Creationists, why do you attack evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Been there, done that.

Doesn't sound like it.

I like science.

Except when it contradicts your a priori dogmatic religious beliefs, right?

I am not the least concerned about a few atheists on some website attacking me or God for that matter. He can take it trust me.

Another typical thing among religious dogmatists, is that they tend to confuse challenging their beliefs with personal attacks.
You check all the boxes.

What?, That I believe in a God and that I believe I was created in His image?

No. I was, obviously, talking about your religiously inspired views concerning the science of biology.

You will need to go after a whole bunch of other people on this site besides me, that is unless you're all atheists. In that case I recommend you change the name of the site to something else.

No need. There's plenty of god believers here that don't feel the need to reject scientific facts in favor of fundamentalist religious beliefs.

PS- No I haven't blocked you, but if all you have in this is a fight against anyone who doesn't believe like you do that's what we refer to as closed minded and would bear consideration for blocking.

Closed minded are not those people who disagree. Closed minded is when you have dogmatic beliefs and aren't prepared to have your views challenged, let alone altered, by evidence. That's what you do. That's what creationists do. That's what science deniers do.

There is no amount of evidence that will convince them. And I have the feeling that there's no amount of evidence that will convince you of evolution either. You have already decided a priori what you are going to believe. Case in point, you didn't even bother to reply to the post where I corrected your mistakes regarding biological evolution. And I bet that if you do reply to it, all we will get is denial and handwaving, and eventually bible quotes.

 

[Audie]

Then you'ld be able to demonstrate it in an independently verifiable manner.

Hold your breath

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hold your breath

Why are you trying to kill me?

 

[Audie]

Why are you trying to kill me?

Spag monsters are immune
to such trifles.

 

[Khabeni412]

Its only Christians and some Muslims that deny science. Other faiths accept science. Creationists aren't educated enough or properly to understand, well, anything. I'm still waiting for one creationist claim that isn't a lie, misrepresentation or logical fallacy.

 

[stvdv]

Maybe you think evolution undermines your faith, so it must be done away with. Which is understandable, but then why bring it up in the company of atheists?

Q: Creationists, why do you attack evolution?

A: The same reason Atheists attack Creationists

 

[Heyo]

Q: Creationists, why do you attack evolution?

A: The same reason Atheists attack Creationists

And why do atheists attack creationists?

Right, it's a turf war.
Before there were atheists (who'd call themselves that) and modern scientists, religions owned the turf on which to explain the world. (E.g. schools.) Then the scientists kicked religion out, because the religious explanations were wrong. Now science owns the turf.
Believers never recovered from that. There is no chance to come back with the same old bull****, not even when they try to disguise it as "intelligent design". All they have left is attacking the science, in the vain hope that if science gets discredited they'd come back as the default.
So why are atheists defending science, not scientists? Scientists are busy doing science and the attacks are so ridiculous, that they don't require a professional rebuttal. Atheists (sometimes joined by educated believers) try to prevent uninformed people to believe and do stupid things. Sometimes they fail, and then the judiciary has to jump in. Last time that cost about $1million, paid by the Dover District School Board.

 

[vijeno]

The same reason Atheists attack Creationists

I find it interesting how you switched the topic from attacking an idea, to attacking people, all while avoiding the question posed.

Let me repeat: What do you think you stand to gain from attacking evolution?

 

[vijeno]

Right, it's a turf war.

I'm sure some people see it that way. But then again, behind a "turf war" like that (which isn't actually a physical war), there are psychological motivations. I'd like to explore those.

Just to add a little personal-story oomph: Back when I started debating religion on the internet, I encountered, of course, creationists, and I had some hefty debates. Why? For one, I was flabbergasted that people really held those beliefs. They didn't "really" exist in my religious circles. I was also naive enough to think I was able to change minds. And I kind of felt like I had an obligation to defend my worldview.

But over time, all of that fell by the wayside. I got more settled, more secure. There is no need to engage, and little sense to it - nobody will ever convince anybody anyway, I know creationism enough to know that it just doesn't convince me, and I have consumed enough religious content to know that I did my due diligence engaging with the opposition.

So, all of this makes me wonder... if you are a creationist, and you debate against evolution, something must be very different from the way I see it - so what is it?

 

[Heyo]

I'm sure some people see it that way. But then again, behind a "turf war" like that (which isn't actually a physical war), there are psychological motivations. I'd like to explore those.

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

It's about power, the ability to control the narrative on your turf. Even though creationists aren't a cult, they have a cult like hive mind. They vote for whom their pastor tells them, and they will give you money (if they have any themselves). Oh, and they will mindlessly repeat the bull**** they believe.

Just to add a little personal-story oomph: Back when I started debating religion on the internet, I encountered, of course, creationists, and I had some hefty debates. Why? For one, I was flabbergasted that people really held those beliefs. They didn't "really" exist in my religious circles. I was also naive enough to think I was able to change minds. And I kind of felt like I had an obligation to defend my worldview.

But over time, all of that fell by the wayside. I got more settled, more secure. There is no need to engage, and little sense to it - nobody will ever convince anybody anyway,

We don't debate to convince the interlocutor, we debate to convince the audience.

The usual debate in Evolution vs. Creationism starts by a creationist stating some unscientific bull**** in hopes to get some uninformed kids to listen. Some science communicator or science affiliate layman for evidence or citations or simply corrects the creationist.
The ensuing fight is over the attention of the audience.

Often in such debates the interlocutor isn't a person any more, they are just avatars of Kent Hovind or Richard Dawkins. That's why such debates tend to get nasty quick.
When the creationist inevitably loses the debate (which they will never concede), they disappear.

But imagine what would happen if we didn't intervene. In some of the audiences' minds, the bull**** gets some validity, as it hasn't been debunked.

 

[stvdv]

I find it interesting how you switched the topic from attacking an idea, to attacking people, all while avoiding the question posed.

Thank you for the correction. I forgot to type the word "viewpoint"

 

[stvdv]

Let me repeat: What do you think you stand to gain from attacking evolution?

I would never attack evolution
Nothing to gain from attacking evolution

 

[Astrophile]

Adaptation is a fact. Depending on the proper scientific terminology, there are 'new species' that have come about. Using their classification system, technically they would be correct, but it's a different kind of duck or snail now classified as a new species. Never a duck to a snake which was my point going into this.

Would you accept that swans, geese and ducks are descended from a common ancestor that was a bird but that would not be classified as either a swan, a goose or a duck? Would you accept that pythons, cobras and vipers are descended from a common ancestor that was a snake but a different type of snake from any of its descendants?

 

[Audie]

Its only Christians and some Muslims that deny science. Other faiths accept science. Creationists aren't educated enough or properly to understand, well, anything. I'm still waiting for one creationist claim that isn't a lie, misrepresentation or logical fallacy.

That will never happen.

 

[Audie]

I think you would be very surprised at how much data I have poured over on both sides of the issue. Yes certainly there are some things in the bible symbolic and sometimes we have a statement that something happened with no detailed scientific explanation as in many narratives intended to be stories, yet truthful disclosures. I will say up front I believe we were created and I don't believe creation used a chain improvement method. I DO believe similar designs and materials were employed.

The water and oil here in is science which doesn't acknowledge anything other than science. Science is pliable and often changes. Assertions are rountinely made which are later changed due to the inaccuracy of such assertions. In the case of evolution, there's a lot of persuasive lit out there on the scientific end making insistent claims that have never been specifically proven to lead to the conclusions they draw.

A literal bible reading in most cases is a progression sequence of events leading up to a main event which changed the course of mankind and will continue until the completion. There is the romatic thought that science and this book can potentially agree. I believe this as well happen eventually when science finally catches up.

Adaptation is a fact. Depending on the proper scientific terminology, there are 'new species' that have come about. Using their classification system, technically they would be correct, but it's a different kind of duck or snail now classified as a new species. Never a duck to a snake which was my point going into this.

I'm not afraid of science I think many would agree science has it's limitations though. We never hear the word "prove" because due to the pliability of it, especially in regard to this subject, there are more empty holes than filled ones. Sure we have cell phones and computers because we have science, but all of it was solidly founded and provable in a lab. Neither does it delve into biology with those same credentials.

In all my studies science only reenforces my God.. Like any other study there are leanings and biases in science and those who make the claims.

Best,

Tim

IF you've poured over material on
evolution from reputable sources
( not creationist sites) at all its more
than I'd expect, or than shows in your
writing. Your "woefully short" indicates
you don't even know what the ToE is.

Also, if you are even moderately well acquainted
with the evidence / facts/ reasoning involved,
you come up against the fact that it is imposible
to be an informed creationist with intellectual
integrity.

So, benefit of any doubt and all plus various tells
in what you write, I will go with that youve no idea
what you are talking about.