The Top Three Mistakes Of Creationists? (Creator, Darwin, Earth, evolution)

[Sunstone]

We've all seen creationists come onboard and repeat again and again the same mistakes. But if you had to rank the typical mistakes of creationists, which ones would you rank as the top three? Why those three?

Why do creationists make the same mistakes over and over again?

[Fluffy]

I'm going to assume that when you say Creationists, you are talking about those people who wish creationism to be accepted as scientific fact or at least scientifically viable. I do not think that those creationists who feel that creationism is a matter of faith have made any mistakes.

1) Irreducible Complexity
2) Christian bias/motivation
3) Reliance on philosophical rather than scientific ideas to support their alternative to evolution.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I'm going to assume that when you say Creationists, you are talking about those people who wish creationism to be accepted as scientific fact or at least scientifically viable. I do not think that those creationists who feel that creationism is a matter of faith have made any mistakes.

Yes. Your assumption is sound, Fluffy. I didn't mean to include those creationists who feel it's a matter of faith. But then again, I haven't seen too many of them in the creation threads making any mistakes in logic or fact.

[standing_alone]

Well, as Fluffy already stated, irreducible complexity is one of them. Also, when they try to use "science" to make their points when their whole idea is pseudoscience (by acknowlegding a supernatural deity already violates making a simple, conservative hypothesis, also science only deals with natural evidence). Another thing that I see so often is the either-or fallacy - where they believe that if there is something wrong with evolution, that automatically means creationism must be true. The either-or fallacy is the one that gets on my nerves the most.

As to why they make these mistakes again and again, I don't know, though I bet the desperation to want to believe that this world is so much more and that there is some creator that cared enough to make us and the world is a motivating factor. They want their religions to be "proven" true, despite the fact that they cannot.

[d.]

i see the 'the evolution theory says something about the creation of life' and 'the evolution theory is just that, a theory' as if that meant that it's just some random fantasy dreamt up by darwin, a lot.

and of course, the most obvious one : looking for specific answers and not investigating or questioning one's a priori assumptions.

[angellous_evangellous]

1) Using the Bible as a science book
2) Refusal to make naturalistic assumptions in interpreting naturalistic evidence
3) Insistence that revealed truth is the same as empirical data

[Buttercup]

1. Using the argument that God created the earth to "look" old.
2. The whole Intelligent Design idea and wanting to add it to science classes
3. Refusing to acknowledge natural evidence for what it is...

[Fluffy]

The top three mistakes of scientists in refuting creationists:
1) Starting from the premise that creationism is pseudoscience. You will never defeat your opponent in a debate if you assume they are wrong from the start.
2) Largely arrogant and dismissive attiude. If you believe you are right then you are blessed with the intelligence and maturity to overcome such petty failings.
3) Presenting evolution as fact rather than as the most reasonable, likely explanation.

[Opethian]

The top three mistakes of scientists in refuting creationists:
1) Starting from the premise that creationism is pseudoscience. You will never defeat your opponent in a debate if you assume they are wrong from the start.

Euhm, it's not just an assumption scientists make, it's just the only thing that creationism is about: misinterpreting science, deceiving by drawing things out of context, making blatant scientifical and logical errors, and drawing philosophy into their reasoning. If this is not pseudoscience I do not know what is.

2) Largely arrogant and dismissive attiude. If you believe you are right then you are blessed with the intelligence and maturity to overcome such petty failings.

So if something is wrong scientists cannot just dismiss it? As for the arrogant part, could you give me some examples? This reminds me of Ted Haggart calling Richard Dawkins arrogant in that debate of theirs, very ironic.

3) Presenting evolution as fact rather than as the most reasonable, likely explanation.

Evolution IS a fact. The evolution theory is the most reasonable, likely explanation.