Creationist Lies
Out of context: Reply #25
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- 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.