Why Christian Creationists Hate Evolution but Muslim Creationists Don’t Care

[W2L]

I disagree. Confronting ideas, through ridicule or otherwise, results in discussion and hopefully someone learns something by it.

Keep in mind once more that "mocking/ridiculing ideas" is not the same as mocking/ridiculing the people that believe those ideas.

It's the difference between "that's stupid" and "you're stupid".

There isnt much difference between saying a person is stupid and saying their ideas are stupid. You are at liberty to disagree but you only hurt your own argument. The only folks who will agree with you are the ones who already agree in the first place, but you wont change your oppositions mind easily that way. Thats vain argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. But I do remember Israelites claiming a god told them to destroy their enemies.

Were they under martial law at the time?

Was it a time of kill-or-be-killed?

Were they at war?

Does it matter to you?

Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
Ecclesiastes 3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
Ecclesiastes 3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see what you did there! You ain't fooling me,....no free trip to the moon for you buddy! lolzzz

Back when I was a teenager, I was totally into the Atlantis thingy and Edgar Cayce and the so-called Hall of Records. I remember finding the entire thing extremely compelling.

And then, after a few months, I decided to go ahead and read about counter-arguments and refutations because I found it a bit strange that just about the entire scientific community considered it all nonsense.

After that, the entire thing quickly came crumbling down like a fragile house of cards.

So while I was never religious in the theistic sense, I can certainly relate to how someone can get completely caught up in some fantastical story that seems to have some sense of internal consistency.

I did not "become smarter" when I dropped those silly ideas. I just gained more knowledge. It was just the result of some skeptical self-evaluation.

And yes, the counter-arguments I was reading were seriously ridiculing all those ideas and beliefs. It's in fact exactly that contrast to the absurd which demonstrated to me how ridiculous it really was.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well according to you, some of them need deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.

Yes.

I just shared a ridiculous belief that I used to have back when I was a teenager (ridiculous nonsense about Atlantis, Edgar Cayce, the legendary Hall of Records, etc).

I did not become "less ridiculous" or "smarter" when I dropped those ridiculous ideas.
Instead, I just realised that I was into ridiculous nonsense.

I happened to have realised it by myself, but if someone would have told me then that I was into ridiculous nonsense, I wouldn't have taken it so personally. Instead, it would have been a feeding ground for a discussion. And that's a good thing.

If we were at a party, and you were getting on my nervous system, I'd just hand you a book of ideas and ask you to go off in a corner and mock and ridicule them.
(Keep it down though. Others might think you're funny talking to a book.)

That's ridiculous.

 

[JD16]

Back when I was a teenager, I was totally into the Atlantis thingy and Edgar Cayce and the so-called Hall of Records. I remember finding the entire thing extremely compelling.

And then, after a few months, I decided to go ahead and read about counter-arguments and refutations because I found it a bit strange that just about the entire scientific community considered it all nonsense.

After that, the entire thing quickly came crumbling down like a fragile house of cards.

So while I was never religious in the theistic sense, I can certainly relate to how someone can get completely caught up in some fantastical story that seems to have some sense of internal consistency.

I did not "become smarter" when I dropped those silly ideas. I just gained more knowledge. It was just the result of some skeptical self-evaluation.

Thats cause you are willing to use your God given I mean evolution given brain, we all are prone to silly believes. It's the relentless defense of such idea in the face of a mountain high load of evidence that makes one batcrap insane.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There isnt much difference between saying a person is stupid and saying their ideas are stupid.

Disagree.

You are at liberty to disagree but you only hurt your own argument. The only folks who will agree with you are the ones who already agree in the first place, but you wont change your oppositions mind easily that way. Thats vain argument.

Who said anything about changing minds?

If someone came upto you and declared that embryology is a conspiracy and that really Stork Theory is how babies are delivered... you would sit down with that person and have a serious academic discussion?

I sure wouldn't.

 

[JD16]

If someone came upto you and declared that embryology is a conspiracy and that really Stork Theory is how babies are delivered... you would sit down with that person and have a serious academic discussion?

The first thing I'll ask is, are you a member of CF?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thats cause you are willing to use your God given I mean evolution given brain, we all are prone to silly believes. It's the relentless defense of such idea in the face of a mountain high load of evidence that makes one batcrap insane.

Indeed. Yes, I guess that eventhough I was into ridiculous shenannigans, I still felt it was important to be rationally justified in my beliefs. Why else would I have bothered to read up on counter-arguments.

Indeed, I don't think many theists are prepared to take that step backwards and seriously consider the arguments from "the other side" of the table in a healthy session of self-criticism. Especially not when it concerns fundamentalists.

 

[KWCrazy]

Evolution is a scientific theory like any other.
It's also a fact, just like gravity is also a fact.

Score, one truth, one lie. hey, you're batting .500

Creatures demonstrably reproduce with modifications.

The adaptations of a species does not prove the origination of that species. Adaptation is a conservative process. repeated subtraction never leads to addition.

Creatures that are a better fit for the habitat then their peers demonstrably are more successfull at surviving and reproducing.

We call that adaptation. That has nothing to do with molecules-to-man.
There are NO scientifically valid theories for the origination of anything.
Science is the study of the natural world. It cannot possibly account for or disprove any supernatural causation.
Your ignorance on the matter, is not an argument against it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Yes, I agree, its not some imaginary deity's fault, its those people that believe in such a deity thats the problem

If you wish to believe such foolishness that's you're right.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Probably because most Muslim-majority nations are theocracies already so they can teach Islamic creationism in schools all they want - i.e. they've already won the battle Christian creationists are fighting in the US.

Some do, some don't. Saudi Arabia's approach to evolution in the schools would warm the hearts of the typical YEC.

Nevertheless in the West appeared what is called “the theory of evolution” which was derived by the Englishman Charles Darwin, who denied Allah’s creation of humanity, saying that all living things and humans are from a single origin. We do not need to pursue such a theory because we have in the Book of Allah the final say regarding the origin of life, that all living things are Allah’s creation.

But in Iran, evolution is taught from the 5th grade on into high school:

"The biology textbook for
pish daneshgahi
(Karam al-Dini and others 2008)includes a 40-page chapter on evo-lution,as well as chapters on popu-lation genetics and “populationdynamics and biological communi-ties”(147).The evolution chapter,divided into three sections,pro- vides a comprehensive introduc-tion to the development of evolu-tionary theory,with the first sec-tion devoted primarily to Darwinand his influences and culminatingin the formulation of the new syn-thesis;the second section to evi-dence of evolution,including pale-ontology,molecular and structuralhomology,and embryology,with discussion of evolutionary ratesand punctuated equilibrium (94);and the third section to examplesof natural selection,such as pep-pered moths (97) and the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant onDarwin’s finches (98)"

More importantly, the OP article was about religious schools in the US. The Muslim schools here do not dwell on creationism, even though they have every right to do so.

 

[KWCrazy]

Says the guy who just refered to a story where "godly people" are commanded by this god to go conquer a nation and commit brutal genocide, including toddlers and babies.

You are wandering into an argument about which you know nothing. Since you will not pay attention to anything I say and you have absolutely nothing I could learn from you, we'll just end this now.

 

[JD16]

If you wish to believe such foolishness that's you're right.

 

[Speedwell]

Science is the study of the natural world. It cannot possibly account for or disprove any supernatural causation.
Your ignorance on the matter, is not an argument against it.

Absolutely right. The theory of evolution does not disprove supernatural causation and the demonstration of naturalistic abiogenesis would not disprove supernatural causation of life. The identification of a natural cause for any phenomenon does not deny the simultaneous existence of a supernatural cause.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Score, one truth, one lie. hey, you're batting .500

The theory of evolution is the explanatory model for the facts of evolution.
Just like the theory of gravity is the explanatory model for the facts of gravity.

Gravity demonstrably happens: fact.
The theory is the model of explanation of how that happens.

Evolution demonstrably happens: fact
The theory is the model that explains how that happens.

The adaptations of a species does not prove the origination of that species.

I didn't say it did.
However, the common ancestry of species, isn't a theory.
It's a fact. Based on data. The same kind of fact based on data when geneticists determine that your dad is your biological dad.

Adaptation is a conservative process. repeated subtraction never leads to addition.

Deletion is just one of many possible mutations. Others are insertions, duplications, frameshifts,... All of which "add" or just "change" DNA.

We call that adaptation.

...which is evolution.

That has nothing to do with molecules-to-man.

It sure does. As in: it is the mechanism by which that happens.

There are NO scientifically valid theories for the origination of anything.

Except for the origins of biological diversity.

Science is the study of the natural world.

Biological organisms are part of the natural world.

It cannot possibly account for or disprove any supernatural causation.

Indeed, it can not.
It also can not account for undetactable pink graviton pixies.

Your ignorance on the matter, is not an argument against it.

My ignorance on what, exactly?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are wandering into an argument about which you know nothing.

It's not an argument. It's a story in the bible. It's right there. You can read it too, as I have.

Since you will not pay attention to anything I say and you have absolutely nothing I could learn from you, we'll just end this now.

Run Forrest, Run!

 

[Freedom~Sprite]

Muslim creationists first accept that their god created humans from blood clots. Nothing else would ever get through when they accept that. At least with the Christian / Hebrew creation story our genetic materials coincide with our being formed of dust and God's spirit.

 

[KWCrazy]

Absolutely right. The theory of evolution does not disprove supernatural causation and the demonstration of naturalistic abiogenesis would not disprove supernatural causation of life. The identification of a natural cause for any phenomenon does not deny the simultaneous existence of a supernatural cause.

That's one thing upon which we can agree.
Even if man could come up with a viable theory of how something could have happened, it doesn't mean that it did happen. I personally believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that it is absolutely accurate. That said, I thin AV was right when he predicted that evolution would eventually be demonstrated to the point where even most Christians believed it. The Scriptures say there will be a great falling away and we're seeing it now. By the time the Lord returns only a small minority will still believe in God's word. Some will believe most of it, some will believe some of it, most will believe none of it. It seems as if our pews are filled with the young and the old, and everyone else just can't take the time to worship together. What a sad commentary on our lives.

 

[KWCrazy]

It's not an argument. It's a story in the bible.

It's a story you don't understand.
Answer one question. Why does a demon hate a Christian?
If you don't know the answer, nothing else makes sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's one thing upon which we can agree.
Even if man could come up with a viable theory of how something could have happened, it doesn't mean that it did happen.

I'ld like to see someone in a court being accused of a murder based on DNA being all over the victim, fingerprints all over the knife, DNA of the victim under his finger nails, blood of the victim on his t-shirt and him being caught on camera entering the victim's house holding the murder weapon...

And then "defending" himself with "that's a nice viable theory, but it doesn't mean it happened! Who says that supernatural demons didn't plant all that evidence there just to frame me? Can you prove that those demons didn't do it? No? Didn't think so!! Now release me please!"


So, what do you think will happen?
And what do you think SHOULD happen?