Evolutionists - What do you know about Creationism?

[fantome profane]

I have read books by creationists like Johnathen Wells, Henry Morris, Hugh Ross. I have also read dozens of creationist articles on the web from sites like AIG. I have read books on creationism by non-creationist authors like Dawkins, Miller, Ruse. I have studied biology and mythology.

I consider myself well versed in the subject of creationism. I often feel that I am better able to present creationist arguments the most of the creationists we get on this board. Don't take my word for it, test me.

So now eselam, I think it is only fair that you come clean and tell us how much do you know about creationism?

 

[Me Myself]

In the recent thread about humans being animals, it has become apparent (to me at least) that evolutionists have no idea about what creationism teaches.

When a creationist rejects evolution, then the creationist is ignorant of evolution that's why he rejects it. And actually anyone who does rejected is labeled as being ignorant of evolution.

Well I have a question, how much do you as an evolutionist know about creation to come to the conclusion that it isn't true?

Having read the Bible or OT and NT doesn't count as having studied creation. It just counts as having read the Bible.

By all means educate me.

What is there to know about creationism besides "It is really smart, and I don't know how to explain it, so poof! Gogdidit!"

I am serious. Teach me. All I have heard has been variables of that and failed attempts to disprove evolution and win by default (even when this dosn't work in science)

So by all means. Teach me creationism. I am listening.(well, reading )

 

[Father Heathen]

So far knowledge of Creationism = 0 :rolleyes

Could you tell us what was wrong with revoltingest's answer, and why?

 

[painted wolf]

I have read various works written by creationists... including "Harun Yahya's" Atlas of Creation... a hefty tome that was quite a chore to lug the couple miles home.

I have listened to talks given by creationist spokespersons from Kent Hovend and Ken Ham to the bannana guy and the peanut butter guy.

Plus, I've talked with creationists on this forum... and I was very sympathetic to ID when the idea was first floated in the 1980's.

I'm also very keen on origin myths from various cultures around the world. You can learn a lot about a culture by studying their origin myths.

wa:do

 

[Skwim]

In the recent thread about humans being animals, it has become apparent (to me at least) that evolutionists have no idea about what creationism teaches.

Simply "evolutionists"? Not, "Many evolutionists"? or "some evolutionists "? Wow! that's quite a generalization from reading just one thread on one religious web site.

When a creationist rejects evolution, then the creationist is ignorant of evolution that's why he rejects it.

Not true at all. Some creationists, not many, know quite a bit about evolution, but reject it because it conflicts with their necessary beliefs.

And actually anyone who does rejected is labeled as being ignorant of evolution.

Again, not true. Some are labeled "god-struck blind," such as those I just alluded to.

Well I have a question, how much do you as an evolutionist know about creation to come to the conclusion that it isn't true?

Personally, enough.

Having read the Bible or OT and NT doesn't count as having studied creation. It just counts as having read the Bible.

First true claim you made here. :clap2:

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't know about that. The only "arguments" they have are those by YEC's and ID's.

Actually very, very few creationists, just writing about the same things over and over again.

Even the "major" Islamitic creationists use exactly the same arguments. It's all on a few web-sites; all using the same "arguments". Very little in geology, anyway.

Claiming that "all those sedimentary basins indicate a flood" somehow; fossils "on" the Himalayas; Coccolites somewhere in some deposit in America, A mini-Grand Canyon after Mount St. Helens; global stories about a flood; "assumptions" on "carbon dating". Oh, and don't forget, their version of the "geological column". That's about it.

Very, very little. And they just lie about everything in every single one of these. That's it.

Really, they have nothing. To a person who doesn't know anything, it might seems like something. To a geologist; just the ravings of a mad person.

Thus the "former"

 

[Gharib]

Could you tell us what was wrong with revoltingest's answer, and why?

Actually thanks for pointing that out. I read it once again and some of what he says is true, some is not. Why not? Because there is evidence.

The score should have actually been 1 instead of 0 due to his contribution.

 

[Gharib]

Thanks to all those who took the time to answer the OP. I have been surprised a little.

I probably should not go into the evo-creation debate. I't good to leave it at just a question.

One thing I will mention which Revoltingest mentioned and that's that creationists do accept micro 'evolution' (changes) but not macro evolution.

When I think about it, the reasoning of "we have a common ancestor with chimps because of our similarities" seems quite flawed to me. But then again what do I know, I'm a creationists right?

 

[Caladan]

When I think about it, the reasoning of "we have a common ancestor with chimps because of our similarities" seems quite flawed to me. But then again what do I know, I'm a creationists right?

You already told us you know nothing about biology or evolutionary biology (your words). And yet you reject it and argue against it.
Well since you reject it, you must studied and understood the alternative.
So what do you know about Creationism? what books do you read? did you take any courses?
Really, give us anything to work with.

 

[Fiddler]

My concerns about evolution are ;

* missing sub forms
* kolekanth fish ,no change for 2 millions

 

[painted wolf]

My concerns about evolution are ;

* missing sub forms
* kolekanth fish ,no change for 2 millions

But we have lot's of "sub forms" (I'm assuming you mean transitional forms) and the modern Coelacanth are quite different from their ancestors.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually thanks for pointing that out. I read it once again and some of what he says is true, some is not. Why not? Because there is evidence.
The score should have actually been 1 instead of 0 due to his contribution.

Woo hoo!
But nothing I say is "true".
Tis just my opinion.
Let me modify my use of "evidence" to be "convincing evidence in a cogent argument".

 

[McBell]

Let me modify my use of "evidence" to be "convincing evidence in a cogent argument".

why not simply specify "objective empirical evidence"?

Interesting how that phrase is completely ignored by creationists.

 

[Revoltingest]

why not simply specify "objective empirical evidence"?

For the evidence to play a role in a cogent argument is crucial.

Interesting how that phrase is completely ignored by creationists.

It's to be expected, since their argument is faith based.

 

[Me Myself]

By all means educate me.

What is there to know about creationism besides "It is really smart, and I don't know how to explain it, so poof! Godidit!"

I am serious. Teach me. All I have heard has been variables of that and failed attempts to disprove evolution and win by default (even when this dosn't work in science)

So by all means. Teach me creationism. I am listening.(well, reading )

Educate me? no one?

Wasn't there so much I needed to learn?

Teach me.

 

[Gharib]

Mestemia here is some of that empirical evidence that you and others have been asking for:

Posted same thing on the other thread:

As pointed out there are different concepts of creationism.

The one which I believe in says that we were created from water and clay.

Doesn't science say that the human body is mostly water?

 

[McBell]

Mestemia here is some of that empirical evidence that you and others have been asking for:

Posted same thing on the other thread:

As pointed out there are different concepts of creationism.

The one which I believe in says that we were created from water and clay.

Doesn't science say that the human body is mostly water?

perhaps it would help if you knew what "objective empirical evidence" meant....

 

[A Troubled Man]

The one which I believe in says that we were created from water and clay.

Doesn't science say that the human body is mostly water?

But, there is no clay in humans.

 

[A Troubled Man]

One thing I will mention which Revoltingest mentioned and that's that creationists do accept micro 'evolution' (changes) but not macro evolution.

So, you accept one process which is essentially identical to the other with only time being the relevant difference. LOL!

 

[Me Myself]

By all means educate me.

What is there to know about creationism besides "It is really smart, and I don't know how to explain it, so poof! Gogdidit!"

I am serious. Teach me. All I have heard has been variables of that and failed attempts to disprove evolution and win by default (even when this dosn't work in science)

So by all means. Teach me creationism. I am listening.(well, reading )

Educate me? no one?

Wasn't there so much I needed to learn?

Teach me.

If no one teaches me anything about creationism I will be inclined to assume you have nothing to teach