Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[Dan From Smithville]

You feel the need to defend yourself, why? I obviously don't care what you do with your own time. But Creationist points are very overused, over done, and you could fill volumes with all that has been written about debunking them. They've not changed at all in the ~16 years since I left.

Funny. I just said something to that effect about creationist arguments. Good to see corroboration of my observations.

I don't know if defense is the best description. More like field testing arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You feel the need to defend yourself, why? I obviously don't care what you do with your own time. But Creationist points are very overused, over done, and you could fill volumes with all that has been written about debunking them. They've not changed at all in the ~16 years since I left.

You misunderstand. Sometimes, sadly it has been very rarely lately, to debate with someone I am forced to learn something that I did not know before. I profit from learning new things.

Also very rarely I find that I am wrong. Unlike most debaters I do tend to read the links provided by those opposing me. As a result I found over time that my opposition to the concept of AGW was incorrect. And one site where I did change over I had to repeatedly respond when people asked about my change with "Yep, I was wrong". That and DDWFTTW were the only two main times that I have been wrong. I have been wrong about minor points of science many times. But like I said, I learn as I go along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a good point. It does learning and helps focus and refine arguments. It also gives insight into the objections, though I am finding more and more that they are largely the same debunked objections repeated over again for decades.

Unfortunately that is the case. It has been over a year since I had to stretch myself in any way at all. Possibly years. Hope burns eternal.

 

[Prestor John]

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)!

Thanks for the anecdotal.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Eh? I am not quoting from anything.

Your thinking seems terribly muddled. You are now veering from evolution to the origin of life, which is quite another subject. (For instance, we have a theory of evolution. We have, as yet, no theory for the origin of life.) The confusion between these two is, incidentally, also very characteristic of creationists.

As is your next confusion, which is the mistaken notion that models in science are "proved". Quantum theory is not proved, nor is the kinetic theory of gases, nor is plate tectonics. There is strong evidence for them, but that is is not proof, since it is always logically possible that we may one day find a new class of observation that conflicts with these models. Exactly the same goes for evolution too. The distinction you try to make between this and the rest of science is quite imaginary.

One reason why those of us with a science education find creationists so tiresome is that they persistently criticise science from a position of ignorance about what science actually says. If only they would do a bit of reading, half these discussions would not be necessary.

 

[tas8831]

They make the best arguments against their own assertions.

Genome pairs. It almost sounds like it means something useful.

"Genetic walls"

 

[tas8831]

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.

Exactly.
Reading ICR/AIG/DI garbage for any length of time is virtually guaranteed to produce individuals that both INSIST that they are 'well read' and 'know the material' AND that are spectacularly ignorant of the basics.

 

[tas8831]

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.

So, you're saying it is cool for creationists to boast of phony knowledge and really don't need to know anything? Just make fools of themselves for Jesus?
Cool insights. You must be so proud.

If that is the case., why do so many creationists end up making complete fools of themselves in these debates? Why do so many creationists write totally stupid things like:


"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."


Is THAT because so little is known about abiogenesis??

No - it is because creationism either draws in arrogant blowhards who actually know next to nothing about the entire field of biology, or turns otherwise sensible people into braindead sheep for Jesus (or maybe a little of both).

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.

And that is your problem.

Who better to have expertise on evolution than a creationist microbiologist....

 

[tas8831]

To be an informed and intellectually honest
creationist is simply impossible.

Agreed.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Matches my experience pretty well. A mere handful are 'good people' - the rest? Hate-filled, arrogant, greedy, ignorant (proudly so), etc...

 

[tas8831]

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.

Wait - you mean the "Christian" pretending to know things he doesn't, and who lambasted all of us for 'namecalling', called em names? Oh, the hurt of it all!

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.

Indeed.
The truth hurts the self-righteous zealot.

 

[tas8831]

Thanks for the anecdotal.

Thanks for ignoring the insidious ignorance of your fellow 'Christians'.

 

[tas8831]

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?

LOLL!

This is exactly the sort of thing we are talking about...

Try this -

If the Bible is the TRUTH, why are Judaism and Christianity just mere beliefs? Plain old "religions", like, you know, how so many Cristian creationists like to call evolution to bring it down to their level?

Like in a thread started by a creationist with this title:

"Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based"

Or when noted Scripture-based racist Dr. Henry M. Morris says "Evolution is Religion and not Science" as linked by a creationist on this forum.

It is so funny to me to see creationists denigrate their own precious beliefs in order to attack evolution!

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.

Amazing argument!

Funny thing - you didn't bother to read any of the documentation accompanying your special pie chart, did you? Because, you see, there are Nobels awarded for Peace, Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Economics and Literature.

And beyond that, please tell us which of those Christian 'scientists' won a Nobel Prize for work in evolutionary biology?

You've heard the phrase apples and oranges maybe?

 

[tas8831]

So does abiogenesis

Please explain what abiogenesis has to do with

1. evolution and

2. creationists claiming decades of study yet writing totally stupid things like:

"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."

 

[tas8831]

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.

Your implicit defense of 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."​

tells me your opinions are worthless.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Are you ufan's mom or something?

 

[tas8831]

I tried asking questions to help him clarify this and all I got was evasion, twisting and religious persecution.

From a Christian creationist with reams of 'common sense'???? Say it ain't so!

 

[tas8831]

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.

Agreed - yet, in my experience, so many of the more vocal ones imply or state outright that they ARE 'better' than others. They take their cues from charlatans, that is for sure.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

Your implicit defense of 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."​

tells me your opinions are worthless.

You seemed to have forgotten the rest of what you said ~ why so?

 

[Uncommon Sense]

Are you ufan's mom or something?

Looking for more applause, pats on the back from the choir?