Why are creationists so threatened by science?

[RickG]

Evolution runs on so many gaps (missing links), you could drive a universe through it.

But still there are no Precambrian rabbits. Why would God create an earth that abounds with evidence of evolution over billions of years and it not be true? Just playing a dirty trick perhaps.

 

[Mediaeval]

Cabvet,
Could you provide a specific example of a scientific fact that YEC's feel threatened by?

Hebrews 11:1 teaches that faith is not believing without evidence but believing without seeing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Cabvet,
Could you provide a specific example of a scientific fact that YEC's feel threatened by?

Correlated radiometric dating results.

Hebrews 11:1 teaches that faith is not believing without evidence but believing without seeing.

So, believing in the wind constitutes faith?

 

[RickG]

Cabvet,
Could you provide a specific example of a scientific fact that YEC's feel threatened by?

No Precambrian rabbits.

 

[juvenissun]

And why does this threaten science? It's something we freely admit - modern scientific knowledge can always be refined and improved upon.

I did not use the word threaten. Blame the OP.

 

[juvenissun]

Unsupported absurd claims by people outside of whatever professional expertise they may have about science is not a threat to science. It is a threat to the credibility of all Christianity by association. I think it is really sad that there is are few organizations and groups of people who seem to take pride in deliberately misrepresenting many different fields of science for their own personal satisfaction and gain. They have strayed far from the path that Jesus put us on.

Tell me why do they survive and thrive? Are you saying the general American are stupid enough so they are not seeing what you see?

 

[RickG]

Tell me why do they survive and thrive?

Survive yes, thrive, hardly.

Are you saying the general American are stupid enough so they are not seeing what you see?

I made no such suggestion. Do not try to twist what I say.

 

[diychristian]

The God of the gaps argument might be old, but you gotta admit; many religious people still seem to use it.

Ken

So do evolutionists. Look at RickG's comments.

 

[diychristian]

No Precambrian rabbits.

Nice argument from silence!!!! Isnt that like God of the Gaps?

 

[diychristian]

Dear VERYSINCERE,

Thanks for the words of approval. Although I don't seem to have any animosity towards YEC or OEC I think either view is in danger of slippery slope arguments. Biblical interpretations as well as scientific ones need to be handled carefully. We don't want to say more than they actually do.

 

[verysincere]

So, believing in the wind constitutes faith?

In fact, Jesus used the wind as an illustration of the Holy Spirit's role in faith when he was explaining faith to Nicodemus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice argument from silence!!!! Isnt that like God of the Gaps?

No, it is a shortcut way of pointing out that no contradictory evidence to the theory of evolution has been found.

The whole fossil record supports the theory of evolution. No creation scientist has made a theory or even testable hypothesis of creation. So there is no scientific evidence that supports creation, I want to make sure that you realize that is not the fault of evolutionists but of creationists. A theory does not have to explain how God did it for the creationists, it only has to explain why we see the world the way we do in light of creation. They have not even proposed one testable hypothesis that I know of. Perhaps that is because they already know the results of the testing of those hypotheses.

 

[diychristian]

Where, exactly?

Throughout!! From the universe's very existence along with all it laws, the goldilocks enigma of our planet, the improbablity of complex life forms, symbiotic relationships, ecosystems of earth and how life sculpts its environment and the environment takes care of the life, the organs within life forms, the preservation of the genomes, the list goes on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Throughout!! From the universe's very existence along with all it laws, the goldilocks enigma of our planet, the improbablity of complex life forms, symbiotic relationships, ecosystems of earth and how life sculpts its environment and the environment takes care of the life, the organs within life forms, the preservation of the genomes, the list goes on.

What Goldilocks enigma? How are complex life forms improbable? Every creationist argument on probability that I have ever seen has been horribly flawed.

It seems that your whole post was merely a combination of arguments of incredulity and ignorance.

 

[diychristian]

No, it is a shortcut way of pointing out that no contradictory evidence to the theory of evolution has been found.

Except for...abiogenesis...stasis in fossil record...living fossils...and what else?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Throughout!! From the universe's very existence

How does that proclaim God's existence? You're not making a 'god of the gaps' argument, surely?

along with all it laws,

How do they proclaim God's existence?

the goldilocks enigma of our planet,

What enigma? There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars, and a good percentage of those have Earth-like planets. Odds are, in all the universe, at least one such planet has the conditions necessary for life to develop.

the improbablity of complex life forms,

What improbability? Can you walk me through the mathematical derivation of this conclusion? Don't be afraid, I can handle the maths

symbiotic relationships,

How do they proclaim God's existence?

ecosystems of earth and how life sculpts its environment and the environment takes care of the life,

How do they proclaim God's existence?

the organs within life forms,

How do they proclaim God's existence?

the preservation of the genomes,

What preservation? Mutations by definition disprove that notion.

the list goes on.

Perhaps, but I'm at a loss as to how any of these phenomena proclaim God's existence, and I'm dubious some of them are even real.

Except for...abiogenesis...stasis in fossil record...living fossils...and what else?

How are any of these things evidence against evolution? Stasis and living fossils don't contradict evolutionary theory, they simply show that not all species are constantly changing their phylogeny - if there's no selection pressures, then there's not going to be much morphological change. Evolution doesn't require change in any and all circumstances, indeed, it demands stasis if that is the most effective thing to do.

And how is abiogenesis evidence against evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except for...abiogenesis...stasis in fossil record...living fossils...and what else?

Arguments from ignorance. What is your point?

There are periods of very slow evolution and rapid evolution. Evolution is usually the result of a changing environment. If an environment does not change there is no much pressure to evolve.

"Living fossils" are different from older examples. This video just came out and explains your objections rather well, much better than I could:
First nominee for the 2013 Golden Crocoduck - YouTube

 

[verysincere]

Arguments from ignorance. What is your point?

There are periods of very slow evolution and rapid evolution. Evolution is usually the result of a changing environment. If an environment does not change there is no much pressure to evolve.

"Living fossils" are different from older examples.

I've never understood why a "pop level" term like "living fossils" is considered a problem for anybody. If someone discovered a colony of dinosaurs on an island somewhere, so what? How would that deny evolution?

Alligators are sometimes called living fossils. So what?

Modern coelacanths are very different from the ancient fossil forms. So what is the problem? (Please, any creationist who thinks that this is a problem: Please explain it to us.)

 

[Mediaeval]

Correlated radiometric dating results.

So, believing in the wind constitutes faith?

From what I gather, radiometric dating methods are inconclusive.

Your example about the wind provides a good analogy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From what I gather, radiometric dating methods are inconclusive.

Your example about the wind provides a good analogy.

Why do you think this? If you know what you are measuring and how you can get a very accurate date. Yes, mistakes can be made, but they are done by people who are not aware of all of the variables involved.