Another creationist is wrong

[Valkhorn]

Seems like a broken record to keep saying that, but in a Fark.com thread I saw this post by the illustrious Bevets:

Evolutionism: Being as vague and obscure as possible; preventing public from asking questions; discarding any data that is deemed heretical and relying on old book of paraboles for information; reinforcing the already accepted information - condemning those who verify the results; discouraging any re-examining of what we think we know already; conclusion -> evidence.

This pretty much made my jaw drop. This is not the definition of "Evolution". It is actually the definition of Creationism.

Here's why:

"Being as vague and obscure as possible" - I have heard Creationists claim different ages for the Earth, different ways as to how the flood may have happened, and even different literal interpretations of Genesis. Amongst creationists, there is literally no consistency, except that science that contradicts scripture is somehow the enemy.

In fact, I've heard all of these claims from Creationists:

• The earth is 6000 years old
• The earth is 10000 years old
• The earth is both 6000 and 10000 years old
• The earth is 4.5 billion years old and 6100 years old
• All known laws of physics were completely different in the past
• All craters are sinkholes
• The flood water went to mars
• The flood water went to space
• The flood water went underground
• The flood water went into the oceans (where they were to begin with?)
• Dinosaurs were vegetarians
• Dinosaurs were vegetarians then meat eaters
• Dinosaurs may have been vegetairans then meat eaters, we're not sure, but they did breathe fire
• Dinosaurs are still alive today even though no one can prove it
• Man walked with dinosaurs
• Man did not walk with dinosaurs
• Man may have but there is no evidence
• Man did and the evidence is a dried piece of mud
• Greenland popped off of the Earth and flipped
• The core of the earth is a sapphire
• The core of the earth is gold
• The core of the earth is liquid hydrogen gold sapphired diamonds
• The Earth is flat
• The Earth is round and no one ever thought the earth was flat even though the hebrews used to think this
• Noah had dinosaurs on the ark
• Noah did not have dinosaurs on the ark
• Noah wanted to be called Loretta (ok I added that one)
• There were two of each 'kind'
• There were seven of each 'kind'
• Evolution happened in the 6000 years
• Evolution didn't happen in the 6000 years
• Evolution only happens in kinds
• We don't know what kinds really are

The list goes on. Is that vague and unclear or what?

"discarding any data that is deemed heretical and relying on old book of paraboles for information" - So I guess Creationism doesn't rely on an old book of parables for information? And how many people were deemed Heretics by the Church for saying the world was round, and not the center of the solar system/universe? I can think of some names.

"reinforcing the already accepted information" - I'm not even sure what this means, however questioning a Creationist is like talking to a brick wall which leads to...

"condemning those who verify the results" - How many times have Creationists condemned us for verifying that they are completely wrong? I lost count.

"discouraging any re-examining of what we think we know already" - Exactly. You dare not question a Creationist. They will not listen, will never consider themselves to be wrong even though they can't even agree with each other, and frankly don't even want to listen to the other side of the coin.

"conclusion -> evidence." - This is the very definition of Creationism. Creationists claim to have the conclusion before they even have the evidence. That's backasswards if you ask me.

So really, to correct his statement:

Creationism: Being as vague and obscure as possible; preventing public from asking questions; discarding any data that is deemed heretical and relying on old book of paraboles for information; reinforcing the already accepted information - condemning those who verify the results; discouraging any re-examining of what we think we know already; conclusion -> evidence.

And Evolution?

Evolution: Being as specific as possible. All claims are verified with data and peer-reviewed and published publicly. Any data in contradiction to an idea is accepted and verified and scrutinized and accepted into the general theory even if it means changing it quite a bit. It is not based on a book or a person, it is an idea and theory based on 150+ years of evidence both geological and biological. It is publised in thousands of books and papers and accepted by millions of scientists. Re-examination is encouraged and accepted as it is the only way to know if the theory holds. Evidence leads to conclusion

It just boggles me how Creationists can be so blind. How can they criticize Evolution for doing exactly what they do - even though Evolution is not what they claim it is.

And, as a final thought, I really wish Creationists would learn what Evolution and Science is and what it isn't. Maybe if they did they wouldn't have such a problem with it anymore.

 

[Hydra009]

"Being as vague and obscure as possible" - I have heard Creationists claim different ages for the Earth, different ways as to how the flood may have happened, and even different literal interpretations of Genesis. Amongst creationists, there is literally no consistency, except that science that contradicts scripture is somehow the enemy.

Don't forget ID-brand creationism, where the gameplan is strategic ignorance regarding anything about the designer or its method of designing except a glaringly religious certainty that there is one.

 

[Valkhorn]

Don't forget ID-brand creationism, where the gameplan is strategic ignorance regarding anything about the designer or its method of designing except a glaringly religious certainty that there is one.

Or IDists saying that ID is not religiously based when they openly accept religious donations and religious support from being promoted by Ken Ham of AnswersinGenesis infamy to a board game by Mr. Banana-man Ray Comfort.

It was even determined in a court of law that it wasn't science, and Kansas even had to change the definition of science to include it - yet IDists will try to tell you it is science?

The only consistency with Creationists is that there isn't any consistency. Well that and they're typically wrong.

 

[Dal M.]

At least Bevets used his own words here, even if the idea is unoriginal.

In fact, this sort of projection seems to suffuse the entire creationist movement. Check it out: 17,200 hits on Google for "evolution is a religion," and who knows how many creationists are using the weathered old "it takes more faith to believe in evolution" argument. The absurdity is astonishing. Here we have people whose holy text advises them to "walk by faith" (2 Cor 5:7, for those who're counting) badmouthing the very concept of faith. It's a bizarre sort of self-loathing - it's as if they're acknowledging that science is superior to religion, and if they can't elevate creationism to the level of science, they're content to knock evolution down to the level of religion.

 

[Valkhorn]

In fact, this sort of projection seems to suffuse the entire creationist movement. Check it out: 17,200 hits on Google for "evolution is a religion," and who knows how many creationists are using the weathered old "it takes more faith to believe in evolution" argument. The absurdity is astonishing. Here we have people whose holy text advises them to "walk by faith" (2 Cor 5:7, for those who're counting) badmouthing the very concept of faith. It's a bizarre sort of self-loathing - it's as if they're acknowledging that science is superior to religion, and if they can't elevate creationism to the level of science, they're content to knock evolution down to the level of religion.

Exactly. The level of hypocracy is quite absurd.

In addition, someone posted here just a few days ago how Creationists demand we spoon feed them all this evidence, yet when we do they don't even listen.

Or how many times have they posted the same tired refuted arguments (PRATTs) and didn't even want to discuss or listen to why they are wrong.

Or what about the one word/one line responses to PAGES of hard evidence clearly explained?

Or even having your argument ignored - like this one may very well be.

It is very one-sided. I would love to hear just one valid argument from a Creationist. Just one. Yet I feel they don't want to hear any of our valid arguments.

 

[Cannonflare]

There we go, a flipping greenland.

 

[Valkhorn]

There we go, a flipping greenland.

I can't remember the thread but it was a doozy.

 

[Valkhorn]

You know this list could really grow. There should be a user submitted list of this on wikipedia or something - sourced, too.

 

[Cannonflare]

You can add all of the crazy things sead in "The Matter of Heven" like heven is made out of golden, invisable, Forever gold, the size of the MOO000000000N.

 

[Valkhorn]

You can add all of the crazy things sead in "The Matter of Heven" like heven is made out of golden, invisable, Forever gold, the size of the MOO000000000N

If I had a whole day I couldn't list all the stuff that guy has said.

 

[KingoftheGingers]

I see that no Christians are even trying to respond to this.

 

[Valkhorn]

I see that no Christians are even trying to respond to this.

Woah. Not all christians are creationists. Some christians (as well as Jews, Hindi, Muslims) are actually quite respectable.

In fact I was once a christian and when I was I still accepted Evolution and an old Earth. So let's not dump them into one category

 

[vernee]

• The earth is 6000 years old
• The earth is 10000 years old
• The earth is both 6000 and 10000 years old
• The earth is 4.5 billion years old and 6100 years old
• All known laws of physics were completely different in the past
• All craters are sinkholes
• The flood water went to mars
• The flood water went to space
• The flood water went underground
• The flood water went into the oceans (where they were to begin with?)
• Dinosaurs were vegetarians
• Dinosaurs were vegetarians then meat eaters
• Dinosaurs may have been vegetairans then meat eaters, we're not sure, but they did breathe fire
• Dinosaurs are still alive today even though no one can prove it
• Man walked with dinosaurs
• Man did not walk with dinosaurs
• Man may have but there is no evidence
• Man did and the evidence is a dried piece of mud
• Greenland popped off of the Earth and flipped
• The core of the earth is a sapphire
• The core of the earth is gold
• The core of the earth is liquid hydrogen gold sapphired diamonds
• The Earth is flat
• The Earth is round and no one ever thought the earth was flat even though the hebrews used to think this
• Noah had dinosaurs on the ark
• Noah did not have dinosaurs on the ark
• Noah wanted to be called Loretta (ok I added that one)
• There were two of each 'kind'
• There were seven of each 'kind'
• Evolution happened in the 6000 years
• Evolution didn't happen in the 6000 years
• Evolution only happens in kinds
• We don't know what kinds really are

The list goes on. Is that vague and unclear or what?

How stupid can you get?
Greenland popped off the earth and flipped?!
Dinosaurs are alive?!
The earth is round and no one ever THOUGHT that it was flat even though the Hebrews used to THINK this.?!
Am I missing something? Oh,yeah!

These people are MENTAL
​

 

[Dannager]

How stupid can you get?
Greenland popped off the earth and flipped?!
Dinosaurs are alive?!
The earth is round and no one ever THOUGHT that it was flat even though the Hebrews used to THINK this.?!
Am I missing something? Oh,yeah!

These people are MENTAL
​

We usually call it "willful ignorance", but sure, mental fits too.

 

[RealityCheck]

Creationists, I think, KNOW what the flaws of their beliefs are. In an attempt to justify those beliefs, they project the flaws onto evolution (or anything else, like geology) and pretend that the flaws in science are worse than the flaws in their own beliefs.

But it's terribly funny to look at their projections of flaws. It reads like a list of everything that's wrong with creationism. And it's doubly funny because in making these accusations, they actually make "faith" out to be a negative thing.

 

[moogoob]

I'm of the belief that Bevets is a Poe of the biggest order.

A side-note, it was a discussion (read:flamewar) on Fark in which someone linked this subforum that got me posting here in the first place. CF has much better Atheists and Christians than Fark, for the most part.

 

[ServantofShangDi]

Actually I think the problem is more that the scientific establishment in all ways acts, thinks, and talks like a religious hierarchy, but at the same time has no real beliefs.

Mainstream science tends to be just as incredibly stubborn to questions and new ideas as mainstream religion. The scientific establishment does not accept serious challenges to its view of the world.

 

[Atheuz]

Mainstream science tends to be just as incredibly stubborn to questions and new ideas as mainstream religion. The scientific establishment does not accept serious challenges to its view of the world.

Um, no it's not. It's stubborn to stupid ideas and questions that have absolutely zero common sense in it and no evidence to back its claims up. The Scientific process works on a basis of logic thinking and if an idea is completely absurd or incredibly stupid and makes no logic sense, it won't be researched with the same passion as ideas that have tons of evidence, aren't incredibly stupid and actually make sense in a logical way.

 

[Dannager]

Actually I think the problem is more that the scientific establishment in all ways acts, thinks, and talks like a religious hierarchy, but at the same time has no real beliefs.

Mainstream science tends to be just as incredibly stubborn to questions and new ideas as mainstream religion. The scientific establishment does not accept serious challenges to its view of the world.

Wow. That's about as ridiculously wrong as one can be. The only people who make statements like the above are either a) people who have never dealt with the scientific community or b) people with crackpot ideas rejected by the scientific community who are simply bitter.

 

[ServantofShangDi]

Um, no it's not.

Actually, it is. You may want to believe otherwise, but it doesn't change that it is true.

Scientists are incredibly stubborn. I mean, they're human after all. Any group of stubborn people together is going to behave in such a way. If something doesn't fit in with their interpretation of the evidence, it won't be accepted.