The creationist's argument and its greatest weakness

[Skwim]

is that it tries to prove its validity by throwing darts at evolution . . . . Oops. Excuse me, "Darwinism." This isn't to say its underlying basis, faith in an ancient book, isn't enough to sink it forthwith, but this little aspect of their belief is assiduously avoided at all costs. Why? Because it lacks any power to convince. So, time and again we're subjected to chest-beating challenges such as, " You weren't there so you can't know," or "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?" or "abiogenesis is an unproven theory," or my favorite "when you can show me a (name your animal) giving birth to a (name another animal) I'll believe." Of course, few of us care if the creationist believe us or not--- evolutionists are only concerned with their attempt to insinuate creationism into public schools.

In short then, the creationist ploy is one of, "I can't prove my side so I'll give it credibility by tearing down yours," which is hardly a compliment to the intelligence of its audience.

I know the forgoing is nothing new to most of us who visit the Evolution Vs. Creationism Forum, but I think it needs mentioning now and then to remind evolutionists of the creationist's pitiful tactics and how futile arguing with them will likely be.

If any creationist disputes my characterization here and finds it offensive I apologize and invite them to post a reasonable response.

 

[LuisDantas]

While there are weaknesses aplenty in the so-called arguments of so-called Creationism, the core of its fragility is ultimately its own basic goal of discrediting Evolutionism out of fear of questioning alone.

Creationism is defeatable. If anything, it is all too easily defeatable, so easily as to be a boring task that dismays by being demanded at all. We all have better things to do.

But Creationism did not survive because it was defensable, but rather because it keeps being recreated by people who are much too scared to know better.

 

[Noaidi]

There was a thread a couple of years back asking creationists to offer their evidence for their views without mentioning evolution at all. It died pretty quickly, if I remember correctly.
It seems odd that their entire argument is based on a supposed rebuttal of a verifiable and reliable scientific theory, rather than on its own merit.
Strange way to argue one's case, I think.

 

[Revoltingest]

It greatest weakness:
It's not right.
It's not even wrong.


I never get tired of that old joke.

 

[outhouse]

Creationist work two fronts here in the fight aganst education and knowledge. Offense and defense.

#1 Tear down the facts behind evolution.

#2 Defend the ancient books.

It is a fail on both fronts. #2 is much harder to do as the books are not real evidence of anything scientific towards our true origins, and claimed by many as mythology.

And trying to dismiss facts has been a terrible failure on their part.

What they have going for them is popularity, and the old people who will not change their ways no matter how convincing the facts are.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Creationists generally just have an issue accepting the fact that science backs up evolution and the primary case for it it DNA. If you deny Evolution then you are denying all lab testing as well and products from it such as Tylenol. These products are created because of the genetic similitude we have with other animals on the biological level. Heredity can be traced through DNA and the fossil record by itself means nothing without it.
Creationists often cannot tell abiogenesis from evolution from the Big Bang theory. Ignorance of science only hurts them and if you cannot argue the right thing you are either uninformed or lying. If you are lying you are severely stupid if you believe that ignorance makes a great argument. It is just sad that the truth is not in so many people's favor which leads to mass idiocy.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Creationist work two fronts here in the fight aganst education and knowledge. Offense and defense.

#1 Tear down the facts behind evolution.

#2 Defend the ancient books.

It is a fail on both fronts. #2 is much harder to do as the books are not real evidence of anything scientific towards our true origins, and claimed by many as mythology.

And trying to dismiss facts has been a terrible failure on their part.

What they have going for them is popularity, and the old people who will not change their ways no matter how convincing the facts are.

History is not even on their sides.