Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[shmogie]

No. As it stands, in regards to earth, the question remains unanswered.

So does abiogenesis

 

[Uncommon Sense]

You are asking too much.
They have no facts on their side.
To be an informed and intellectually honest
creationist is simply impossible.

It’s all too hilarious. Wasting portions of 25 years of life for something that is meaningless, outside of perhaps the need to win absolutely nothing, the need for pats on the back from the choir, the need to call others pathetic and tell others to grow up. Consciously or unconsciously knowing that all of his needs to feel and do all of that wouldn’t even occur without opposition. All of the intellectual dishonesty going into every argument for 25 years ~ already knowing not a single thing will satisfy, already knowing that every “creationist” evolved to be a “creationist” due to their biological genes, racial memory, determinism, etc. It’s just 25 years of hypocritical, intellectually dishonest meaninglessness.

 

[shmogie]

It’s all too hilarious. Wasting portions of 25 years of life for something that is meaningless, outside of perhaps the need to win absolutely nothing, the need for pats on the back from the choir, the need to call others pathetic and tell others to grow up. Consciously or unconsciously knowing that all of his needs to feel and do all of that wouldn’t even occur without opposition. All of the intellectual dishonesty going into every argument for 25 years ~ already knowing not a single thing will satisfy, already knowing that every “creationist” evolved to be a “creationist” due to their biological genes, racial memory, determinism, etc. It’s just 25 years of hypocritical, intellectually dishonest meaninglessness.

Who determines what is meaningless ? I do agree with your last sentence though.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

Who determines what is meaningless ? I do agree with your last sentence though.

I suppose you’ll have to ask the writer the meaningfulness behind having to win and be right, name call, be dishonest in debating already knowing not a single thing will satisfy them, and what’s at stake ~ whether scientific eternal heaven or scientific eternal hellfire, or whatever else awaits after passing on. Maybe there is a determined meaninglessness gene or meaningfulness gene that evolved in each “who.”
Since they’re the expert at evolution, perhaps they know when the “creationist” gene evolved and take it upon themselves to debate against evolution, and this gene surviving.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So does abiogenesis

I'm not sure what you mean, as its not known if life on earth had a biogenesis or abiogenesis.

 

[exchemist]

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.

There is (surprise, surprise) a classic creationist error in your third sentence. Everything in science is a theory. Evolution is a theory in just the same way as quantum theory or the theory of plate tectonics, or the kinetic theory of gases.

In science, a "theory" does not mean just a "hunch" or "guess", as some people use the term in popular speech. A scientific theory is a model of some aspect of the physical world, that enables us to fit observations into a pattern and predict what further observations should be expected.

As for God, science has no opinion whatsoever about God, one way or the other. Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. This way of proceeding is called "methodological naturalism" and you can look it up on the internet if you want to understand more about what it is, and what it is not.

Whether you are a religious believer or not has no bearing on what science you can do, as in fact your pie chart seems to illustrate.

All that being said, creationism, which is what the OP is about, is not scientific for the simple reason that it (i) does not follow the scientific method and (ii) offers no predictive model based on observation. It is purely a religious belief.

 

[Audie]

It’s all too hilarious. Wasting portions of 25 years of life for something that is meaningless, outside of perhaps the need to win absolutely nothing, the need for pats on the back from the choir, the need to call others pathetic and tell others to grow up. Consciously or unconsciously knowing that all of his needs to feel and do all of that wouldn’t even occur without opposition. All of the intellectual dishonesty going into every argument for 25 years ~ already knowing not a single thing will satisfy, already knowing that every “creationist” evolved to be a “creationist” due to their biological genes, racial memory, determinism, etc. It’s just 25 years of hypocritical, intellectually dishonest meaninglessness.

I am afraid you are just too wonderful for me to
even risk reading your entire post, I may sully
it with my imperfect appreciation.

 

[Audie]

Not a record but not bad.
25 posts and off to ig city.

Now, on topic more or less-

Would one of our cteos care to
Finally tell us ONE (1) actual fact
that disproves ToE?

Haha. Fat chance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Dismissing or trivializing scientific explanation as "just" a theory is popular along with demonizing and mischaracterizing people supporting science by referring to them as evolutionists/Darwinists.

Interesting. To me creation science has always meant trying to use the Bible in some pseudoscientific way to explain creation, existence, evolution and specific mythological events. The conflation I am familiar with is mixing the origin of life with the evolution of life.

In general terms, any science that conflicts with religious views has always been denied on ideological grounds, but never successfully on scientific grounds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Does someone else want to field this and address all these erroneous notions? I tried asking questions to help him clarify this and all I got was evasion, twisting and religious persecution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

The only thing that can be said about the origin of life is that we do not know what it is. That it is currently unknown in science does is not an opening for any default belief to fill the gap and claim to be the correct answer without evidence.

I bet none of his actual science papers use his creationism in any way.

I know some microbiologists too. Molecular biologists. Paleontologists. Geologists. Geneticists. And a whole bunch of others. They have different beliefs. None of them cite their beliefs to support their science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

That is what I believe some of them have done. They did not seek credible sources, but found people just like themselves, but reporting on science as if they understood it and were offering valid review of the work when neither was correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

That may only mean that they are not very good Christians. Being Christian is not a panacea against ignorance, bias, or bad acts. The default position of a Christian is not perfection.

 

[3rdAngel]

There is (surprise, surprise) a classic creationist error in your third sentence. Everything in science is a theory. Evolution is a theory in just the same way as quantum theory or the theory of plate tectonics, or the kinetic theory of gases.

In science, a "theory" does not mean just a "hunch" or "guess", as some people use the term in popular speech. A scientific theory is a model of some aspect of the physical world, that enables us to fit observations into a pattern and predict what further observations should be expected.

As for God, science has no opinion whatsoever about God, one way or the other. Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. This way of proceeding is called "methodological naturalism" and you can look it up on the internet if you want to understand more about what it is, and what it is not.

Whether you are a religious believer or not has no bearing on what science you can do, as in fact your pie chart seems to illustrate.

All that being said, creationism, which is what the OP is about, is not scientific for the simple reason that it (i) does not follow the scientific method and (ii) offers no predictive model based on observation. It is purely a religious belief.

Your post does not respond to what you are quoting from. All I have read from the posts in this thread so far are people making claims to seek to justify the concepts of evolution that do not actually prove evolution. Science in itself is constantly evolving for this reason what we may find as evidence and proof today within science can be proven false tommorrow. Even within science itself there are many conflicting evidences for the questions and hypothesis that have been promoted that scientists argue between themselves as being true or not true through experimentation.

Our current scientific understanding of genetics alone does not disprove creation and our understanding of genetics without the context of all living and physical sciences collectively as an integrated whole (the big picture as a whole) needs to be understood and weaved into this whole discussion. Most scientists are specialists in speicfic scientific disciplines. Now who has the big picture and understands the origin of life? No one in this thread so far from what I have read has put up a single bit of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and the origin of life. That is why it remains to be a theory as it is unproven and provides no evidence to support or define the origin of life.

If we were to ever come to an understanding through science of the origin of life we will be able to demonstrate and replicate life. At the moment it is all unproven theory as no one has been able to create life in science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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)!

I see that you have already been made fun of with a pointless argument about the effort you have expended in defense of reason is wasted. Oh, the names for you did fly. Hypocrite. Intellectually dishonest. Meaningless.

Not one of those was fair and accurate. As a Christian, I am floored by the idea that people would seek to demonize a person that is seeking to know more about the world around them. Especially coming from people that either appear to be Christian or claim to be Christian. Why is it important? Why is not bearing false witness important? Why is it important to posters that turn to that in an effort to win the argument that they claim there is no prize for in winning?

You sure got a lot of confirmation to support your claim and all you did was cast a little observation on the waters.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Your post does not respond to what you are quoting from. All I have read from the posts in this thread so far are people making claims to seek to justify the concepts of evolution that do not actually prove evolution. Science in itself is constantly evolving for this reason what we may find as evidence and proof today within science can be proven false tommorrow. Even within science itself there are many conflicting evidences for the questions and hypothesis that have been promoted that scientists argue between themselves as being true or not true through experimentation.

Our current scientific understanding of genetics alone does not disprove creation and our understanding of genetics without the context of all living and physical sciences collectively as an integrated whole (the big picture as a whole) needs to be understood and weaved into this whole discussion. Most scientists are specialists in speicfic scientific disciplines. Now who has the big picture and understands the origin of life? No one in this thread so far from what I have read has put up a single bit of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and the origin of life. That is why it remains to be a theory as it is unproven and provides no evidence to support or define the origin of life.

If we were to ever come to an understanding through science of the origin of life we will be able to demonstrate and replicate life. At the moment it is all unproven theory as no one has been able to create life in science.

How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch

Every decade science is getting closer closer to answering the fundamentals. I suspect it won't be long.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your post does not respond to what you are quoting from. All I have read from the posts in this thread so far are people making claims to seek to justify the concepts of evolution that do not actually prove evolution. Science in itself is constantly evolving for this reason what we may find as evidence and proof today within science can be proven false tommorrow. Even within science itself there are many conflicting evidences for the questions and hypothesis that have been promoted that scientists argue between themselves as being true or not true through experimentation.

Our current scientific understanding of genetics alone does not disprove creation and our understanding of genetics without the context of all living and physical sciences collectively as an integrated whole (the big picture as a whole) needs to be understood and weaved into this whole discussion. Most scientists are specialists in speicfic scientific disciplines. Now who has the big picture and understands the origin of life? No one in this thread so far from what I have read has put up a single bit of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and the origin of life. That is why it remains to be a theory as it is unproven and provides no evidence to support or define the origin of life.

If we were to ever come to an understanding through science of the origin of life we will be able to demonstrate and replicate life. At the moment it is all unproven theory.

Where did you get the idea that there was an effort in science to establish proofs?

What is it about evolution and the origin of life that makes you think they are the same thing?

What do you mean by evidence being proven false?

What are examples of evidence within science that you consider to be causing such conflict that we cannot except the theory of evolution as a the explanation for the evidence?

Where did you get the idea that some or all of science is directed to proving or disproving God? What evidence do you have to support the assertion that leads to your claim regarding the state of knowledge in genetics?

What do you mean about all science being woven collectively into a whole to support an understanding of genetics. What aspects of genetics do you see as needing this global support for understanding?

Based on all the evidence, no one knows what the origin of life is. We do not know if it is a natural origin or if it is a divine origin. We do not have any evidence that it occurred as it is described in Genesis and there is much evidence that contradicts that particular version, though I know that it is often deified and viewed as immutable. Do you have evidence that Genesis occurred as described and what explanations do you have for the evidence that contradicts Genesis so that it is now in line with Genesis?

Abiogenesis is a set of hypotheses that remain entirely or partly untested. All that is known with any certainty is that there is no evidence that precludes the origin of life from occurring due to natural laws.

The theory of evolution is the most well-supported theory in science and more evidence exists on its behalf than any other theory of science. The theory of gravity that is widely accepted does not have an equal volume of evidence supporting it and there are many aspects of gravity that we do not understand. Are you saying that we should reject the former, but continue to accept the latter or should we reject both, since, by your standard, neither of them can be proved.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am afraid you are just too wonderful for me to
even risk reading your entire post, I may sully
it with my imperfect appreciation.

Perhaps it was all projection and does not require a response.

 

[3rdAngel]

How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch

Every decade science is getting closer closer to answering the fundamentals. I suspect it won't be long.

Did you read the article your linked? You did not did you. This is not life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you read the article your linked? You did not did you. This is not life.

I believe if you read his post, you will find the words life-like and getting closer, not life and know the answer.