99 Quotes against "Evolution"?

[shernren]

With this sort of rubbish, does AiG really expect to get any credibility?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3880.asp

 

[Gwenyfur]

I must admit that there are a lot of weird quotes that seem to make no sense... but this one:

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”

really makes me wonder about what's going on in American classrooms...

 

[Mallon]

They had better be careful. If amassing quotes counted as evidence, there is bound to be thousands more out there contra creationism.

 

[Willtor]

With this sort of rubbish, does AiG really expect to get any credibility?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3880.asp

Good thing they don't let their bias unduly influence their research.

Gwenyfur, I like your fuzzy dice.

 

[Crusadar]

shernren said: With this sort of rubbish, does AiG really expect to get any credibility?

And your point being? It really depends on what one means by rubbish and credible - after all one man's junk might be another man's treasure and one man's credibility may be another one's shame.

 

[The Lady Kate]

shernren said: With this sort of rubbish, does AiG really expect to get any credibility?

And your point being? It really depends on what one means by rubbish and credible - after all one man's junk might be another man's treasure and one man's credibility may be another one's shame.

...and sometimes junk is just plain junk.

 

[Crusadar]

The Lady Kate said: ...and sometimes junk is just plain junk.

Agreed - evolution fits the term "junk" quite well - don't you think.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Good thing they don't let their bias unduly influence their research.

Gwenyfur, I like your fuzzy dice.

Thanks....dunno who sent them to me...but I was thinking of putting them in my car ROFL

 

[Dannager]

The Lady Kate said: ...and sometimes junk is just plain junk.

Agreed - evolution fits the term "junk" quite well - don't you think.

Sure...if you're completely ignorant of what biological evolution is and how it works.

 

[Athene]

I can't really blame AiG for what they are trying to do, looking at some of those quote made me quite sad, full of pity really.

Quotes like this.

“Christianity is - must be! totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul against the theory of evolution.” G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 19

and this

“The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.” G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

It's sad that despite giving lip service to christianity being a way of life, and about a relationship with God, there are still people who make christianity into a religion where one must believe certain thing in order to be saved. If your entire faith is based on giving intellectual asent to a series of unlikely statements then of course you would violently appose any action which would falsify one of your beliefs, It's like their faith is a house of cards, you move one and the rest come crashing down.

That list of 99 quotes has actually given me alot more compassion for creationists, I never really took into account that maybe their whole faith depends on believing Genesis to be literal and accurate . . . . if that is the case do we who are TE have the right to even try and take that away from them?

 

[muaxiong]

Sure...if you're completely ignorant of what biological evolution is and how it works.

R-i-g-h-t. Knowing in detail the exact order of the blood clotting cascade has little to do with the hypothesis of how such an elaborate process came to be. Knowing the steps of the krebs cycle does little in showing why evolution favored the citric acid cycle as the dominant process for metabolism. In fact knowing anything about biology doesn't give anyone a single clue as it its origin via the goo to you method! But since creationists are such ignoramouses when it comes to biology in terms of evolution - why don't you school us.

 

[vossler]

I never really took into account that maybe their whole faith depends on believing Genesis to be literal and accurate . . . . if that is the case do we who are TE have the right to even try and take that away from them?

What little they do have appears to be misguided in believing the Bible means what it says. Please don't take that away!

 

[Crusadar]

Dannager said: Sure...if you're completely ignorant of what biological evolution is and how it works.

Just exactly how one can tell of anyone's ignorance of anything by a single statement is beyond me. Regardless it has been said therefore a showing of this ignorance is in order.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Just exactly how one can tell of anyone's ignorance of anything by a single statement is beyond me. Regardless it has been said therefore a showing of this ignorance is in order.

Well, if one were to zealously insist that 2+2=5, despite all lessons to the contrary, it would be safe to assume a stunning ignorance of mathematics... and I wouldn't trust anyone who honestly believed 2+2=5 to do any advanced calculus... would you?

 

[muaxiong]

Well, if one were to zealously insist that 2+2=5, despite all lessons to the contrary, it would be safe to assume a stunning ignorance of mathematics... and I wouldn't trust anyone who honestly believed 2+2=5 to do any advanced calculus... would you?

Not surprised at all, the usual TE rant. Now show exactly when and where that has been the case, the exact quote please where any creationist has actually said that 2 and 2 make 5? Still I'm wondering what the heck the sum of 2 and 2 have anything remotely to do with what was being asked that is proof of the "complete ignorance" of creationists of biological evolution.

 

[Crusadar]

Double post.

 

[Crusadar]

The Lady Kate said: Well, if one were to zealously insist that 2+2=5, despite all lessons to the contrary, it would be safe to assume a stunning ignorance of mathematics... and I wouldn't trust anyone who honestly believed 2+2=5 to do any advanced calculus... would you?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry (maybe laugh until I cry) at such an irrelevant response! No creationist I know of would disagree that 2 plus 2 equals anything other than 7! How this addresses the claim that creationists are comlpletely ignorant of biological evolution I am still clueless.

 

[muaxiong]

How this addresses the claim that creationists are comlpletely ignorant of biological evolution I am still clueless.

I'm wondering if TEs understand that evolution is understood by creationists as myself more than they assume that we do. There is after all a difference between a "complete rejection" of something and being "completely ignorant" of it? The logical fallacy of it all is if biological evolutoin was completely ignored by creationists then why are they challenging it? I would much rather call it a different understanding as oppose to being completely ingorant.

 

[Willtor]

I'm wondering if TEs understand that evolution is understood by creationists as myself more than they assume that we do. There is after all a difference between a "complete rejection" of something and being "completely ignorant" of it? The logical fallacy of it all is if biological evolutoin was completely ignored by creationists then why are they challenging it? I would much rather call it a different understanding as oppose to being completely ingorant.

I honestly don't know what you think about evolution. But I think most TE's, here, respond in a particular way because most non-evolutionists who make arguments about evolution, on these forums, don't seem to have a good handle on it. Sometimes they want to see evolution cross "genus boundaries" or some such. Sometimes they wonder why no transitional species have been uncovered. Sometimes they aren't even aware of speciation experiments. At worst, they want to see evidence of evolution that any evolutionist knows would invalidate evolution.

If none of this applies to you, on behalf of TE's, we apologize.

 

[muaxiong]

I honestly don't know what you think about evolution. But I think most TE's, here, respond in a particular way because most non-evolutionists who make arguments about evolution, on these forums, don't seem to have a good handle on it.

It doesn't really matter what I think or know about evolution as much as it matters to me that the level of pride and smugness of those who claim to be right no matter what the facts are - and both sides of the debate are very guilty of this. From experience its been quite clear that no one really likes to be corrected or be told they are wrong when it comes to matters of science particulary in that of evolution.