- Jul 3, 2004
- 4,571
- 393
- 61
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
Yet many many creationists regularly continue to make this claim even when they know better. And many creationists still today complain about things said by the late Stephen J. Gould back thirty years ago, as if that were still current. They also still complain about Piltdown man and Ernst Haeckel's exaggurated embryo drawings from a century ago, even though it has always been the evolutionists themselves who route and expose every fraud in their own ranks; while creationism has always relied on fraud entirely for all of its own support!Tiberius said:Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB910: "No new species have been observed."...this statement made by Dr. Henry Morris is about 20 years old, we now know it to be false,
Now this was funny! Creationism can only survive by spreading falsehoods; it is falsehood! It is based on a series of foundational fibs perpetuated by 'professional' creationists who know their own claims are false and often even admit as much, in addition to many other claims which they won't admit to, but which we can still prove they know are lies: Evolution doesn't include the origin of life, nor the origin of the universe; It isn't 'anti-theistic', or 'damnable' if believed. It isn't "just a theory", and it doesn't promote "godless humanism", nor any other philosophy, nor sexual orientation either. It has nothing to do with promiscuity or racism, or abortion, or any other moral or criminal issue. Evolution isn't a religion or a political position. The Nazis didn't know squat about how evolution worked, and never even tried to employ it; and Darwin never 'recanted' it either. Evolution never implies one thing giving birth to another, fundamentally different thing, and it doesn't say God didn't do it. It isn't losing support among scientists, and you don't have to reject evolution to be a 'true' Christian. In fact, most Christians are evolutionists, and most evolutionists are Christian! Even macro-evolution has been directly-observed many times over. We have myriad transitional intermediates from an abundant fossil record to show for just about any lineage you'd care to talk about, and there are no more significant links still "missing" from the human evolutionary chain. Yet creationists commonly -even regularly claim otherwise in every case, and they continue to say these things even after they've been shown proof that each of their claims are wrong. Creationism isn't about truth by any stretch, and it interested in knowledge either. Its about believing what they wanna believe even when they know that's not what the truth really is.please stop spreading falsehoods about creationism in general.
Many times now I have challenged others to present even one credible proponant of evangelical creationism because I maintain that there has never been a single tenable advocate of creation science anywhere ever. Every last one of them who has ever published antievolutionary rhetoric has revealed inexcuseable ignorance of the very topics where they claim expertise, as well as demonstrating a gross misunderstanding of the form and function of science itself, and even theology too! All of them have distorted data, relied on logical fallacies, emotional pleas, parody, and sensationalist propaganda, and/or purposefully misrepresented the arguments they pretend to refute. Creationism has naught but the lies of confidence men seeking to promote themselves, and to sell their videos and receive their "prayer gifts" from a manipulated audience whom they'd rather keep as gullible as possible. If you can think of one exception to this rule, name him, and give me a relevant citation from him to prove it. Show me one actual factual argument for creationism which you think you can defend as such on scientific grounds.
I'm betting that the best you could ever list will amount to no more than empty criticisms of evolution; criticisms which were either fallatious from the start, or otherwise known to be false (probably even before they were claimed) and are at least by now already-disproved beyond hope of resuscitation here; But I'm certain you can produce nothing which offers positive support for the notion of intelligent design creationism, nor even anything which legitimately implies that as a general conclusion over the scientific perspective. Why? Because evolution is evidently at least basically true, while creationism is not only profoundly (if not entirely) false, but necessarily deliberately dishonest to boot.