Creationism and evolution.

[Jan Volkes]

Why can creationists say any derogatory thing they like about evolution but no one is allowed to say anything derogatory about creationism?
Why does creationism require so much protection but evolution require none?
Surely if something is true it will still be true no matter what anyone says about it, evolution is the prime example of that.

 

[Goonie]

Why can creationists say any derogatory thing they like about evolution but no one is allowed to say anything derogatory about creationism?
Why does creationism require so much protection but evolution require none?
Surely if something is true it will still be true no matter what anyone says about it, evolution is the prime example of that.

Simple answer is that creationism is a religious belief, and as this is a website does not allow general apologetics, it is difficult to debate. Supporters of Creationism can attack evolution with spurious cherry picking of any evidence that they think supports the idea that evolution is wrong, but they do do not have a positive case for creationism except for the belief that goddidit. And debating the truth of the old testement is general apologetics and so not allowed.

I think I got that right. Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Simple answer is that creationism is a religious belief, and as this is a website does not allow general apologetics, it is difficult to debate. Supporters of Creationism can attack evolution with spurious cherry picking of any evidence that they think supports the idea that evolution is wrong, but they do do not have a positive case for creationism except for the belief that goddidit. And debating the truth of the old testement is general apologetics and so not allowed.

I think I got that right. Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

Actually believers don't need to support creation(ism) with scientific evidence. It is enough to expose the impossibility of evolution happening, leaving the only alternative....special creation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why can creationists say any derogatory thing they like about evolution but no one is allowed to say anything derogatory about creationism?
Why does creationism require so much protection but evolution require none?
Surely if something is true it will still be true no matter what anyone says about it, evolution is the prime example of that.

Having been a member here for many many years I can say that there has been a steady stream of derogatory things said about God, Creationism, and Christians. Evolution is a process that is suppose to be supported by scientific data and should stand on its own and must have the capability to support itself. Materialism is a belief that all that exists is the natural material world. Evolution is used to wrap up this belief in science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why can creationists say any derogatory thing they like about evolution but no one is allowed to say anything derogatory about creationism?
Why does creationism require so much protection but evolution require none?
Surely if something is true it will still be true no matter what anyone says about it, evolution is the prime example of that.

I think you are confusing calling evolution false with saying degrading things. I have no problem with you claiming creationism is false - that's your right to freedom of speech regardless if it's wrong. But it seems to me it is always evolutionists, that want to start inserting ad-hominem remarks when the creationists start bringing forth science.

Evolution is not a prime example of truth. It is a prime example of errors that are never corrected. They claimed Darwin's finches are examples of speciation - and labeled them separate species before even bothering to study them. Then when they do get around to studying them and taking DNA, they find they have all been interbreeding from the start and producing fertile offspring. Speciation never occurred in the first place - and the main scientific definition of species are the largest group capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

So because they refuse to ever correct their mistakes - and keep preaching the same thing falsified in experiment after experiment, that means truth? E. coli that after billions of mutations and generations still remaining E. coli is proof of evolution???? Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian through the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. There was no evolution through mutation involved or any transitory forms between the three. And Asian stays Asian, African African. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook through the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. There was no evolution through mutation involved or any transitory forms between the three. And Husky stays Husky, Mastiff Mastiff.

And to top it off they refuse to apply what we observe in real life to the fossil record. Incorrectly calling different breeds of the same species as separate species. They even incorrectly called babies and adults separate species all in their ego's to get names in the books. Still haven't corrected their mistakes when it comes to mankind's lineage either.

Error built upon uncorrected error built upon uncorrected error - the theory of evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

convince me these are separate species

When the only observational evidence you have is that they are in reality merely different "breeds" of the "same" species?

As every single observation shows.

 

[juvenissun]

Why can creationists say any derogatory thing they like about evolution but no one is allowed to say anything derogatory about creationism?
Why does creationism require so much protection but evolution require none?
Surely if something is true it will still be true no matter what anyone says about it, evolution is the prime example of that.

Very simple: Evolutionists are trying to ban Creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why can creationists say any derogatory thing they like about evolution but no one is allowed to say anything derogatory about creationism?

Because creationism is sacred.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Very simple: Evolutionists are trying to ban Creationism.

Agreed. All they need do is admit that evolution is in actuality religion - not science - and I'll afford them the same right to freedom of religion that they are attempting to give me - less and less every year.

 

[Goonie]

Agreed. All they need do is admit that evolution is in actuality religion - not science - and I'll afford them the same right to freedom of religion that they are attempting to give me - less and less every year.

Except that evolution is not a religion, but respected part of the biological sciences acknowledged by every credible university in existence. Whilst creationism is only acknowledged by the religious, and even then many Christians and those of other faiths recognise the fact that evolution is a science, even if some dispute what it tells us about how life has developed over time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Except that evolution is not a religion, but respected part of the biological sciences acknowledged by every credible university in existence. Whilst creationism is only acknowledged by the religious, and even then many Christians and those of other faiths recognise the fact that evolution is a science, even if some dispute what it tells us about how life has developed over time.

Sigh, aren't you tired yet of fallacies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Then defend your stance with science and stop with the fallacious arguments.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationism-and-evolution.7897198/#post-68284499

Those experts also told me once upon a time - same story - that the Milky-Way was the entire universe - had data and facts and fancy math to prove it too. Turned out one person proved them all wrong. Don't claim to be the person able to do that, but don't think you can show anything to convince me they aint just as wrong this time - without first asking that I accept 95% Fairie Dust as fact.

So you are asking that I accept 95% on "faith" - claim it's called science - and then ask I not be allowed to have faith - when the science supports my view and not yours?

 

[bhsmte]

Why can creationists say any derogatory thing they like about evolution but no one is allowed to say anything derogatory about creationism?
Why does creationism require so much protection but evolution require none?
Surely if something is true it will still be true no matter what anyone says about it, evolution is the prime example of that.

Faith beliefs by their very nature (little to no objective evidence to support them), require a person to protect them, because the belief is very important to their psyche.

One requirement to protect a certain faith belief, would be to deny, ignore and try to destroy any evidence that does not support your faith belief. The less objective evidence one has to support their belief, the greater defense mechanisms you need to protect it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Faith beliefs by their very nature (little to no objective evidence to support them), require a person to protect them, because the belief is very important to their psyche.

One requirement to protect a certain faith belief, would be to deny, ignore and try to destroy any evidence that does not support your faith belief. The less objective evidence one has to support their belief, the greater defense mechanisms you need to protect it.

We agree - exactly as petrtains to 95% of cosmology and evolution. No dark Matter or Energy ever found, but the less range there is to search, the less objective it becomes, the greater the defense of it also becomes. Oh we agree totally. You just refuse to look at your own theories and see your own words reflected back to you.

 

[driewerf]

Agreed. All they need do is admit that evolution is in actuality religion - not science - and I'll afford them the same right to freedom of religion that they are attempting to give me - less and less every year.

Except that the ToE is not a religion. Actually, it lacks all the features of a religion:

• It has no sacred book or texts, unlike the bible, the quran or the talmud
• it doesn't claim a monopoly: you can accept the ToE and remain christian (as many members here are the living proof), or muslim, jew or whatever.
• It doesn't impose any sexual morality. You can have or have not premarital sex, be straight or gay or live in complete abstinence.
• It doesn't impose any dietary rules, unlike the jews who have to eat Koosher or the muslims who have to eat hallal ( but you are free to do so as your religion impose, see the first point).
• It doesn't impose any dress code, no hijjab or veil, no kippa or yarmulke, no dastar or kachera ( but you are free to do so as your religion impose, see the first point)
• It doesn't recruit babies, unlike christians (infant baptism) or jews and muslims (circumcision).
• It doesn't impose any physical mutillation, no circumcision, no female clitoridectomy.
• It doesn't say anything about the afterlife.
• It doesn't threaten you with hell if you don't accept it.
• It has never caused a war.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Except that the ToE is not a religion. Actually, it lacks all the features of a religion:

• It has no sacred book or texts, unlike the bible, the quran or the talmud
• it doesn't claim a monopoly: you can accept the ToE and remain christian (as many members here are the living proof), or muslim, jew or whatever.
• It doesn't impose any sexual morality. You can have or have not premarital sex, be straight or gay or live in complete abstinence.
• It doesn't impose any dietary rules, unlike the jews who have to eat Koosher or the muslims who have to eat hallal ( but you are free to do so as your religion impose, see the first point).
• It doesn't impose any dress code, no hijjab or veil, no kippa or yarmulke, no dastar or kachera ( but you are free to do so as your religion impose, see the first point)
• It doesn't recruit babies, unlike christians (infant baptism) or jews and muslims (circumcision).
• It doesn't impose any physical mutillation, no circumcision, no female clitoridectomy.
• It doesn't say anything about the afterlife.
• It doesn't threaten you with hell if you don't accept it.
• It has never caused a war.

It has many of them - they are called science books. Even if mostly you ignore them 95% of the time. Do we need to discuss finches that all interbreed and the scientific definition of species?

Apparently you can remain Christian and accept evolution too, just ask the Pope. So your second claim means what exactly?

It teaches them from the first concept that we are animals - and hence crime rate, single parents, divorces, has risen out of proportion to population increase from the year after it was implemented. It tries to recruit every person that goes to school. So your argument for recruitment means what exactly?

The Bible doesn't threaten you with hell either. That's simply another mistranslation of the original Hebrew. No, you just threaten to take away their career prospects and tenureship instead if they openly profess faith in something besides evolution.

It caused an entire nation to believe they were racially superior to every other race - and gave them the right to wipe out all those inferior races.

Isn't it survival of the fittest? Doesn't evolution teach that I could be better than you, more evolved? That perhaps you are inferior to me? I mean, it all depends on that random mutation does it not? Doesn't it teach the weak and infirm or diseased should be eliminated so they do not pollute the bloodline, just as the animals would do?

Oh no, then it's ok to make moral judgements correct? But just where you believe it should be applied and nowhere else, right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Except that evolution is not a religion, but respected part of the biological sciences acknowledged by every credible university in existence. Whilst creationism is only acknowledged by the religious, and even then many Christians and those of other faiths recognise the fact that evolution is a science, even if some dispute what it tells us about how life has developed over time.

I for one see evolution being treated by some materialists as if it were a religion and one where adherence is necessary to be viewed as an educated intelligent person. It is used like a god to the materialists. They wrap their non-belief of god in Science and then claim it is all about evidence and only evidence. When there is no evidence they fear that the worldview they hold is under attack. Sure there is evidence for evolution but many of the claims that materialists make are not shown by any evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

Except that evolution is not a religion, but respected part of the biological sciences acknowledged by every credible university in existence. Whilst creationism is only acknowledged by the religious, and even then many Christians and those of other faiths recognise the fact that evolution is a science, even if some dispute what it tells us about how life has developed over time.

See, here is the attack again.
So what? Do you mean we CAN NOT teach our kids about science with the information about Creationism? Who are you to say that?

 

[bhsmte]

See, here is the attack again.
So what? Do you mean we CAN NOT teach our kids about science with the information about Creationism? Who are you to say that?

Not using science you can. Of course, you yourself can certainly teach your kids about creation.

 

[juvenissun]

Not using science you can. Of course, you yourself can certainly teach your kids about creation.

Here is another guy who want to BAN the teaching of Creationism in science.

Understand why now? Jan Volkes?

 

[bhsmte]

Here is another guy who want to BAN the teaching of Creationism in science.

Understand why now? Jan Volkes?

Just demonstrate it is scientific and toss it in with science class.

Too much to ask?