Do creationists have anything new?

[Jose Fly]

I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science? Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

 

[Skwim]

I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth.

But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

But isn't this how all long running controversial issues go? New blood takes up the cause and attacks the opposition with the same ol' same ol'.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).

For the young creationist. . .

.

 

[Jose Fly]

But isn't this how all long running controversial issues go? New blood takes up the cause and attacks the opposition with the same ol' same ol'.

Not in my experience. Usually when one side consistently loses, they at least try and come up with something new.

For the young creationist. . .

.

 

[Neo Deist]

...so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

Pretty much.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Only in the realm of humor do the creationists and the physical measurists meet.

 

[siti]

Imagine a soccer team that had been brainwashed into believing that the game was won by the team conceding the most own goals. Even their coaches - who should know better - continue to encourage this. They keep on kicking the ball into the back of their own net, and in their own minds, winning every game hands down. Why would they change such a 'winning' strategy? Why would they not go for the same play over and over? And what would there be left for the real soccer players to do but to stand and watch the circus for a while, occasionally chipping in the odd long shot in the vain hope of stimulating some genuinely interesting twist in the game, before going off in search of more meaningful competition.

 

[Cobol]

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments never hold up.

The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution.

 

[Lirille]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but the existence of "Creationists" in this day and age really baffles me.

It's like having a cult that denies that Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks ever existed (please tell me there's no such cult...).

 

[Skwim]

Not in my experience. Usually when one side consistently loses, they at least try and come up with something new.

Thing is, the "they" isn't always composed of the same people. The old players drop out and new ones come in. And it's these new players that are so frustrating.
Fundies come to the creationism Vs evolution debate relying on the creationists arguments of old, ignorant of any of the counter arguments of science. So, thinking they're on to something quite convincing they regurgitate the old arguments over and over again. So don't expect anything unique from these new creationists because they have no reason to be.


.


.

 

[Skwim]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but the existence of "Creationists" in this day and age really baffles me.

It's like having a cult that denies that Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks ever existed (please tell me there's no such cult...).

Gotta remember that many Christians, too many, are so committed to preserving the "truth" of the scriptures that anything science has to say in opposition to it is, by default, false.


.


.

 

[Deeje]

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science?

Who says they have to? It isn't the converted who need convincing...its the undecided...and judging by the number of people who view these threads, many are trying to make up their minds. Truth doesn't change.
Science does.

Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

It will educate the ones who have been led to believe that science knows it all and can prove all its claims....nothing could be further from the truth. You think paleontologists are going to jump ship any time soon and suffer the ridicule that any dissenters receive if they fail to swallow the party line?

Don't hold your breath.

Finally.....do you have any new arguments?

Why do we need new arguments

...the truth is the truth and it doesn't change on the whims of scientists who cannot even agree amongst themselves.

There are no links in the "chain" of evolution because no links have ever been proven to exist....they have been suggested and fully illustrated with impressive diagrams, and accepted by the converted masses as if they were gospel truth, but if you view the video I posted on the other thread exposing the reason why so many science students and professors can't provide any tangible proof for macro-evolution, it kinda makes them squirm that they don't have any solid answers.
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/just-accidental.191045/page-132#post-5092911
See Just Accidental?

As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

They are not meant to impact on science at all. They are meant to impact on human hearts who might be juggling the evidence presented by both sides of this issue and making decisions about it. As far as God is concerned...there are only two choices. If you aren't for him, you're against him. I am not sure he cares about how intelligent humans think they are.

Nor does he force anyone to acknowledge him.....but he wishes you would.

 

[Altfish]

I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science? Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

What about the banana and the crocoduck

 

[Jose Fly]

So the consensus view seems to be that no, creationists do not have any new arguments or anything else. And that means all discussions or debates with creationists will be nothing more than rehashes of topics that have been done to death for decades or even centuries, and have accomplished absolutely nothing.

Rather sobering, isn't it?

 

[allfoak]

I would say that the hermetic perspective has some answers but is frequently dismissed as foolishness.

CHAPTER II
THE SEVEN HERMETIC PRINCIPLES
"The Principles of Truth are Seven; he who knows these,
understandingly, possesses the Magic Key before whose
touch all the Doors of the Temple fly open."--The Kybalion.

The Seven Hermetic Principles, upon which the entire Hermetic Philosophy is based, are as follows:

1. The Principle of Mentalism.
2. The Principle of Correspondence.
3. The Principle of Vibration.
4. The Principle of Polarity.
5. The Principle of Rhythm.
6. The Principle of Cause and Effect.
7. The Principle of Gender.

These Seven Principles will be discussed and explained as we proceed with these lessons. A short explanation of each, however, may as well be given at this point.

1. The Principle of Mentalism

"THE ALL IS MIND; The Universe is Mental."--The Kybalion.

This Principle embodies the truth that "All is Mind."
It explains that THE ALL (which is the Substantial Reality underlying all the outward manifestations and appearances which we know under the terms of "The Material Universe"; the "Phenomena of Life"; "Matter"; "Energy"; and, in short, all that is apparent to our material senses) is SPIRIT which in itself is UNKNOWABLE and UNDEFINABLE, but which may be considered and thought of as AN UNIVERSAL, INFINITE, LIVING MIND.
It also explains that all the phenomenal world or universe is simply a Mental Creation of THE ALL, subject to the Laws of Created Things, and that the universe, as a whole, and in its parts or units, has its existence in the Mind of THE ALL, in which Mind we "live and move and have our being."
This Principle, by establishing the Mental Nature of the Universe, easily explains all of the varied mental and psychic phenomena that occupy such a large portion of the public attention, and which, without such explanation, are non-understandable and defy scientific treatment.
An understanding of this great Hermetic Principle of Mentalism enables the individual to readily grasp the laws of the Mental Universe, and to apply the same to his well-being and advancement.
The Hermetic Student is enabled to apply intelligently the great Mental Laws, instead of using them in a haphazard manner.
With the Master-Key in his possession, the student may unlock the many doors of the mental and psychic temple of knowledge, and enter the same freely and intelligently.
This Principle explains the true nature of "Energy," "Power," and "Matter," and why and how all these are subordinate to the Mastery of Mind. One of the old Hermetic Masters wrote, long ages ago:
"He who grasps the truth of the Mental Nature of the Universe is well advanced on The Path to Mastery."
And these words are as true today as at the time they were first written. Without this Master-Key, Mastery is impossible, and the student knocks in vain at the many doors of The Temple.

The Kybalion: Chapter II. The Seven Hermetic Principles

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Strangely, baseless fantasies rooted in ancient myths and foktales don't tend to offer up "anything new."

 

[allfoak]

Strangely, baseless fantasies rooted in ancient myths and foktales don't tend to offer up "anything new."

That would be strange wouldn't it?

 

[Skwim]

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science?

Who says they have to?
It isn't the converted who need convincing...its the undecided...and judging by the number of people who view these threads, many are trying to make up their minds.

And it's the undecided who the converted are afraid will be convinced by science. Hence the attempts by the converted to denigrate the findings of science where evolution is concerned. But alas, as Jose Fly points out, their attempted denigrations have zero impact on the findings of science.

It will educate the ones who have been led to believe that science knows it all and can prove all its claims....nothing could be further from the truth.

If you actually understood science you'd know that their claims seldom come without "proof." And this is because most of them are couched in terms that allow for revision and disproof. So, any "proof" would not extend any further than the limits of the claim, which often take the stated or unstated qualifying form of: "It appears," As far as known," or "According to our research." It's only the foolish and uneducated who presume that science purposely leads people to think it's infallible. And, of course, creationists sometimes claim just this in their effort to mislead the ignorant: pretending (lying) that science has all the answers and then mock them for it. The straw-man argument is a well honed weapon in the creationist's arsenal, and they delight in using it.

Why do we need new arguments

...the truth is the truth and it doesn't change on the whims of scientists who cannot even agree amongst themselves.

You need new arguments because all the others have failed. You can't make a convincing case for creationism on its own grounds so you seek to make it on the grounds of science. It presumes that by showing science to be wrong creationism wins by default. Besides not being the case at all, creationists have NOT shown science to be wrong when it comes to evolution.

There are no links in the "chain" of evolution because no links have ever been proven to exist....they have been suggested and fully illustrated with impressive diagrams, and accepted by the converted masses as if they were gospel truth, but if you view the video I posted on the other thread exposing the reason why so many science students and professors can't provide any tangible proof for macro-evolution, it kinda makes them squirm that they don't have any solid answers.
See Just Accidental?

Gotta say, attempting to make an argument based on one's ignorance is amusing, but not at all unusual, and quite in keeping with creationist conceit. And while it may convince those ignorant of the facts, statements like these sometimes make those of us who know better want to bury our heads in disbelief and disgust.

They are not meant to impact on science at all. They are meant to impact on human hearts who might be juggling the evidence presented by both sides of this issue and making decisions about it.

Well they're certainly meant to impact the truths of science in the minds of fence sitting Christians.


.

 

[Deeje]

Rather sobering, isn't it?

Actually, what is quite sobering is the video I posted JoseFly.

Can you comment on the fact that none of the professors or majors in various science fields, (who all held strong beliefs in evolution) could produce ANY observable evidence at all in support of their "belief"? Who really has "blind faith"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As Deeje said, they haven't had to

Much of what has slowly begun to be accepted in the last few decades is exactly what creationists have been saying all along,

the problems with gradualism, transitionals, even those once considered 'immutable' truths - Dinosaurs to birds and humans from apes, have become ever more challenged by the emerging evidence

It's the remaining supporters of the Victorian age model of Darwinism, that have had to constantly relocate the goalposts to comply with new evidence

 

[MansFriend]

I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science? Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

It's a wonderfully generous service you are performing to help all those who are failing to understand that holy writ has been encoded with an ancient encryption system. It might make your life easier if you took the time to fully understand the sacred texts they are making a mess of and help them understand the truth of their own documents so that they are less of a pain in the rumpuses of scientists pursuing the truth in their own field.