Are all creationist dishonest?

[outhouse]

the evidence for evolution has been around over 100 years.

The evidence for evolution is not hinging on a few gray areas as the ignorant suggest.

The evidence is overwhelming, maybe the creationist dont get it yet when I say overwelming. When i use this term its not a joke as they would use, its an empire state building sized pile of evidence.

To not accept evolution is a sole matter of not wanting to drink from the bottle of knowledge because of fear in the loss of their own faith. Its ignornace on a grand scale that should be stopped. It is an embarrassment to humanity.

 

[darkendless]

Creationism is dishonest. Not only are they making an assumption (that we were created which is completely unfounded), they're assuming that some random being created us.

It doesn;t get much worse until we start talking time.

 

[Blackheart]

the evidence for evolution has been around over 100 years.

The evidence for evolution is not hinging on a few gray areas as the ignorant suggest.

The evidence is overwhelming, maybe the creationist dont get it yet when I say overwelming. When i use this term its not a joke as they would use, its an empire state building sized pile of evidence.

To not accept evolution is a sole matter of not wanting to drink from the bottle of knowledge because of fear in the loss of their own faith. Its ignornace on a grand scale that should be stopped. It is an embarrassment to humanity.

Ignorance is when you cant see the other side of the story which so many other people obviously can. Even Darwin would be shocked by the way in which his theory has destroyed logical thinking.

 

[Blackheart]

Creationism is dishonest. Not only are they making an assumption (that we were created which is completely unfounded), they're assuming that some random being created us.

It doesn;t get much worse until we start talking time.

I dont see how creationism can be dishonest when creationists honestly believe in evidence based creationisim.

 

[McBell]

I dont see how creationism can be dishonest when creationists honestly believe in evidence based creationisim.

Honestly believing something whilst being dishonest in supporting it are two different things.

 

[tumbleweed41]

...creationists honestly believe in evidence based creationisim.

I agree that many believe in what they perceive to be evidence of creation.
But when one dogmatically adheres to that perception when shown that their evidence is either purely subjective of blatantly false, they are not only being dishonest to themselves, they are being dishonest to others when they promote what they have been shown to be false.

 

[Blackheart]

I agree that many believe in what they perceive to be evidence of creation.
But when one dogmatically adheres to that perception when shown that their evidence is either purely subjective of blatantly false, they are not only being dishonest to themselves, they are being dishonest to others when they promote what they have been shown to be false.

I would say exactly the same of athiests.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would say exactly the same of athiests.

Problem: There's no evidence that atheism is false.
(No evidence we're right either.)

 

[outhouse]

when creationists honestly believe in evidence based creationisim.

There is no evidence for creation nor has there ever been. Nor will there ever be.

 

[fantome profane]

I would say exactly the same of athiests.

Problem: There's no evidence that atheism is false.
(No evidence we're right either.)

What does atheism have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[outhouse]

Ignorance is when you cant see the other side of the story which so many other people obviously can. Even Darwin would be shocked by the way in which his theory has destroyed logical thinking.

Im sorry but we see your side clearly. It is a myth and its sad to watch creationist ignorantly chase there tail and ignore and lie about real evidence.

 

[Alceste]

Ignorance is when you cant see the other side of the story which so many other people obviously can. Even Darwin would be shocked by the way in which his theory has destroyed logical thinking.

Sorry, but that's not what ignorance is. Dictionary.com is only a click away.

Are you thinking of intolerance, maybe?

 

[Blackheart]

Sorry, but that's not what ignorance is. Dictionary.com is only a click away.

Are you thinking of intolerance, maybe?

Lol. I was speaking in the context of the thread I was responding to.

 

[Alceste]

Lol. I was speaking in the context of the thread I was responding to.

Fair enough. Just saying, as far as I know, ignorance is mainly not knowing your arse from your elbow, but intolerance can be just as irritating at times.

 

[Alceste]

That is not in dispute.

Yes. My personal experience with our fundie friends is that intelligent & honest people can have a very different view of
reality, even though I find their perspective bonkers. Methinks you lack tolerance & empathy for our religious brethren.
How do you expect to have an edifying civil discussion with them when you call them "dishonest"?


That doesn't answer my question.

I don't need to "tolerate" YEC in my day to day life. I'm not sure we have any YEC around here. You might as well wonder whether I'm tolerant of those weird neck extending rings that obscure African tribe is so fond of.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I agree that many believe in what they perceive to be evidence of creation.
But when one dogmatically adheres to that perception when shown that their evidence is either purely subjective of blatantly false, they are not only being dishonest to themselves, they are being dishonest to others when they promote what they have been shown to be false.

I would say exactly the same of athiests.

Atheism exists mainly because of the lack of objective evidence for God.

And despite your obvious false dichotomy, biological evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.

 

[chinu]

thread, after thread, after thread when presented with evidence they almost always end up being dishonest and more then not, there dishonest with themselves.

evidence is evidence and facts are facts, there is no debate about evolution.

I have seen some bring the same point up 20 times after seeing proof with evidence on every account.

will the dishonesty stop ????

No! because this is the other name of illusion.

_/\_Chinu.

 

[Starsoul]

Atheism exists mainly because of the lack of objective evidence for God.

.

Yeah and evolution has objective evidence enough to still lurk and flutter around for support for being called more than just a theory, so that athiests can patronize about arrogantly in context of its dubious status. If science itself was supporting the theory, it would've been made 'The rule, The Law of evolution'. Seriously, who is being blatantly un-intelligent here

For example, In this article the story of evolution is described brilliantly, and yet all they say, before any conclusion, is

"it is thought, is it said, maybe ( without any evidence)"

The times of existence of the various hominid shown in the chart above are based on available fossil remains. Each species may have existed earlier and/or later than shown, but fossil proof has not been discovered yet.

Human Evolution

What makes evolutionist claim more intelligence and honesty when all the talk is based on lets say, a few more than, a hundred yrs old skepticism as creationist see it? Athiests say there is no evidence of creation besides evolution, and frankly speaking evolution STILL is in dire need of evidence to actually even support itself on its own. Are all evolutionists dreaming delusioners ? (If that is to be concluded)

In such a subjective comparison, creationism; the concept of divine religions , is atleast a thousands of yrs old, tried , tested, and AGED enough

The scientific methods in easy terms, are established this way.

1.Ask a Question
2.Do Background Research
3.Construct a Hypothesis
4.Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5.Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6.Communicate Your Results

The theory of evolution is stuck at step 3, and jumps widely to step 6. What are the results of experimentation of evolution, that are unanimously accepted and approved by science?

Many fossils have proven to be fakes , is that the merit of honesty of the evolutionists?

 

[McBell]

Yeah and evolution has objective evidence enough to still lurk and flutter around for support for being called more than just a theory, so that athiests can patronize about arrogantly in context of its dubious status. If science itself was supporting the theory, it would've been made 'The rule, The Law of evolution'. Seriously, who is being blatantly un-intelligent here

For example, In this article the story of evolution is described brilliantly, and yet all they say, before any conclusion, is

"it is thought, is it said, maybe ( without any evidence)"



Human Evolution

What makes evolutionist claim more intelligence and honesty when all the talk is based on lets say, a few more than, a hundred yrs old skepticism as creationist see it? Athiests say there is no evidence of creation besides evolution, and frankly speaking evolution STILL is in dire need of evidence to actually even support itself on its own. Are all evolutionists dreaming delusioners ? (If that is to be concluded)

In such a subjective comparison, creationism; the concept of divine religions , is atleast a thousands of yrs old, tried , tested, and AGED enough

The scientific methods in easy terms, are established this way.

1.Ask a Question
2.Do Background Research
3.Construct a Hypothesis
4.Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5.Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6.Communicate Your Results

The theory of evolution is stuck at step 3, and jumps widely to step 6. What are the results of experimentation of evolution, that are unanimously accepted and approved by science?

Many fossils have proven to be fakes , is that the merit of honesty of the evolutionists?

Kent?
Kent Hovind?
Is that you?

It is utterly amazing how you flaunt your blatant ignorance like it is something to be proud of.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Yeah and evolution has objective evidence enough to still lurk and flutter around for support for being called more than just a theory, so that athiests can patronize about arrogantly in context of its dubious status. If science itself was supporting the theory, it would've been made 'The rule, The Law of evolution'. Seriously, who is being blatantly un-intelligent here

That would be you.

Seriously, "law" in science only refers to simple statements or equations. Law of gravity states things fall down. Boyle's law states pressure varies directly with temperature and inversely with volume. Ohm's law is e=i x r. When things aren't so simple, theory is law. As stated by Feynman, quantum theory has conformed to experiment to the scale of theorizing the width of the USA and being found correct to a fraction of the with of a human hair. Quantum theory, remember.

If one does not wish to accept evolution, that's fine. But science is the language used that makes all this possible - debating over the internet. But these arguments... they are not grammatically correct in the language of science.