If Evolution Is Wrong ... Why Does Creationism Win By Default!?

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Let's think about this.

We have an abundance of fossilized remains for tens of thousands (or more) life forms that once inhabited earth but no longer do. All of these different remains are found in different depths all around the globe; which, by itself, suggests that they did not all coexist; a suggestion which is strongly confirmed by multitudes of dating methods. Also fascinating is that we find an absence of fossilized remains of different organisms (most notably but not exclusively) modern organisms and mammalia that date to the ages of most of these creatures. No Tyrannosaurus remains are found as deep or as old as we find Tiktaalik; no Human remains are found as deep or as old as Tyrannosaurus.

This leads to a very strong logical conclusion that life forms on earth appear and disappear during different periods of our long geological history.

What is the explanation for this?

Let's assume, just for sake of argument, that Evolution is not the explanation for this. Just for sake of argument.

Well, even with that being the case, the logical conclusion is: Neither is Creationism. Spontaneous Generation, with or without "divine intervention", has been dis-proven; it doesn't exist; it doesn't happen; and this, with plentiful research and even experimentation. There are no scriptural references of God creating; then destroying; then creating again. Not even Noah's Ark; as I guess there must have been dinosaurs on that ark? Point is, there are no references nor evidence of multiple creations, scriptural or otherwise.

So by what audacity and reasoning does one suppose that if Evolution is false, Creationism wins by default!?

 

[Deathbydefault]

So by what audacity and reasoning does one suppose that if Evolution is false, Creationism wins by default!?

Creationism would win in the sense that there is one less opposing force.
Creationism would by no means be correct, but one less player on the field would be removed.
It would be a temporary victory, but a victory nonetheless (one we would never hear the end of).

Then again, science would just adapt around evolution being false and come out on top anyways.

 

[Parsimony]

It doesn't. A third option could exist.

 

[jeager106]

It doesn't. A third option could exist.

Please elaborate. Use your imagination as I find that supposition quite interesting.
NO! I'm not baiting you I really do find such a proposition quite interesting.
I am quite spiritual, belong to NO denomination, love learning about Christian
concepts but DO 100% believe in evolution as supported by the fossil record.
To deny the fossil record is folly.
I can accept evolution without rejecting "religion".
I prefer "spirituality" to religion, believe in a Creator God and pray He is in control
of this world. Or someday in control of this world.

 

[McBell]

Please elaborate. Use your imagination as I find that supposition quite interesting.
NO! I'm not baiting you I really do find such a proposition quite interesting.
I am quite spiritual, belong to NO denomination, love learning about Christian
concepts but DO 100% believe in evolution as supported by the fossil record.
To deny the fossil record is folly.
I can accept evolution without rejecting "religion".
I prefer "spirituality" to religion, believe in a Creator God and pray He is in control
of this world. Or someday in control of this world.

That the whole known universe is nothing more than one of gods bowel movements, flushed down the toilet and completely forgotten by god.

Has just as much evidence supporting it as creation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Let's think about this.

We have an abundance of fossilized remains for tens of thousands (or more) life forms that once inhabited earth but no longer do. All of these different remains are found in different depths all around the globe; which, by itself, suggests that they did not all coexist; a suggestion which is strongly confirmed by multitudes of dating methods. Also fascinating is that we find an absence of fossilized remains of different organisms (most notably but not exclusively) modern organisms and mammalia that date to the ages of most of these creatures. No Tyrannosaurus remains are found as deep or as old as we find Tiktaalik; no Human remains are found as deep or as old as Tyrannosaurus.

This leads to a very strong logical conclusion that life forms on earth appear and disappear during different periods of our long geological history.

What is the explanation for this?

Let's assume, just for sake of argument, that Evolution is not the explanation for this. Just for sake of argument.

Well, even with that being the case, the logical conclusion is: Neither is Creationism. Spontaneous Generation, with or without "divine intervention", has been dis-proven; it doesn't exist; it doesn't happen; and this, with plentiful research and even experimentation. There are no scriptural references of God creating; then destroying; then creating again. Not even Noah's Ark; as I guess there must have been dinosaurs on that ark? Point is, there are no references nor evidence of multiple creations, scriptural or otherwise.

So by what audacity and reasoning does one suppose that if Evolution is false, Creationism wins by default!?

You're not thinking about it in the same manner as a Creationist, I suspect (or at least, many creationists).
Instead, start from an assumption that Creationism is real, because Bible. Then see Evolution as an upstart challenger you've just seen off. From that point of view, the existing view is reinforced as it's been proven 'fitter'. And yeah, I chucked in the fitter thing as an attempt at evolutionary humour.

Err...sorry...

 

[Ve Zivko]

Let's think about this.

We have an abundance of fossilized remains for tens of thousands (or more) life forms that once inhabited earth but no longer do. All of these different remains are found in different depths all around the globe; which, by itself, suggests that they did not all coexist; a suggestion which is strongly confirmed by multitudes of dating methods. Also fascinating is that we find an absence of fossilized remains of different organisms (most notably but not exclusively) modern organisms and mammalia that date to the ages of most of these creatures. No Tyrannosaurus remains are found as deep or as old as we find Tiktaalik; no Human remains are found as deep or as old as Tyrannosaurus.

This leads to a very strong logical conclusion that life forms on earth appear and disappear during different periods of our long geological history.

What is the explanation for this?

Let's assume, just for sake of argument, that Evolution is not the explanation for this. Just for sake of argument.

Well, even with that being the case, the logical conclusion is: Neither is Creationism. Spontaneous Generation, with or without "divine intervention", has been dis-proven; it doesn't exist; it doesn't happen; and this, with plentiful research and even experimentation. There are no scriptural references of God creating; then destroying; then creating again. Not even Noah's Ark; as I guess there must have been dinosaurs on that ark? Point is, there are no references nor evidence of multiple creations, scriptural or otherwise.

So by what audacity and reasoning does one suppose that if Evolution is false, Creationism wins by default!?

Short answer to why creationism wins by default. Albert Einstein - "Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe".

 

[Altfish]

It doesn't. A third option could exist.

Since creationism or its ******* son intelligent design isn't going to overthrow evolution; it would have to take an earth shattering discovery to overthrow it. I can't imagine what it would be, but then before Darwin I couldn't imagine evolution.

 

[Skwim]

Q. If Evolution Is Wrong ... Why Does Creationism Win By Default!?

A. Because it's the only way creationists see to win. They've established this rather onerous dichotomy because it's the only way they see to save their faith. The Bible MUST be correct in all it says in order to justify one's belief in salvation and what-not. And in order to be correct and have Christianity retain its rightful place in the world as "The Truth," all its arch enemies must be vanquished, including evolution. Can't have spurious alternatives mucking up the truth of the Christian faith. To their credit these fundamentalists know they can't do this by using the Bible or their theology, so they believe that if they can disprove evolution they get to win by default. To this end they resort to all kinds of dirty tactics such as lying, misrepresentation, slander, false accusations, fallacious arguments, and the "I can't hear you" ploy. Their motto is simple: "whatever works." All of which is not surprising because they could never construct a decent argument without them. Without the lies, misrepresentations, slanders, false accusations, fallacious arguments, and the "I can't hear yous," or passing them along, creationists have essentially nothing to say.

Many fundie Christians, being rather needy people in many respects, tend to swallow this without hesitation, finding pronouncements from anyone demonstrating a scintilla of education, whether valid or baloney, to be quite reassuring. After all, who has the time to check out statements such as "Evolution contradicts God’s existence… and… therefore, science is wrong." or “There’s evidence for micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.” Same with the If Evolution is Wrong then Creationism Wins by Default argument. People want, may even need, this to be true. And, sadly enough, wants and needs quickly become truths.

Vindicate My Faith: Destroy Evolution


.​

.

 

[Parsimony]

Please elaborate. Use your imagination as I find that supposition quite interesting.
NO! I'm not baiting you I really do find such a proposition quite interesting.
I am quite spiritual, belong to NO denomination, love learning about Christian
concepts but DO 100% believe in evolution as supported by the fossil record.
To deny the fossil record is folly.
I can accept evolution without rejecting "religion".
I prefer "spirituality" to religion, believe in a Creator God and pray He is in control
of this world. Or someday in control of this world.

Speaking only hypothetically, if evolution had turned out to be wrong then some other way of life on Earth getting here could have happened instead of divine creation of that life. We could have all been put here by aliens (who also fabricated the fossil record). It's a completely unsupported idea, of course. The point being that evolution being wrong doesn't make creationism right because some other, not yet considered, third theory could one day come into being.

 

[jeager106]

Speaking only hypothetically, if evolution had turned out to be wrong then some other way of life on Earth getting here could have happened instead of divine creation of that life. We could have all been put here by aliens (who also fabricated the fossil record). It's a completely unsupported idea, of course. The point being that evolution being wrong doesn't make creationism right because some other, not yet considered, third theory could one day come into being.

Aw, come on!
I watch the t-v show Ancient Aliens and am convinced Ancient Aliens
seeded the EARTH with humanoids to resemble the aliens.
Don't you know that this ^^ is the reason we look JUST LIKE the aliens.
A body, legs, arms, head, forward facing eyes, the remnants of a 3rd eye
at the back of our heads, a desire to explore space and so on.
I believe we are genetically programmed to explore space and eventually
find our roots.
The whole concept of god or gods, worshiping what we don't understand, is our
desire to worship these ancient creators.
Sounds like a beginning of a great sci-fi novel, what?

 

[Zosimus]

Speaking only hypothetically, if evolution had turned out to be wrong then some other way of life on Earth getting here could have happened instead of divine creation of that life. We could have all been put here by aliens (who also fabricated the fossil record). It's a completely unsupported idea, of course. The point being that evolution being wrong doesn't make creationism right because some other, not yet considered, third theory could one day come into being.

No. Even if you postulate aliens or some other method of life arriving from another planet, you are merely pushing back the question. You still need to answer the question of where the alien life came from.

 

[Parsimony]

Aw, come on!
I watch the t-v show Ancient Aliens and am convinced Ancient Aliens
seeded the EARTH with humanoids to resemble the aliens.
Don't you know that this ^^ is the reason we look JUST LIKE the aliens.
A body, legs, arms, head, forward facing eyes, the remnants of a 3rd eye
at the back of our heads, a desire to explore space and so on.
I believe we are genetically programmed to explore space and eventually
find our roots.
The whole concept of god or gods, worshiping what we don't understand, is our
desire to worship these ancient creators.
Sounds like a beginning of a great sci-fi novel, what?

Well I guess it could be...

No. Even if you postulate aliens or some other method of life arriving from another planet, you are merely pushing back the question. You still need to answer the question of where the alien life came from.

It still wouldn't be creationism as modern fundamentalists understand it (which is that humans in particular were created by divine intervention). In my alien scenario, life on Earth was created neither by an act of divine creation nor evolution. The aliens could have come into being via evolution, divine creation or even pure chance in an infinite multiverse, but all of those options are different from fundamentalist creationism.

 

[jeager106]

I STILL maintain ancient aliens did it.
I don't know how humans came to be.
The Bible tells the Creation story. I believe that was written for the people of that
time as science as we know it simply didn't exist.
Did we evolve from lower life forms?
Could we have DEvolved from superior life forms?
If ancient aliens seeded this planet one might suspect they would come back
and check on the kids once in a while.
Dunno.
The whole Adam thing, the Adam's rib thing to make a woman, is a tale for
people of the times.
Frankly it's good prose and I think we should keep it but not take it literally.

 

[jeager106]

Did Moses part the Red Sea?
I think so and there is scientific speculation on how this was done.
Google it.

The "RED SEA" is incorrect.
According to many sources it was the Sea or Reeds.
In other words a really big swamp.
"Best Answer: The translation Sea of Reeds is given as an alternate to Red Sea in many Study Bible foot notes for the Hebrew Yam Suph. Since reeds only grow in fresh water, scholars have looked for centuries for a fresh water lake the Israelites could have crossed and of course none exists.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080128190254AAbc05u

But a more accurate translation of the Hebrew word would be seaweed and of course this grows in salt water. So the Hebrew phrase Yam Suph really doesn't mean Red Sea or Sea of Reeds, it means Sea of Seaweed. The name Red Sea probably stems from its proximity to Edom, the land occupied by the descendants of Esau, whose name in Hebrew means Red."

As usual for me to say: Google it up fer yerself and make up yer own noodle.

 

[Draka]

Of course there is also the nice little point about there being numerous creation stories. Creationists seem to think they are battling with evolution yet if they didn't have that to contend with they would eventually have to go against each other. There is a different creation myth for practically every religion. There's something to have fun with.

 

[Skwim]

Speaking only hypothetically, if evolution had turned out to be wrong then some other way of life on Earth getting here could have happened instead of divine creation of that life.

Please keep in mind that evolution doesn't address the origin of life, only its diversity. Whether it arose through an act of some deity, the gift of aliens, came aboard a meteor, or formed through abiogenesis is irrelevant.

Of course there is also the nice little point about there being numerous creation stories. Creationists seem to think they are battling with evolution yet if they didn't have that to contend with they would eventually have to go against each other. There is a different creation myth for practically every religion. There's something to have fun with.

The reason they've singled out evolution is that it looms as the greatest threat to the theology of creationists. No other alternative to Christian creationism poses a greater threat than the science which is taught their children in public schools. Evolution comes with a lot of validation from a lot of different directions, and this is what's so scary about it. Creationism, whose only clout lies in the faith in the words of a single book, doesn't compare to the evidence, logic, and reason that under-girds the power of evolution. Creationists are continually fighting an uphill battle to keep their kids from going over to the dark side and abandoning the fundie faith. All the other creation stories, having no better basis than Christian creationism, are mere flies on the wall that can be readily dismissed, particularly when the specter of evolution sits in the corner threatening the veracity of the fundie faith.

.

 

[Parsimony]

Please keep in mind that evolution doesn't address the origin of life, only its diversity. Whether it arose through an act of some deity, the gift of aliens, came aboard a meteor, or formed through abiogenesis is irrelevant.

I'm well aware.

 

[First Baseman]

Either there is a creator or there isn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[metis]

Either there is a creator or there isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Maybe it's "creators"?