1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by tas8831, Jul 13, 2019.

  1. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,865
    Ratings:
    +1,510
    I have been involved in the creation/evolution 'debate' online in one way or another for about 25 years or so.
    One commonality among every single creationist I can ever recall encountering is an overblown, evidence-less sense of their own superior knowledge of the science. And this includes the 'professional' creationists (who may act the way they do for money or 'glory', hard to tell).
    The very first creationist I ever encountered - on a now defunct listserv - asked me for a list of phylogenetic studies using nuclear DNA. I provided a list. He then attacked me for not 'explaining them all' to him. When I reminded him that he had merely asked for a list, not an explanation, he again attacked me, saying that a REAL scientist like Feynman would have explained it all, that the list actually supported creation, blah blah blah. In the end, I realized that he simply didn't understand the list I had presented, despite claiming to be a student and to have been involved in the 'debate for years.

    Little has changed since then. On this very forum, there are creationists that insist up, down, left, and right that they have vast scientific knowledge, that that have "studied" evolution for decades, that they are 'science geeks', etc.

    And then, they write things like this:


    "Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes


    "But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

    "The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

    "Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."​

    And this gem:

    "Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."​

    Amazing...
    And they apply laughably obvious double standards, embracing scientific studies that they have misinterpreted as being supportive of their claims, while dismissing studies using the same types of data and analyses if they do not....

    etc., etc., etc.

    Who do these folks think they are fooling? A freshman/sophomore biology major can see all the laughable errors in those claims, yet here we are, with adults claiming decades of study making these kinds of laughably wrong, totally wrong, claims, all the while insisting that their position/interpretation is correct..

    Look, if you want to believe in your religious tales, go for it!

    But DO NOT pretend to understand things you do not, because you not only make yourself look foolish, you make it your religion look like its existence hinges on it's adherents lying about it!!!

    Grow up! Be a man (or woman)!
     
    #1 tas8831, Jul 13, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 8
    • Like Like x 4
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  2. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,865
    Ratings:
    +1,510
    No, this is the rest of the story -

    creationists also write things like:

    "The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy..."
    "You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA"
    "As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line."​

    and then DISMISS studies, using the SAME type of data, employing the SAME types of analyses, if they produce results indicating that which they have been brainwashed and have convinced themselves not to believe.

    Pathetic.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  3. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    53,438
    Ratings:
    +17,607
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    One thing I never understood even while I was one of them is why and how the frequently and consistently say things like "genetic science" instead of biology or "creation science" instead of abiogenesis.Their arguments are so wrong they don't even use the correct words for branches of science and scientific concepts without theory.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    24,907
    Ratings:
    +13,773
    Religion:
    Atheist
    One thing that becomes blatantly obvious is that creationists do not and can not allow themselves to understand what is and what is not scientific evidence. If they did they would have to admit to themselves that there is endless evidence for evolution and no scientific evidence for their beliefs.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    6,057
    Ratings:
    +3,916
    Religion:
    Methodist
    Calling it creation science puts their spin on it in an official-sounding name. It associates their personal believe in creation with the word science. Others seeing this automatically equate the two, giving a source and credence to the idea that creationism is science. At least that is my take on it.

    As to the rest, it is evidence that those individuals claiming a knowledge of science do not really have it, but are attempting to establish that they do, by making up words that they think sound credible.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  6. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,806
    "REAL scientist like Feynman would have explained it all,"

    Notice they love to hand puppet!!! Jesus said, the bible says feynman would have said. I see ther lips moving....

    Personally i find the feynman statement proof of increasing mental confusion. Be careful to separate the bible from crazy or you too are crazy if you dont.

    A good doctor in a mental hospital does not argue with the patient whether god exists or not or if the bible is true or not. No the good doctor sees the patient the patient cannot see the doctor. Thats a good doctor. A bad crazy doctor argues with the patient.

    At that point a good doctor walks by realizing what he is hearing and the crazy doctor is now a patient in the hospital.

    A good doctor reading what i posted, will take a deep breath and go of course what was i thinking. A bad doctor will argue.

    Dealing with such topics requires a clear eye.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    6,057
    Ratings:
    +3,916
    Religion:
    Methodist
    They make the best arguments against their own assertions.

    Genome pairs. It almost sounds like it means something useful.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    928
    Ratings:
    +164
    Religion:
    Properly some form of non-revealed deism
    Here is my short answer. It "gets" to them.

    But that has nothing to do with creationists per se.
    Anything someone takes deeply for granted means that some of those humans will "attack", what they perceive as a threat.

    I know this as a skeptic. Here is an example:
    https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
    Now replace truth-value with evidence, proof or say that there is no pure rational claims about all of reality with reason and logic and you can get some humans on both sides of religion and non-religion to go wild. And then tell them that nobody knows what reality really is. :)

    I am weird as a religious human, I am also a cognitive, cultural and moral relativist. Go figure :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    53,438
    Ratings:
    +17,607
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    That's achieved with things such as "just a theory" and "evolutionist/Darwinist." They would never do anything to try to conflate scientific biogenesis with Creationism. At least when I was a Christian, "creation science" did refer to Creationism. Using it in place of biogenesis seems to be a newer thing. And you have to remember, about the only science they do universally reject is anything pertaining to evolution. They have no problem accepting germs, and most likely won't challenge the idea of micro-evolution when it comes to bacteria becoming treatment-resistant, but when you start to mention a bacteria sharing common ancestry with this or that, they tend to shut down and the misconceptions and misinformation take hold.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Uncommon Sense

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2019
    Messages:
    191
    Ratings:
    +45
    Besides, how boring would your life be without an opposition to argue with it? Perhaps one day all humans can be just like you.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    53,438
    Ratings:
    +17,607
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    That's achieved with things such as "just a theory" and "evolutionist/Darwinist." They would never do anything to try to conflate scientific biogenesis with Creationism. At least when I was a Christian, "creation science" did refer to Creationism (I think AiG still extensively uses this approach). Using it in place of biogenesis seems to be a newer thing. And you have to remember, about the only science they do universally reject is anything pertaining to evolution. They have no problem accepting germs, and most likely won't challenge the idea of micro-evolution when it comes to bacteria becoming treatment-resistant, but when you start to mention a bacteria sharing common ancestry with this or that, they tend to shut down and the misconceptions and misinformation take hold. But it seems things like "genetic science" is this weird anomaly, partly explained by the groups severe misunderstanding of the finer details of science (such as hypothesis compared to a theory), but that can't fully explain it because they are very aware genetics are a part of biology.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Erebus

    Erebus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,801
    Ratings:
    +1,429
    Religion:
    Pagan
    It's perfectly possible they have studied evolution for decades but only from a creationist viewpoint. In other words, they may well have poured countless hours into reading and listening to the views of people who either don't understand evolution or else twist the research and data behind it to suit their own agenda. It's quite well documented that the longer a person spends on a mistake, the less likely they are to give up on it.


    That said, on the internet it's usually best to take a person's stated qualifications with a grain of salt.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,307
    Ratings:
    +1,174
    Religion:
    Christian
    L
    LOL. A creationist needs two understand only two things about the sciences of origins.

    1) In essence, science knows virtually nothing about the origin of the universe.

    2) Even less is known about abiogenesis, it is a ¨had to have occurred¨ position, thus is covered by sheets of hyperbolic propaganda. It ain´t so.

    As to the intense discussions, I rely on a friend, a full professor of microbiology with over a hundred peer reviewed articles and papers, a creationist, or the writings of other scientists who are creationists, and they are many.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,307
    Ratings:
    +1,174
    Religion:
    Christian
    By using the term biogenesis, do you mean to say abiogenesis ?
     
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    24,907
    Ratings:
    +13,773
    Religion:
    Atheist
    How is less than a tenth of a percent of biologists "many"? You may have found a loon or two, or a "full professor" at a school where they have to swear not to use the scientific method. But in reality the number of creationists in the sciences is extremely small:

    How Many Creationists in Science?

    By the way, every argument that I have seen you use against abiogenesis has been based on science that is at least 30 years out of date. Care to update your knowledge just a tad?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,336
    Ratings:
    +5,879
    Religion:
    None
    Come on shmog, you know better than to think
    your numbers one and two are somehow mwaningful
    in this context. "Origins" is no more the topic than
    "Onions".

    One need know nothing about the origin of the universe
    to understand how chemistty works or demonstrate
    the soundness of theories.
    Same is true in physics, geology, psychology, auto
    mechanics, math, etc.

    The origin of life be it abio or god poof has zero to
    do with ToE.

    You cannot possibly not know these things.

    As for your pal or any creationist, scientist or
    otherwise-

    Not a one of them has any data, zero, none, not
    a datum point of any sort contrary to ToE.

    All they have is attitude.

    As for your lol, all the goddists have is
    fairy tales. Where is the humour in any of that?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,336
    Ratings:
    +5,879
    Religion:
    None
    You are asking too much.
    They have no facts on their side.
    To be an informed and intellectually honest
    creationist is simply impossible.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. 3rdAngel

    3rdAngel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2019
    Messages:
    111
    Ratings:
    +16
    Well how disturbing is this? Let me ask a few questions. If science has the answer for the theory of evolution why is it still a theory and why does science still exist? What I see that is ironic here is that the majority of Nobel prize winning scientists are christian while it seems to be those who follow the religion of athiesm and agnosticism try to use the theories behind science as a crutch to try prove that there is no God. Can science prove or not prove that there is a God? There is not one shred of data anywhere that has proved that there is no God. If so than why pretend that there is? From what I can read here the great pretenders are the ones supporting the OP of this very thread. To think otherwise is not to be very well informed.

    [​IMG]
     
    #18 3rdAngel, Jul 13, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2019
    • Creative Creative x 1
  19. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    53,438
    Ratings:
    +17,607
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    No. As it stands, in regards to earth, the question remains unanswered.
     
  20. Neutral Name

    Neutral Name Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2019
    Messages:
    883
    Ratings:
    +382

    That's right up there with all of the other supposed Christian things I see. There are a few good Christians but many people who claim to be Christians are not. They don't follow Jesus at all. Jesus said to be meek and humble.They are not. Jesus said to be loving toward others. They are not. Jesus said not to store up treasures on earth. They are greedy and selfish. And on and on. When you encounter these people, you should understand that they are most likely control freaks, not Christians. They are not even worth talking to. They are completely fake and, yes, probably do not know what they are talking about because they don't even know the Bible to be able to quote from it. They just listen to other fakes and quote them.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...