The Double Standards of Creationism

[Nooj]

What I don't understand is how you found this well and truly buried thread. Did you trawl through dozens of pages of threads until you found one to your liking?

 

[Dal M.]

Darwin's theory of evolution is silly...but evolution forms are true, we all are born, grow.....then die thats evolution.

No, that's development. It's completely dissimilar from the theory of evolution. But, just out of curiosity, what's silly about Darwin's theory of evolution?

 

[fromdownunder]

Darwin's theory of evolution is silly

[snip]

I went from being a Christian to being an Athiest...to now being a follower of Jesus Christ again. Check out Luke 6:27,28 thats what he is all about

What makes you think that acceptance of the Theory of Evolution cannot be reconciled with a belief in Jesus?

Norm

 

[MrGoodBytes]

While we're at it, I'd like to see an example of the supposedly disatrous effects evolution had on society. LittleNipper, if you would be so kind...

Evolution is only a figment of "authoritative" imagination and this discipline is propagated through singular influential educational techniques. The influence of evolution has had far reaching and disastrous affects in its social, cultural, educational, and religious applications.

 

[Baggins]

Darwin's theory of evolution is silly...but evolution forms are true, we all are born, grow.....then die thats evolution. Obviously some things on earth were created so we can't understand. It was still created thats a fact....and a child understands that. Lets say you go buy lumber, get some nails, cut the boards out....then you build something...thats our creation of a project. God is huge.....we can't understand him, just look how tech. the human body is..its insane, each cell holds so much info. The Holy Bible rules...and i'm thankful for the truth. I went from being a Christian to being an Athiest...to now being a follower of Jesus Christ again. Check out Luke 6:27,28 thats what he is all about

This is just an argument from ignorance.

You don't understand what evolution is, you don't understand what the theory of evolution states.

But you feel it is irreconcilable with your faith so you reject it.

Only a minority of christians feel like you do, you should talk to the huge number of christians who accept the theory of evolution about how faith is not compromised by science.

Or, alternatively, stick your head back in the hole in the ground.

 

[JohnR7]

What I don't understand is how you found this well and truly buried thread. Did you trawl through dozens of pages of threads until you found one to your liking?

Or maybe they liked what someone said and looked to see some of their other posts.

 

[Split Rock]

Jet Black, do you have a suggestion for a book and/or website that explains exactly what I'm looking at there with less technical language. Without ID on each image, I don’t really know what I’m looking at. Honestly, you could switch several of those (skulls) into a different order and it would be the same to me.

This is a good website for newbies to evolutionary theory:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

You may think this just shows how "stupid" I am. That does not particularly upset me, b/c I am secure in my intelligence and background (my SAT scores, IQ, university attended, blah, blah blah) I just have never spent any time looking into this issue, it as never been important to me. So again, I probably made a mistake posting here.

Not having knowledge about a particular topic does not make you stupid. In fact, acknowledging that there are thinks you do not know about is actually very smart.

In any case, since you did post here, you must be a least a little curious about the topic, no? Check out the website above, and if you have any questions, feel free to start a new thread here. Many of us here will be happy to answer them.

 

[dlamberth]

What makes you think that acceptance of the Theory of Evolution cannot be reconciled with a belief in Jesus?

I've never been able to figure that one out myself.

.

 

[corvus_corax]

Darwin's theory of evolution is silly

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it.
But dont confuse your opinion with objective empirical testable data

...but evolution forms are true, we all are born, grow.....then die thats evolution.

You, by your statement above, obviously have no clue as to what evolution actually is.
Simply put, evolution is the measurable change in allele frequency of a population over time. You can read all about it here, here and here (the last two are fairly easy reads)

.Obviously some things on earth were created so we can't understand.

No, that's not "obvious"

.It was still created thats a fact

Empty assertions do not evidence make

.and a child understands that.

My child (my 6 year old) actually understands that populations, given time and the circumstances, will change. My child understands the connection between some dinosaurs and birds. My child understands the fact that we are apes.
Dont paint with so broad a brush next time

.God is huge

How huge?
Your statement is without meaning when it has no context

.we can't understand him

Well, you can't understand Him

.The Holy Bible rules

Rules what?


Now for the question that's been working itself in the back of my mind since I read your post...
Given the content of your post....given your username...

Are you just exemplifying Poe's Law?

 

[arensb]

In the same vein as #1 there is the issue of creationists complaining that evolution is not repeatable because earth's history cannot be relived in real time, but they don't apply that same twisted sense of "repeatability" to creationism.

I think their reasoning is that God witnessed the entire history of the universe. And since it was observed the first time around, it doesn't need to be repeated in the lab.

 

[arensb]

I hear this claim from creationists alot. can you provide me with the name of a text book, currently in print, that uses an exposed fake as evidence for evolution

(You may also want to add "currently used to teach biology", which is sort of implied, but not explicitly stated, in your request.)

As far as I can tell, when a creationist complains about "Haeckel's embryos" in textbooks, assuming he's not just repeating something he heard elsewhere, it means that the book in question has a picture comparing embryos of different species at certain stages. Never mind that this picture may be a modern drawing, or even a series of photographs, with no connection to Ernst Haeckel.

It might also refer to books that present Haeckel's drawings in a historical context, e.g., comparing them to modern photographs, to highlight the ways in which Haeckel emphasized what he wanted to see.

 

[TheBear]

Dontcha get it? The goal is to attempt to claim science is the same as religion then claim they have the only true religion.

.
​

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Valkhorn]

What I don't understand is how you found this well and truly buried thread. Did you trawl through dozens of pages of threads until you found one to your liking?

I can't say I'm displeased that it was ressurected, however his post has just about nothing to do with data, facts, or the threat at hand.

Creationists have a way of doing that though.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

We all use the same evidence; it's just a matter of interpretation.

This argument remains valid especially when it comes to Biblical interpretation, as most Christians use the same Bible, but boy oh boy, is it so open to one's interpretation. Sure, evidence can be interpreted, but heck, it doesn't make it easier on them when they have to defend their holy text.

And in fact, the interpretative argument against the Bible is a solid argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it quite amusing, and quite sad that there are plenty of double standards in with creationists and creationism. So, I've decided to compile a short list of some of the most common double standards that exist in this pseudoscience called creationism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Double Standard 1:

Creationists require observable proof for Evolution,
but not observable proof for Creationism

------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

The creation events didn't generate any evidence, as they were a series of miracles done by God.

God doesn't do sloppy work, but even if He did, no evidence was generated to slop around or leave behind.

You shouldn't expect to see evidence that doesn't exist, or you'll end up thinking it's a double standard.

 

[Jimmy D]

The creation events didn't generate any evidence, as they were a series of miracles done by God.

God doesn't do sloppy work, but even if He did, no evidence was generated to slop around or leave behind.

You shouldn't expect to see evidence that doesn't exist, or you'll end up thinking it's a double standard.

Why do you do this? Some sort of ego thing?

 

[pitabread]

Why do you do this? Some sort of ego thing?

My guess is it's either for the attention or he's just bad at forum etiquette.

 

[Speedwell]

I've never been able to figure that one out myself.

.

It's easy: faith in Christ and in the truth of His Gospel does not depend on Genesis being 100% accurate literal history.

 

[pitabread]

It's easy: faith in Christ and in the truth of His Gospel does not depend on Genesis being 100% accurate literal history.

FYI, this thread was unceremoniously necro'd by our residence necro-poster.