Properties of Creationists

[Graeystone]

6)creationists are morons

Here's your list of 'morons'

[Pat Says]

For the most part I don't think creationists deny evolution. Evolution is a fact, it happens in front of our very eyes all the time. The only debatable part is the fact of whether evolution is how life started or not. I personally believe that a God may exist and may have created the uni(multi?)verse and allowed for evolution to happen. I think it is terribly close-minded to 'know' that there is no God no matter what (not saying that anyone here is like that). So, does this make me a creationist if I believe that a God may have allowed for the evolutionary process to happen?

[yialanliu]

For the most part I don't think creationists deny evolution. Evolution is a fact, it happens in front of our very eyes all the time. The only debatable part is the fact of whether evolution is how life started or not. I personally believe that a God may exist and may have created the uni(multi?)verse and allowed for evolution to happen. I think it is terribly close-minded to 'know' that there is no God no matter what (not saying that anyone here is like that). So, does this make me a creationist if I believe that a God may have allowed for the evolutionary process to happen?

 

First, EVOLUTION ISN'T A FACT! I thought it is understood that evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence behind it but it isn't a fact. NOTHING in science is a fact and that will always be true. evolution is a theory and can in an extent be testable but it can't be considered a fact.

 

Next, well, I personally believe in microevolution and partially agree with macroevolution, the Miller-Urey experiment has a bit too many flas for me to accept so far and if there was less flaws then yes I would agree with it but right now, I believe more of what Genesis says because I am a christian and because it seems to me a bit better than evolution.

[yialanliu]

"Evolution" is a logical concept which is utterly, utterly true. It's not even just "science true" like gravity or the existance of sunlight."

 

Utter bo SHIT! OK this ticked me of...yes, it may be logical to you but to me, its only partially logical. How life first began seems to me only partially logical and macroevolution to me also gives me som skepticism.

 

Nothing in science is a fact except "nothing in science is a fact".

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

First, EVOLUTION ISN'T A FACT! I thought it is understood that evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence behind it but it isn't a fact. NOTHING in science is a fact and that will always be true. evolution is a theory and can in an extent be testable but it can't be considered a fact.

"Evolution" is a logical concept which is utterly, utterly true. It's not even just "science true" like gravity or the existance of sunlight.

Please read JaKiri's post further up this page.

 

edit: it seems you have already addressed that. Well then... try addressing the rest of his post for us.

[Pat Says]

Evolution (not on a creation scale) is as much as a fact that we need oxygen to survive. It can't possibly be tested for every single living thing but it can be observed that things will evolve (not adapt but actually change) over time. This is evolution and it can't be denied. However, that does not necessarily mean that evolution had to be the means of creation (somewhat defending the creationist's ideas).

[atinymonkey]

First, EVOLUTION ISN'T A FACT!

*Yawn* go back to school.

[-Demosthenes-]

http://scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12294

Creationalism is not debatable by any scientific reasoning. Either you believe or not. This is not based on science or fact, it is arguable that it is just as stupid to try to debate with a creationalist as it is to be[/i'] one.[as seen by an evolutionist]

http://scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12163

I will not be branded with a label like creationist.

I do have reasons why.

1. I believe in God' date=' and that he created man. Why? Becuase it feels right. There is no other true answer (unless you are deluding yourself),[i'] there is no conclusive proof, no reason for anyone to beleive on a scientific basis, period, trying to say otherwise it hogwash (or you have some false evidence). You can't justify God scientifically.

2. Same for people who don't believe, they do so becuase there is no proof. That's it. Trying to say it's becuase the creationists are stupid, or because God is mean, hogwash. All of it. It has nothing to do with it.

__________

First, EVOLUTION ISN'T A FACT!

Based on what? Pulled this from a thread from a long time ago.

Evidence of Evolution

Fossil Record

Fossils provide a record for species that have lived in the past. Often they are in sediment layers where the deeper the layer the older the fossil. In this way scientists can see how species change over time. For example scientists have observed the change of oyster fossils (in shell size) through time on the layers of sediment. This provides conclusive evidence that species change over time.

 

Biogeography and Comparative Anantomy

Animals from different continents but similar environments are similar in structure. A very good example is the striking similarities between placental mammals (wolves' date=' rabbits, ect.) and marsupials (Tasmanian wolves, wallaby, etc.). These species have [i']Analogous Structures[/i], where they have similar appendages ect. because they evolved in similar environments. This provides evidence that species evolve to their environment. Certain species also resemble each other because they evolved from a common ancestor, they have Homologous Structures. The forelimbs of cats, bars whales, and humans are all similar in how they are put together and work. This provides evidence that species evolved from common ancestors.

 

Embryology and Molecular Biology

Species that are more related have similar stages in the development of the embryo. Species that are more related share higher percentages of nucleotide and amino acid sequences of DNA than more distantly related ones. Further all living things share the same genetic code (DNA/RNA). This is strong evidence for evolution of different species through modification of ancestral genetic information.

 

There, now you know some of the evidence.

[swansont]

Here's your list of 'morons'

 

Is this supposed to mean something or just nail down the notion that creationists, like Henry Morris, are intellectually dishonest?

 

"Origin of Species" was published at the end of 1859, and it takes a little while for new ideas to get distributed and established. So anybody who died before ~1870 or so really had no choice but to be a creationist. There simply wasn't a viable alternative.

 

So on a list of 40 (some names listed twice, for added dishonesty) more than half were dead before having any chance to have given evolution legitimate consideration.

[The Spith]

First' date=' EVOLUTION ISN'T A FACT! I thought it is understood that evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence behind it but it isn't a fact. NOTHING in science is a fact and that will always be true. evolution is a theory and can in an extent be testable but it can't be considered a fact.

[/quote']

 

Yes but if you are going to take that view point, then you can's say that anything is a fact. There is no way for me to say that you actually exist - you could just be a figment of my imagination, and similarly we could all just be a computer simulation. The only thing we can realy be sure of is that we exist ourselves "I think therefore I am"

 

However if you want to accept anything else as facts, such as that you need to breathe to survive, then you must accept evolution for evidence that exists.

 

To add my own bit - diseases kill many millions of lives per year because they evolve to become resistant to drugs.

 

 

Edit - Oh yes, and if you are prepared to believe in the existence of a God, simply because the existence can't be disproved, then you must also believe in the existence of a divine teacup that created that created the universe, because it is impossible to disprove its existence as well

[-Demosthenes-]

It was a good argument, but then you moved into attacking people who believe in God. We can educate or even argue with each other, but it's not just "creationalists" that are attacking people.

[Mokele]

ok. what evidence, and can you say for an ESTABLISHED FACT that evolution is true? Since I know you're going to say yes, prove it to me.

 

Simple. First, we need to establish what evolution is. Evolution is technically defined as "change in allele frequency in a population over time". (Micro vs macro is an artificial divide used only for communication purposes, and speciation is a direct consequence of this definition, so it is complete)

 

Now that we know what evolution is, it's very simple to prove. Go and sample to genes of local moths or frogs. Keep fruit flies and observe their genetics under selective pressure (such as by killing the smallest 50%). Expose a population of bacteria to antibiotic resistance and watch the genes for resistance spread.

 

All of the above have been done, and in every case evolution has been directly obversed happening.

 

We call evolution a fact because it is. It is an observed phenomonon. Period. It's actuall *far* more difficult to *prevent* evolution from happening (so that it doesn't bollox up your microbiology experiement) than to observe it.

 

So, evolution is a fact, an observed phenomenon whose reality *cannot* be denied except by imposing a false, different definition upon it (which is a strawman fallacy).

 

Now, the *theory* of evolution is more complicated. It deals with *why* this phenomenon occurs, and under what rules. Darwin's theory of natural selection, while broadly true, has both been heavily revised and ammended. Sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effect, devlopmental constraints, all account for what we have observed (and all are supported by massive reams of english).

 

So, basically, that's it. Aside from the masses of evidence supporting the theoretical framework, there is the observed, indisputable phenomenon.

 

First, EVOLUTION ISN'T A FACT! I thought it is understood that evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence behind it but it isn't a fact. NOTHING in science is a fact and that will always be true. evolution is a theory and can in an extent be testable but it can't be considered a fact.

 

See the above. This is *exactly* what we're on about. If you'd actually bothered to *learn* about evolution, you might have noticed that yes, it *is* a fact. And there was a very nice essay on this published in the popular press by the late Stephen J. Gould elaborating it far more effectively than I could. And this was 20 years or more ago, so you've certainly had bloody time to find the essay.

 

I am sitting down. That is a fact. It is not a theory, it is an isolated data point that can be gathered by simple observation. Evolution happens. This is a fact. It is not theory, it is an observation that can made by simply looking at the data.

 

We have *SEEN* evolution happen. Denial of that is intellectual dishonesty.

 

Next, well, I personally believe in microevolution and partially agree with macroevolution,

 

Then you are either evolutionist or a hypocrite. Microevolution and macroevolution are *NOT* distinct. They are distinguished simply so profs can talk more easily about what they study; there is no actual distinction between them. The existence of microevolution *LOGICALLY NECESSITATES* macroevolution. No if's, and's or but's. If you accept microevolution, you have no choice but to accept macroevolution. Failure to do so is simply ignoring logic so you can believe what you want.

 

Once again, you are demonstrating the typical creationist ignorance of the actual scientific literature and definitions.

 

Utter bo SHIT! OK this ticked me of...yes, it may be logical to you but to me, its only partially logical. How life first began seems to me only partially logical and macroevolution to me also gives me som skepticism.

 

It ticked you off because you realize, deep down, that you are wrong.

 

First, abiogenesis is *NOT* a part of evolution. It's veracity or falsehood has *no* effect on evolution's veracity. This has been covered HUNDREDS of times, on this forum alone. Yet again, the creationist ignorance of actual science shows. And you wonder why we disparage you?

 

Secondly, skepticism is fine. All scientists are skeptics by trade. But there is enough evidence for any aspect of evolution that refusal to accept it is beyond the boundaries of reason.

 

Nothing in science is a fact except "nothing in science is a fact".

 

Have you ever, in your life, performed an experiment? Congratualtions, you've proved yourself wrong.

 

I have LOTS of scientific facts. 11 1-hour video tapes filled with them. What you call "facts" I call "data". It is a FACT that at timecode 34:55:23 on tape 4, snake #6's head is at coordinates X and Y.

 

Fact = data. Data=observable phenomenon that can be measured. Guess what follows this and you get a cookie.

 

Yet again, another case of creationist ignorance of real science and how science works.

 

Mokele

[BobbyJoeCool]

You know... I came to this fourm because I wanted to talk with open minded people about what evolution and creationisum is, and speak about it without having to attack other people. I really thought that people in general were good people and especially scientists, would have an open mind about the realm of plausability. You cannot prove creationisum (at it's core, that life was created by some form of superior being) wrong, so why do you rule it out altogehter?

 

Forgetting about the "odds." Is it possible that evoluition is a direct result of a superior being (note how I don't say suprime being). And that even evolution is controled by said superior being, instead of everything you just said. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No.

 

But back to what I said about people on this fourm. I wanted to speak with open-minded people about evolution and creationisum, but all I've seen on this entire fourm is each side attacking the other. Not just the views, but the people who believe them. If that's what this fourm is about, then I guess I'll excersize my free will and not come here anymore...

 

*holds for applause*

 

I know you're all happy because you've driven off yet another "creationist." But you know what, you all believe what you want. If, in the end, you're all right, you can say I told you so. But, you people are painting a picture of scientists in my mind of closed-minded people who have nothing better to do than exercize their ego in saying that anyone who doesn't believe what they do is "evil." At least the creationists I know are NICE about expressing their view, unlike you guys.

 

Kudos to you all for breaking the will of someone who was going to study science but now thinks that all scientisis are like you guys... arrogent, closed-minded, ego maniacs.

[ydoaPs]

You cannot prove creationisum (at it's core, that life was created by some form of superior being) wrong, so why do you rule it out altogehter?

you can't prove the spaghetti monster wrong either. what's your point?

[Cornelius]

That you shouldn't be mean to creationists.

[swansont]

You know... I came to this fourm because I wanted to talk with open minded people about what evolution and creationisum is, and speak about it without having to attack other people. I really thought that people in general were good people and especially scientists, would have an open mind about the realm of plausability. You cannot prove creationisum (at it's core, that life was created by some form of superior being) wrong, so why do you rule it out altogehter?

 

This is a science forum, and creationism is in no way scientific. It is not falsifiable. Neither is "Last-Thursdayism." Do you discount the notion that the universe was created last Thursday, as-is, with all your memories intact?

 

Forgetting about the "odds." Is it possible that evoluition is a direct result of a superior being (note how I don't say suprime being). And that even evolution is controled by said superior being' date=' instead of everything you just said. Is it [i']possible[/i]? Yes. Is it likely? No.

 

But back to what I said about people on this fourm. I wanted to speak with open-minded people about evolution and creationisum, but all I've seen on this entire fourm is each side attacking the other. Not just the views, but the people who believe them. If that's what this fourm is about, then I guess I'll excersize my free will and not come here anymore...

 

*holds for applause*

 

I know you're all happy because you've driven off yet another "creationist." But you know what, you all believe what you want. If, in the end, you're all right, you can say I told you so. But, you people are painting a picture of scientists in my mind of closed-minded people who have nothing better to do than exercize their ego in saying that anyone who doesn't believe what they do is "evil." At least the creationists I know are NICE about expressing their view, unlike you guys.

 

Kudos to you all for breaking the will of someone who was going to study science but now thinks that all scientisis are like you guys... arrogent, closed-minded, ego maniacs.

 

Having arguments countered isn't the same as attacks, and "open-minded" doesn't mean "agree with everything you say."

 

If you didn't pick up on the kind of critical thought that is necessary to pursue science, you probably weren't going to succeed at it anyway.

[Mokele]

You know... I came to this fourm because I wanted to talk with open minded people about what evolution and creationisum is, and speak about it without having to attack other people. I really thought that people in general were good people and especially scientists, would have an open mind about the realm of plausability. You cannot prove creationisum (at it's core, that life was created by some form of superior being) wrong, so why do you rule it out altogehter?

 

Forgetting about the "odds." Is it possible that evoluition is a direct result of a superior being (note how I don't say suprime being). And that even evolution is controled by said superior being, instead of everything you just said. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No.

 

Except what you just defined is *not* "creationism" as I, or most/all of the board and damn near everyone understands it. "Creationism" is used most typically to describe young-earth, adam-and-eve, evolution-is-a-hoax-and-Adam-lived-like-Fred-Flintstone POV. We *have* had people use the term to describe what you describe, and *every* time, it has resulted in collosal misunderstandings that went nowhere.

 

So, before you blow everyone off, look at *your* mistake, in mis-interpreting our posts. Could God, aliens, or something else have made the universe such that evolution would happen, and/or guided it? Sure, why not. But "creationism" is *not* that highly-reasonable proposition. Regardless of the original or technical meaning of the term, it has been adopted by the biblical literalists and become so associated with them that even in *theology*, it now refers to their brand of idiocy. The POV that god was the guiding force, using evolution as a mechanism, is simply "religion".

 

Kudos to you all for breaking the will of someone who was going to study science but now thinks that all scientisis are like you guys... arrogent, closed-minded, ego maniacs.

 

If you can come to that conclusion based on a few threads in a few days, you don't have what it takes to be a scientist anyway, so no loss there.

 

Perhaps you can pull your head out of your ass and actually read what people wrote one day. Until then, good riddance.

 

Mokele

[swansont]

Perhaps you can pull your head out of your ass and actually read what people wrote one day.

 

Please, it's "remove your cranium from its rectal enclosure." If we're going to be accused of being arrogant scientists we might as well use the proper technical terminology.

[JaKiri]

Utter bo SHIT! OK this ticked me of...yes' date=' it may be logical to you but to me, its only partially logical. How life first began seems to me only partially logical and macroevolution to me also gives me som skepticism.

 

Nothing in science is a fact except "nothing in science is a fact".[/quote']

 

Read > Comprehend > Post.

 

"Evolution" is not "the theory of evolution", you dingus, it's a process. "A logical concept" is not "a concept which makes sense", it's "a concept which can be proven to exist by logic".

 

Now, if I just said "Evolution is a logical concept", there might be some grounds for misunderstanding. But when there's an entire other sentence clarifying what exactly I mean, you really don't have any excuse. Furthermore, even if I hadn't made that distinction, it would still be true, because the process has been observed to take place, and any theory that comes along must take it into account.

[JaKiri]

Forgetting about the "odds." Is it possible that evoluition is a direct result of a superior being (note how I don't say suprime being). And that even evolution is controled by said superior being, instead of everything you just said. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely[/i']? No.

 

That's "Intelligent Design", not "Creationism".

[Graeystone]

Is this supposed to mean something or just nail down the notion that creationists' date=' like Henry Morris, are intellectually dishonest?

 

"Origin of Species" was published at the end of 1859, and it takes a little while for new ideas to get distributed and established. So anybody who died before ~1870 or so really had no choice but to be a creationist. There simply wasn't a viable alternative.

 

So on a list of 40 (some names listed twice, for added dishonesty) more than half were dead before having any chance to have given evolution legitimate consideration.[/quote']

 

Did you BOTHER to read the article, like the part where the idea of evolution is nothing new? The arguement between evolution and creationism is a lot older than people may realize. And the reason why some people are listed twice is because they did more than ONE thing, IE Isaac Newton.

[Mokele]

Anything the ICR prints is barely worth reading, except for humor value. However, I decided to actually wade through their tripe, simply in order to more effectively demolish your arguement.

 

Well, the second paragraph is a strawman, equating naturalistic science with necessary atheism, which is not only false but such a transparent lie that the author should be ashamed.

 

Ok, I'm at the third paragraph now, and not only did most of these people die before Darwin (who, while he didn't discover evolution, *did* propose a viable mechanism that made it more than just speculation), but NONE listed so far were biologists with the exception of Linneaus, who falls into the first category. With this sort of logic, I could argue that many respected scientists thought the earth was flat.

 

The inclusion of Mendel in the first list is flat-out intellectual dishonesty. Darwin's theory lacked a viable theory of inheritance. Guess who *personally* wrote Darwin a letter informing him of his results? The irony is that Darwin never opened the letter.

 

In fact, the only biologists on that list died shortly after Darwin proposed the theory, and therefore before the current mountains of evidence had amassed. The same is true of the second list. Both are such truly underhanded manipulations of the data that they border on libel for defaming the name of people who simply had no other option in the worldview.

 

The entire essay is, frankly, beyond the line at which willful ignorance becomes intellectual dishonesty.

 

However, you might find this interesting: Project Steve

The list of Steves (warning, very long load time)

The current tally is 577 Steves.

 

The idea that there is *any* serious doubt or opposition to evolution by those who actually *know* anything about biology or evolution is laughable.

 

Once again, we see the creationists lying and misleading in hopes of pretending that they still have a leg to stand on. It'd be funny if they didn't fool so many people; as it is, it's just pathetic.

 

Mokele

[swansont]

Most of those folks also believed in absolute space and time. The philosphy of relative space and time didn't originate with Einstein, so they have no excuse, right?

[Sayonara]

3)EVERYTHING can be proved or disproved, because science involves EVERYTHING!

That's not in the slightest bit true.

 

 

5)You're right... this thread was about attacking creationists as a people, which is not what this fourm is about at all. This fourm is about science.

By administrative decree, this thread is solely for bitching about how creationists are insane freaks with all the intellectual capacity of a doorknob (between them), and categorically not for debating creationism vs. evolution.

 

If you don't like it, don't read it.

[Sayonara]

Here's your list of 'morons'

Don't be a muppet.