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.