"The Creationist Attack On Science"

Eight videos (median running time: three minutes) revealing the incredible and purposeful ignorance of creationists.
Or is it purposeful lying?


..........1..........................................................................................................................................2

.......... .3..........................................................................................................................................4

..
5



.

.

.....6....................................................................................................................................7

8

.

Now, you know creationists dont got
nothing against true science.

I

Skwim said:

Eight videos (median running time is three minutes) revealing the incredible and purposeful ignorance of creationists.

..........

..............1.........................................................................................................................2

..........

..............3.........................................................................................................................4

........
............5
For those creationists who disagree with anything said here please share.
.

Click to expand...

Isnt creationism just really bad science? I mean i can point to all kinds if various forms of the identical ways this logics outs in a whole lot of different ways. So isnt there actually something going on since its wide spread in all disaplines in accedamia and the general public? I mean lots of people seemed confused by the enviromental changes going on and thats an easy topic.

No David it is not about science, it is about miracles.

Audie said:

Now, you know creationidts dont got
nothing against true science.

Click to expand...

Right. The only thing they're against is their own bad science.

.

What's the Vegas line on it? I'm guessing they have Science favored to survive the attack, but what are the odds?

Eric Hovind makes his Dad and Ken Ham seem enlightened.

Altfish said:

Eric Hovind makes his Dad and Ken Ham seem enlightened.

Click to expand...

And the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

.

Klepperman said:

No David it is not about science, it is about miracles.

Click to expand...

Just as a point of information; creationism as presented in this forum (Evolution Vs. Creationism) is not the same thing as the Biblical creation. Creationism is a movement set out to prove the Biblical origin of species by disproving biological evolution. Unfortunately, in their attempt to discredit evolution, creationists sometimes meander into non-evolutionary topics such as abiogenesis and even the Big Bang. It may appear to be an odd tactic, but creationists are relying on the ignorance of their audience to buy their denigration of science, and in turn reject biological evolution.

.

Altfish said:

Eric Hovind makes his Dad and Ken Ham seem enlightened.

Click to expand...

For sure.
At least Eric apparently does pay his IRS taxes.

David T said:

I

Isnt creationism just really bad science? I mean i can point to all kinds if various forms of the identical ways this logics outs in a whole lot of different ways. So isnt there actually something going on since its wide spread in all disaplines in accedamia and the general public? I mean lots of people seemed confused by the enviromental changes going on and thats an easy topic.

Click to expand...

No, creationism is not "bad science." It is not science of any sort at all. Science requires that all observations relevant to the scientific principle being investigated be included and accounted for. In every one of those videos, it was immediately clear to me (though I'm grateful for the elaboration of the creationism deniers for making it more clear than I could) that the creationists deliberately and selectively ignore all observations, and any established physics that don't suit their purpose.

These are not stupid people, per se, but they are monumentally uninformed about real science, and they are chained to a belief system that forces them to disregard any possible real information that they fear might make their loving deity send them to eternal damnation and punishment for.

It is thus apparent to me that intelligence is natural, and can be nurtured or starved. And the kind of religion these sheeple bind themselves to causes them to starve themselves into true ignorance.

Some creationists are appreciative of the scientists who've discovered the evidence for a mark of extraterrestrial intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

Exactly who/what left its/their mark in our genetic coding might not ever get determined by anybody presently bound to Earth. The search for our cosmic relatives and cosmic common ancestor likely then needs to be done with advanced space exploration. I'd like to urge Creationists, scientists and everybody else. who's interested in our cosmic ancestry, then to please advise our Senate, Congress and President to expand our tax-payer funded resources for advance space exploration.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

No, creationism is not "bad science." It is not science of any sort at all. Science requires that all observations relevant to the scientific principle being investigated be included and accounted for. In every one of those videos, it was immediately clear to me (though I'm grateful for the elaboration of the creationism deniers for making it more clear than I could) that the creationists deliberately and selectively ignore all observations, and any established physics that don't suit their purpose.

These are not stupid people, per se, but they are monumentally uninformed about real science, and they are chained to a belief system that forces them to disregard any possible real information that they fear might make their loving deity send them to eternal damnation and punishment for.

It is thus apparent to me that intelligence is natural, and can be nurtured or starved. And the kind of religion these sheeple bind themselves to causes them to starve themselves into true ignorance.

Click to expand...

ok. Nakosis was clearer i suppose abd i wasnt enough. Go read his post get back to me if he is clearer. If not well hey i understand southern baptists very well thank you.

Skwim said:

Just as a point of information; creationism as presented in this forum (Evolution Vs. Creationism) is not the same thing as the Biblical creation. Creationism is a movement to prove the Biblical origin of species by disproving biological evolution. Unfortunately, in their attempt to discredit evolution, creationists sometimes meander into non-evolutionary topics such as abiogenesis and even the Big Bang. It may appear to be an odd tactic, but creationists are relying on the ignorance of their audience to buy their denigration of science, and in turn reject biological evolution.

.

Click to expand...

Creationists should seriously consider the likelihood the first individual of the genus Homo-species formed from a couple of Australopithecus hetero zygotes, each of whom had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by fusion of the whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mated together and reproduced viable and fertile offspring with 46 chromosomes.

This first generation of Homo habilis then incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo habilis.

References:

1. J. Tjio and A. Levan. 1956. The chromosome number of Man. Hereditas, 42( 1-2): 1-6.
2. W. Ijdo et al.1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusión. PNAS, 88: 9051-9056.
3. Meyer et al. 2012 A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, 338:222-226.; K. H. Miga. 2016. Chromosome-specific Centromere sequences provide an estímate of the Ancestral Chromosome 2 Fusion event in Hominin Genome.Journ. of Heredity. 1-8. Doi:10.1093/jhered/esw039.

Therefore, the first living breathing human being was never directly formed out of dust by God as the Bible falsely claims.

If Creationists were to have this understanding of how humans precisely evolved, they'd realize the Biblical tales of Creation are mythological rather than factual.

These myths are the made-up stories of ancient nomadic tribesmen rather than God's word.

I guess the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Especially if there's money to be made!

David T said:

I

Isnt creationism just really bad science? I mean i can point to all kinds if various forms of the identical ways this logics outs in a whole lot of different ways. So isnt there actually something going on since its wide spread in all disaplines in accedamia and the general public? I mean lots of people seemed confused by the enviromental changes going on and thats an easy topic.

Click to expand...

Not sure you could call creationism science. I mean generally, they start with a conclusion and then toss out all evidence that does not conform to the conclusion.

Milton Platt said:

Not sure you could call creationism science. I mean generally, they start with a conclusion and then toss out all evidence that does not conform to the conclusion.

Click to expand...

Which, of course, is just about all the evidence...

Skwim said:

And the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

Click to expand...

Matthew 7:19-20 seems appropriate here.

We can't go inside their heads so we don't know if they are deliberately lying. Could be that they just believe something strongly enough to reject all alternatives. I see a lot of otherwise reasonable people stick to something that's not true and not good for them.