• 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!

Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

Prometheus85

Active Member
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)!

But There are many Youtube videos which support their position.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I think we are all entirely satisfied that our friend
is no chemist, and equally satisfied that his
sincere doubts about how it works are at least,
you know, sincere.
Well to be fair, I think his doubts and skepticism are indeed sincere; it's just that they're primarily based in his religious beliefs rather than in genuine scientific objectivity.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Nice try. Water is a simple, very simple compound. A living organism is infinitely more complicated, infinitely more complicated than Hoyles airplane.
The complexity of compounds isn't the point. The argument you've put forth seems to be that if humans are involved in any way in synthesizing molecules, then we must conclude that such molecules are always generated via "intelligence".

And you still haven't pointed to any supernatural mechanisms or processes that have been employed in origins research. Thus the reasonable conclusion is that there are none.

In the context of abiogenesis, biochemistry certainly is random.
Um......what? You honestly believe that biochemistry is somehow different than all other chemistry in that in biochemistry, the bonding of atoms is a random process?

A hot cooling planet with volcanic activity does not initiate a cascade of inevitable stages till life occurs, that is a total crock. a myth, a thumb to suck for the abiogenesists.
Sorry, but your empty assertions carry little weight. Or were you thinking that things are so simply because you declare them to be?

Miller - Urey was a total failure, unless you consider a few amino acids life, or inevitable life.
That's a fairly common creationist error (hint: M-U was not an attempt to synthesize living organisms).

Biochemistry as relates to abiogenesis is random
That's a rather shocking assertion, especially from one who claims to be a bit of a subject-matter expert. I'm curious....where did you get the notion that biochemistry is different than all other chemistry, in that it is a random process? Were you taught that in a class? Did you read it in a book? Hear it on TV?

So, tell me again how biochemistry, those natural processes, are going to create encoded DNA, to operate a cell, that has a mechanism to read the encoded information through RNA which in turn controls the proteins that operate the cell, before the cell exists.

Especially since there are eight hypotheses that I know of, all very different, as well as some that abandon biochemistry altogether as the answer. Sounds pretty darn random to me.
If you're asking me to solve the mystery of the origin of life on earth, right here right now, that's not going to happen. First of all, I'm not a biochemist (although I did minor in chemistry as an undergrad). Second, as far as I know it's still an unsolved mystery. But I suspect that's precisely why you and so many other creationists are so focused on it; it's a gap in our current knowledge and we all know how creationists love to point to such gaps and declare "that's where God stepped in".
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
It doesn't matter. You could build a time machine, take them back and show them all the steps from atoms to humans, they still wouldn't believe it.
True. I've had creationists tell me that even if I handed them a transitional fossil, they would have no choice but to conclude that Satan was somehow deceiving them, since it's impossible for transitional fossils to exist.

That's a mindset I just cannot relate to at all.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
True. I've had creationists tell me that even if I handed them a transitional fossil, they would have no choice but to conclude that Satan was somehow deceiving them, since it's impossible for transitional fossils to exist.

That's a mindset I just cannot relate to at all.

Same mindset as eminent professors who refused to look
through Galileo's telescope.

If any of our benighted creos actually had a spark
of retrospection, they might wish to read that story
in detail, and -
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The complexity of compounds isn't the point. The argument you've put forth seems to be that if humans are involved in any way in synthesizing molecules, then we must conclude that such molecules are always generated via "intelligence".

And you still haven't pointed to any supernatural mechanisms or processes that have been employed in origins research. Thus the reasonable conclusion is that there are none.


Um......what? You honestly believe that biochemistry is somehow different than all other chemistry in that in biochemistry, the bonding of atoms is a random process?


Sorry, but your empty assertions carry little weight. Or were you thinking that things are so simply because you declare them to be?


That's a fairly common creationist error (hint: M-U was not an attempt to synthesize living organisms).


That's a rather shocking assertion, especially from one who claims to be a bit of a subject-matter expert. I'm curious....where did you get the notion that biochemistry is different than all other chemistry, in that it is a random process? Were you taught that in a class? Did you read it in a book? Hear it on TV?


If you're asking me to solve the mystery of the origin of life on earth, right here right now, that's not going to happen. First of all, I'm not a biochemist (although I did minor in chemistry as an undergrad). Second, as far as I know it's still an unsolved mystery. But I suspect that's precisely why you and so many other creationists are so focused on it; it's a gap in our current knowledge and we all know how creationists love to point to such gaps and declare "that's where God stepped in".
In the alleged natural setting, the alleged biochemistry is based upon purely random events to bring it about. THERE is your randomness of biochemistry.

Did I mention God to you ?
 
Perhaps you could do your integrity a favor and just admit that you will never accept any evidence of anything that does not prop up your ancient middle eastern beliefs and stop pretending to be logical.

Why do you support creationists claiming knowledge that they do not possess?

Oh Tas ~ why are you claiming knowledge you don’t possess? “Your middle eastern beliefs” ~ not much integrity on your end, seeing I never once mentioned “middle eastern beliefs” nor do I even have those. Too funny ~ keep practicing your middle eastern beliefs of what Muhammad and others have said to do though in attacking, shunning, embarrassing others though.

Again ~ why are you claiming knowledge you do not possess? “Just admit you will never accept any evidence of anything” ~ Tas, I have the same evidence as you do.

You’re just a hypocrite, with no integrity yourself, and have given all the evidence one needs as to see why you’re not a very logical judge on things. Reply if you’d like ~ but no more responses. Pretender exposed.

Well that's a rather convenient set up. If humans are involved in any way, shape, or form then creationists get to shout "intelligence was involved!!!" and declare vindication.

But what's the alternative, where absolutely no human intervention takes place? The only thing I can think of is if we stumble across a planet where it's occurring in real time and we observe from a distance. But of course that's simply not realistic, is it?

Looks to me like creationists are pre-gaming the situation so that when scientists do announce that they've discovered a plausible pathway by which the first life forms could have emerged, the creationists can still cling to their beliefs.

Not everyone is in the immature us vs them, winner and loser paradigm. Or that the two could never in no way be compatible in many ways.
It’s funny seeing “alleged” grown men and/or women in their 50’s and 60’s being this way.

It will not matter if a plausible pathway by which the first life forms “could” have emerged are discovered ~ progress and advancement sure, if that would even be ethical ~ but would not resolve anything for the immature us vs them paradigm. What are you or anyone going to win, Jose? Will you enter the pearly gates and be given white robes, get on your knees and worship your favorite scientist idols for all of eternity?
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
Oh Tas ~ why are you claiming knowledge you don’t possess? “Your middle eastern religion” ~ not much integrity on your end, seeing I never once mentioned “middle eastern beliefs” nor do I even have those. Too funny ~ keep practicing your middle eastern beliefs of what Muhammad and others have said to do though in attacking, shunning, embarrassing others though.<snip>What are you or anyone going to win, Jose? Will you enter the pearly gates and be given white robes, get on your knees and worship your favorite scientist idols for all of eternity?
Duh.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
In the context of this discussion, they most certainly are. If you disagree, point to any supernatural mechanism that's been employed in any origins research.


That's not at all applicable and I would think you'd be reluctant to cite such a ridiculous straw man (hint: chemistry is non-random).

By your reasoning, there is no such thing as "natural chemistry" since humans can synthesize just about any molecule/compound in a laboratory. For example, does the fact that humans can synthesize water molecules by sparking mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen mean that water is a non-natural molecule that can only be created by "intelligence"?

What a chemist can do is arrange the circumstances for a
chemical reaction. Dry the matches before trying to light
them, say.
That done, the ions and molecules have to take it
from there. You cannot push them together like legos.

Our friend is complaining of artificial conditions
(that might mimic the conditions under which life started)
but applying an artificial distinction between "natural"
and "unnatural" chemistry

He might have the makings of a good thesis for his
graduate degree in biochem, but then, it might also
be that ifn he tried to present this in his thesis defense,
he would soon be stumbling, shamefaced, from the
room. No PhD for this disgraceful sham!

Of course, the committee would have been composed of
charter members of the WWCOSSTSSTTOG,*
who were not about to let the word get out
that unnatural chemistry is the secret of life.

*world wide committee of satanic scientists to
suppress the truth of god
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Do you consider the fact that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to make a molecule of water a function of randomness? Or are you aware that there are natural attractive forces involved?

We have seen that to a creo, the words "random",
and "proof" have special creo-meanings, neither of
which is recognized by any scientist, mathematician, or
for that matter, dictionary.

There are many peculiarities to their universe.

The 2LOT has new characteristics.
Order simply cannot emerge from chaos,
for example, and 2lot makes evolution impossible.

But a wind wafting excess flood water to Neptune
not only is possible, that is what happened.

Someone should write a guide to creo-physics.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Oh Tas ~ why are you claiming knowledge you don’t possess?
Show that I claimed decades of study on it, please.
“Your middle eastern beliefs” ~ not much integrity on your end, seeing I never once mentioned “middle eastern beliefs” nor do I even have those.
Golly.... Where was Christianity born?
Too funny ~ keep practicing your middle eastern beliefs of what Muhammad and others have said to do though in attacking, shunning, embarrassing others though.
I have no middle eastern beliefs. What a stupid thing to write - out of desperation, to be sure, bust stupid still.
Again ~ why are you claiming knowledge you do not possess? “Just admit you will never accept any evidence of anything” ~ Tas, I have the same evidence as you do.
No, I don;t think you do.
You’re just a hypocrite, with no integrity yourself, and have given all the evidence one needs as to see why you’re not a very logical judge on things. Reply if you’d like ~ but no more responses. Pretender exposed.
Cool retorts. Pity that it is clear that they are out of ignroance and desperation.
Not everyone is in the immature us vs them, winner and loser paradigm.
Creationists sure seem to be.

And that is why people like you refuse to condemn fellow creationists that get caught lying or embellishing their claims to knowlegde that the facts show they do not possess.

Why do you enable such activity?
Or that the two could never in no way be compatible in many ways.
It’s funny seeing “alleged” grown men and/or women in their 50’s and 60’s being this way.
Claiming to have 4 decades of study re: evolution and writing things like:

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

I know - why do creationists do that, do you suppose?
Will you enter the pearly gates and be given white robes, get on your knees and worship your favorite scientist idols for all of eternity?

Ancient middle eastern fairy tales in action.

Another disingenuous, dishonest 'debater'.

Why do you enable lying for Jesus? Is it because you understand that this is the only way your tales can survive? Via fibs?
 
It goes pretty much like this ~

Someone says these words ~
"Analysis of DNA shows very little similarity, in the actual genes.”

Then there is a law that someone MUST accept their interpretation of DNA and genetic evidence or face the wrath and bullying of Muhammad (and Tas) and get embarrassed, demeaned, shunned, kicked out of the scientific church, and psychologically attacked ~ perhaps eternal scientific torment at stake after death.

We have 50-60 year olds doing this and telling others to grow up ~ and believe this Muhammad and Tas character and behavior should be enabled.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Not everyone is in the immature us vs them, winner and loser paradigm. Or that the two could never in no way be compatible in many ways.
It’s funny seeing “alleged” grown men and/or women in their 50’s and 60’s being this way.
I agree. The creationists seem rather desperate to frame this issue in a "heads we win, tails you lose" manner.

It will not matter if a plausible pathway by which the first life forms “could” have emerged are discovered ~ progress and advancement sure, if that would even be ethical
Ethical? What would be unethical about scientists discovering such a pathway?

~ but would not resolve anything for the immature us vs them paradigm. What are you or anyone going to win, Jose? Will you enter the pearly gates and be given white robes, get on your knees and worship your favorite scientist idols for all of eternity?
Sorry, but you must have me confused with someone else.
 
Top