Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[McBell]

I think the charge of quote mining, in most cases, is a ploy to discourage the posting of quotes evolutionists find embarrassing.

Of course you do.
Cause if it wasn't for quote mining creationists would have far less to present.

the sad thing is that creationists try to claim the moral high ground while being dishonest.

According to one definition of quote mining: "The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject."
Quote something evolutionists don't like, and you are likely to be accused of "quote mining", lying, etc. If you can't attack the idea, attack the messenger. Such bullying tactics are sad and contemptible.

Did you ever think that if you stopped lying you would not be called a liar?

 

[thau]

Oh, totally cool!

You have the opportunity to look clever or witty --- and you also know you will find a fawning audience to pat you on the back --- how can you resist?

I mean, you have that cool looking logo that attracts mystique and attention. Why, you are living out your fantasy here in the real world. Yes, your time is now. Run with it. Show us how awesome and deep thinking you are. Us mere mortals will hold you in great esteem.

 

[McBell]

This is a huge problem for your beloved theory.

No it isn't.
But then, since you have already thoroughly demonstrated that you know nothing about evolution, even though you flat out lie and call your strawmen evolution, and have absolutely no intentions of even learning about evolution, you would not have the first clue as to why it is not even a slight hiccup for evolution.

run on home and claim your victory.

 

[McBell]

Oh, totally cool!

You have the opportunity to look clever or witty --- and you also know you will find a fawning audience to pat you on the back --- how can you resist?

I mean, you have that cool looking logo that attracts mystique and attention. Why, you are living out your fantasy here in the real world. Yes, your time is now. Run with it. Show us how awesome and deep thinking you are. Us mere mortals will hold you in great esteem.

ah, don't like truth and facts.
But then you have already shown that you don't.

no, you prefer to hide behind your lies.
Who is the Father of Lies again?

your god must be so proud.

 

[thau]

ah, don't like truth and facts.
But then you have already shown that you don't.

no, you prefer to hide behind your lies.
Who is the Father of Lies again?

your god must be so proud.

You do not have the guts to answer challenges honestly. Who are you to accuse?

 

[McBell]

You do not have the guts to answer challenges honestly. Who are you to accuse?

You do not have the guts to present an honest challenge.
You want people to defend your lies, not evolution.

Until such time as you start talking about evolution and not your strawmen, you are doing nothing more than making yourself look like an arse.

All in the name of your god.

 

[thau]

You do not have the guts to present an honest challenge.
You want people to defend your lies, not evolution.

Until such time as you start talking about evolution and not your strawmen, you are doing nothing more than making yourself look like an arse.

All in the name of your god.

Evolution is a diversion, nothing more.

As I just said to dyana, you can have evolution, we will grant you it occurred for the sake of getting on with it. The only question of any importance is this: Do not insult us by saying evolution could have occurred without God! That is when the lies really start emerging. Lies that send people on their way to an oblivious life without purpose or concern.

(As to my evidence for God, I will gladly post my challenge to you and your pals when time allows.)

 

[thau]

No it isn't.
But then, since you have already thoroughly demonstrated that you know nothing about evolution, even though you flat out lie and call your strawmen evolution, and have absolutely no intentions of even learning about evolution, you would not have the first clue as to why it is not even a slight hiccup for evolution.

run on home and claim your victory.

Ah, you are human after all. Feelings hurt. Stephen Gould, the high priest of evolution, said on more than one occasion no fossil evidence for gradual evolution. Can't bear that? It means that something is terribly amiss. If we evolved then why does the evidence say we did not?

And since Gould could never say evolution is a lie, he came up with his "punctuated equilibrium" theory to try to explain it another way. Who is the desperate ones?

 

[fishy]

Ah, you are human after all. Feelings hurt. Stephen Gould, the high priest of evolution, said on more than one occasion no fossil evidence for gradual evolution. Can't bear that? It means that something is terribly amiss. If we evolved then why does the evidence say we did not?

And since Gould could never say evolution is a lie, he came up with his "punctuated equilibrium" theory to try to explain it another way. Who is the desperate ones?

High priest........hahahaha. Here's a headsup, evolution isn't a religion, no priests. Sorry, but the rest is funny. You just keep punching that scarecrow. :biglaugh:

 

[thau]

High priest........hahahaha. Here's a headsup, evolution isn't a religion, no priests. Sorry, but the rest is funny. You just keep punching that scarecrow. :biglaugh:

I will take that answer as an admission you really do not have one.

"high priest" was merely semantics, but since you chose to focus on that little nuance speaks volumes to me.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Evolution is a diversion, nothing more.

As I just said to dyana, you can have evolution, we will grant you it occurred for the sake of getting on with it. The only question of any importance is this: Do not insult us by saying evolution could have occurred without God! That is when the lies really start emerging. Lies that send people on their way to an oblivious life without purpose or concern.

(As to my evidence for God, I will gladly post my challenge to you and your pals when time allows.)

Given that we're in the Evolution Vs. Creationism subforum and the title of this thread is regarding what prevents creationists from accepting evolution I'd hardly call it a diversion, I'd call it the topic.

That said, I agree whether evolution happened or not doesn't answer the question of whether or not God exists. You have four possibilities here:

God exists and evolution isn't true.
God doesn't exist and evolution isn't true.
God exists and evolution is true.
God doesn't exist and evolution is true.

In the first two, there must be some other physical cause behind our existence regardless of whether God exists or not.

In the last two, evolution is how we got here. If God exists then evolution (or really, the laws of physics in general) would simply be the method God used for our creation.

So in terms of "Does God exist?" evolution is irrelevant. It's only important in that context when dealing with religions that have a specific belief as to the methods God used in creating us, one that contradicts evolution and one that is taken to be literal.

Regarding the existence of God you'd be looking at philosophical arguments (cosmological, teleological etc). You'd be better of making a new thread for that though.

 

[thau]

You do not have the guts to present an honest challenge.
You want people to defend your lies, not evolution.

Until such time as you start talking about evolution and not your strawmen, you are doing nothing more than making yourself look like an arse.

All in the name of your god.

Sorry, but I must admit, evolution bores me. It’s a diversion for people to not truly think about their mortality.

I have read about all I care to at this point. But if you want some night reading you can ponder the 15 questions for evolutionists in this web site below.

http://creation.com/15-questions

And if you want to read a quote from Dr. David Berlinski, an award winning mathematician who also has other fields of scientific endeavor and written extensively on evolution, check out this little amusing anecdote. I would like to point out I find the man flawed. Why? Because he is an agnostic. He sees no evidence for God either ---- but that does not mean he is going compromise his integrity and swallow the B.S. evolution is propagating.


The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, "is no longer in dispute among scientists." Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark.




(FYI on the Steven Stanley who Mr. Berlinski quoted:
Steven M. Stanley (born November 2, 1941) is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record.)

 

[tumbleweed41]

I wonder if any of our Creationist friends could actually address the issue of biological evolution without resorting to fallacious contextomy, hypostatization and special pleading?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sorry, but I must admit, evolution bores me. It’s a diversion for people to not truly think about their mortality.

What on earth are you talking about? I think about mortality all the time. My interest in evolution in no way impedes my general morbidity.

I have read about all I care to at this point. But if you want some night reading you can ponder the 15 questions for evolutionists in this web site below.

http://creation.com/15-questions

And if you want to listen to a brilliant scientists, an award winning mathematician who also has other fields of scientific endeavor and written extensively on evolution, check out this little amusing article. I would like to point out I find the man flawed. Why? Because he is an agnostic. He sees no evidence for God either ---- but that does not mean he is going compromise his integrity and swallow the B.S. evolution is propagating.

The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, "is no longer in dispute among scientists." Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark.




(FYI on the Steven Stanley who Mr. Berlinski quoted:
Steven M. Stanley (born November 2, 1941) is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record.)

You do realize that Steven Stanley was not arguing that evolution is wrong or false, just that the phyletic model of evolution proposed by Darwin initially does not match up to the fossils we have found. Stanley is a proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium as a driving force behind evolutionary change.

You do realize that, in trying to present Dr Stanley as someone who doubts evolutionary theory in general, you make yourself look extremely dishonest, right? After-all, he is an evolutionary biologist.

 

[thau]

I am not insulted by what you thought about me.

Yes, I KNOW Steven Stanley is an avowed evolutionist. That has nothing to do with the point I was making, or more importantly, the point he was making. The same point Stephen Gould has made in the past as well.

And that point is highly PROBLEMATIC to what evolution claims in school text books. There is no fossil evidence for how they say we evolved, i.e. gradual changes.

 

[Father Heathen]

When I see a lizard appear with some feathers and part of wing, it will be a very tiny step towards accepting what the world swallows.

But that's not how evolution works.

I believe in creation as the default answer ---- not because there is proof for creation, but because there is proof of God. Not because there is proof of creation,

The concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

but because the evidence we have and lack of evidence says "evolution never happened."

There is an insurmountable mountain of evidence that confirms evolution.

Honestly.... I would not know where to begin (once again).

I would begin by going back to school.

 

[fishy]

Sorry, but I must admit, evolution bores me. It’s a diversion for people to not truly think about their mortality.

Understanding the principles of evolution have nothing to do with my mortality. I am going to die, as are you, I however have no need of a belief in some specious immortality to make my fear of such a circumstance acceptable to me. I don't fear death. Death IS. It really is that simple.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not insulted by what you thought about me.

Yes, I KNOW Steven Stanley is an avowed evolutionist. That has nothing to do with the point I was making, or more importantly, the point he was making. The same point Stephen Gould has made in the past as well.

And that point is highly PROBLEMATIC to what evolution claims in school text books. There is no fossil evidence for how they say we evolved, i.e. gradual changes.

You don't seem to understand what Stanley was saying. Once again: Stanley was simply arguing agaisnt a particular model of evolution proposed by Darwin that all morphological changes were slow and gradual or occurred at a steady pace. Stanley simply proposes that the largest morophological changes can occur rapidly as a result of intense envrionmental pressures on particular populations, rather than all mutation through the genome occurring slowly and sequentially. This does not contradict anything that is taught about evolution in schools or elsewhere. We have understood that Darwin's initial model of evolution is inaccurate for a very long time, and the science - as it is understood and taught nowadays - takes account of that. There are no problems whatsoever proposed to evolutionary theory, or the teaching of it, by Stanley's statements on the subject - what he is proposing is simply a specific detail of how evolution occurs.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sorry, but I must admit, evolution bores me. It’s a diversion for people to not truly think about their mortality.

What a strange non sequitur.

 

[fishy]

Imagine how wonderful it would be, if when I die I just transform like a caterpillar into a moth and the great moth above gives me eternal life, no more spinning cocoons, just everlasting bliss. Oh wait, what will I DO?