not of ID proponents. ID scientists are replete throughout the modern scientific community and because of the recent and growing evidence, more and more are being added to their number.Finally, those who vehemently adhere to an evolutionary model for origins do so without bothering to either take a hard look at some of evolution's assumptions, or to wrestle with the real problems that it faces. They have accepted evolution on the basis of authority, because their professors or academic gurus told them so - a kind of faith. Science is "evolving", the Darwinist Fundamentalists need to let go and embrace what modern science is actually observing.
- mrdobolina0
those fossilized insects are only 6,000 years old, right discipler?
- subflux0
A'ight...I usually stay outta the political/religious threads, but Fundamentalist Creationism always rubs me the wrong way. I believe that one can be faithful too one's religious writings AND reconcile scientific advances that may conflict with what is taught by parable.
I'll could argue all of the rebuttals point by point, both scientifically and spiritually, but I'll just pick on the usual anti evolution argument: The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons — geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy
- mrdobolina0
are there people who believe that god created animals that can evolve? I mean why not?
- slinky0
Kes, i didnt know your new screenname was Kes_PHD
- subflux0
my point exactly, mrdobolina
you can believe in both
eat that cake and have it too
mmmmm, cake
- uberdesigner0
In the United States, creationism is popular among the general Christian population, and considered to be scientifically irrelevant in the academic and scientific communities. According to a 2001 Gallup evolution poll on the origins of humans, 72% of Americans believe in some form of creationism (as defined above). About 45% of Americans assented to the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
Among the scientific community, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are overwhelmingly considered to be the correct description of the origins of the universe and life on Earth. According to a 1997 Gallup poll, 55% of scientists ascribe to a completely atheistic evolution, with a total rejection of any deistic involvement. Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically literal creationism".
Kes
(Jun 10 05, 11:44)--------------------------
90% of limeys are into crossdressing
- Kes0
1. Observational science cannot determine how life originated. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Both Evolutionists and Creationists must look at the available evidence and form a hypothesis.
-------------------------------
Response: Observational science, as my post clearly states, is based on empirical observation. Empirical observation is not about, literally being able to SEE a quark, photon, evolution happening, etc... it's about conducting experiments that you CAN see, that prove a THEORY. THat is the foundation of science. This is why Creationism Fails the scientific test.2. Furthermore, Creation science IS based upon scientifice findings. Consider such biochemical marvels as the clotting cascade, the chemistry of vision, the bacterial flagellum, a single strand of DNA
----------------------------
Response: This is NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT. You are merely saying, LOOK, that is complicated, it can't have evolved. Your inability to comprehend 1000's of millions of years of genetic mutation IS NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT.3. The fact is that Darwinism is becoming an antiquated
-----------------------------
This is a gross lie and distrotion. That Newsweek poll i cited earlier said onl 700 in 480,000 earth and life science scientist believe in creationsim. That is 0.146% of scientists in the United States!4.The thousands of transitional fossils that Darwin predicted would be uncovered, have not been. The fossil record is an embarassment to Darwinism and evolutionsists know this.
------------------------------
Response: This is a patent lie. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. Also, considering 4billion years of history, and decay of this plant, transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.5. Consider also the Cambrian Explosion
------------------------------
Response: The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya. (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms
Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian . Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.6.It is neither observable nor falsifiable!!! so, technically cannot even qaulify as a theory. A belief would be more accurate.
------------------------------
Response: If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges. Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is useless.
7. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that a cognizant creative force is the author of all life.
-------------------------------
Response: Maybe you do not understand the word "evidence". Your inability to comprehend something, does not make for scientific evidence. Which is why it is only a belief system, a hypothesis like parallel universes etc...8. But Darwinists force fit the evidence to fit into a naturalistic model of origins.
----------------------------
Response: Well you're a conspiracy theory nut if you believe that. You have no respect for the objectivity of science. Maybe you should read how Darwin struggled with his conscious to comprehend his discoveries. A naturalistic model is based on evidence, post-priori, not some a priori faith in a "book called the bible". They are two distinctly different issues.8. False. There is not ONE SINGLE transitional fossil in existance that would suggest that one genome mutated into another
-----------------------------
This is the oft told lie of all Creationists. What exactly would constitute evidence to you? Look at these examples:1.T here are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
9. This is likely true of Creationists, but not of ID proponents. ID scientists are replete throughout the modern scientific community
-------------------------------
Response: Yes, but those ID "scientists" aren't anti-evolutionists. Many ID "scientists" believe evolution did occur, but by design. Which is why so many Christians have reconciled the powerful theory of evolution.10.Finally, those who vehemently adhere to an evolutionary model for origins do so without bothering to either take a hard look at some of evolution's assumptions, or to wrestle with the real problems that it faces.
-----------------------------
Response: I'll have you know i searched high and low to find arguments against your fallaciesCheck mate motha fucka!
- mrdobolina0
thing is, the world is older than 6000 years. Only crackpots believe it is only that old.
carbon dating is more trusted by me than ghost stories.
- uberdesigner0
if creationism is false, then how do you explain a guy who can summon ufos? watch the news report at the end.
- subflux0
thanks Kes, I'm too burned out today to type that much :-)
- Kes0
it's aiiight subflux, i did what he does, copy-paste, adapted, threw in some of my own stuff etc...
but it was hard work tho, finding all the sources to quote. hehe.
Just waiting for these CD's to burn, and i'm out. Takin forever and eatin into my friday!
- subflux0
maybe we're all wrong
- TheTick0
http://www.leanleft.com/archives…
And that's all I gotta say about that