The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[Audie]

Anyone that links to his own web page as a "source" is very rarely going to be reasonable. Especially when that person appears to have no formal education in the subject at hand at all. That sort of action can lead to what would be perceived as personal attacks since the poster will conflate attacks on his personal web page as an attack against him. I do sometimes wish that there was a rule against using one's own pages as "sources".

Who ya talkin' about? There was something about
"last post" from someone, maybe the same dud?

 

[shunyadragon]

First you set a straw man by claiming this is our biggest argument, it isn't. Then you miss the point--it's not "one dart" but thousands and thousands of problems and anomalies with abiogenesis, rapid evolution and more.

Creationists creating delusions of illusions of problems is medicine man blue smoke and mirrors with a religious agenda, and not remotely in touch with the reality of science.

 

[sealchan]

Creationism isn't science. What you are saying is like saying "This banana is a substandard automobile." It doesn't mean anything.

But you're keep saying it speaks of something. . . . What is it?

I agree with what you say. If I keep saying it it is because people keep saying they want a literalist based belief taught in school as science. It is, unfortunately, a thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who ya talkin' about? There was something about
"last post" from someone, maybe the same dud?

@RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha tends to refer to his own website at times.

Now I am not saying that it is the case here, but there are times when that is done that the author of the website is clearly a loon. What worries me is pointing out that a website was written by a loon may be interpreted as a personal attack against the person that linked his own website. One may not even know that the posters and the author of the website were one and the same. If one points out that the author of the website was a few fries short of a Happy Meal would that be considered a personal attack here and a violation of the rules?

 

[ChristineM]

First you set a straw man by claiming this is our biggest argument, it isn't. Then you miss the point--it's not "one dart" but thousands and thousands of problems and anomalies with abiogenesis, rapid evolution and more.

What problems, the only problems are creationist generated in order to deflect from their total lack of evidence for god or magic

 

[Skwim]

[

First you set a straw man by claiming this is our biggest argument, it isn't.

Actually I said it's "The" argument." And, thee argument that creationism is right is that Evolution Is Wrong. Aside from the sotto voce "The Bible tells us so," which is rarely if ever brought up, all else is an attack on evolution.

Then you miss the point--it's not "one dart"

No it isn't, and if you go back and carefully reread what I said you will see I said "darts," the plural of "dart," which signifies more than one.

.

 

[Skwim]

The creationist's argument greatest weakness is that they are not very accurate in their interpretation of Genesis. For further details see my own Bible By Chapter - Genesis Chapter 1

But now, let's talk about you. Why is it more important for you to concentrate on Creationists when you could be concentrating on learning or, even doing, science?

Well, lets talk about you (not really). Why is it more important for you to concentrate on what I could be doing when you could be concentrating on the subject at hand: The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness. But never mind, we all know why.

Uh-huh.

Kind of stopped you in your tracks, did he.

.

.

 

[John53]

The creationist's argument greatest weakness is that they are not very accurate in their interpretation of Genesis. For further details see my own Bible By Chapter - Genesis Chapter 1

But of course your interpretation is 100% accurate?

 

[Audie]

First you set a straw man by claiming this is our biggest argument, it isn't. Then you miss the point--it's not "one dart" but thousands and thousands of problems and anomalies with abiogenesis, rapid evolution and more.

Good, good, the oh-so-cute use of the word "problem".

Guess what. You have problems. The USA has millions of problems.

So what?

With all these "problems" with evolution, why dont you
just pick one "dart".

A a really super duper good one.

One that disproves ToE.

Otherwise you may as well claim that a flooded subway track
is a problem that disproves NYC.

Coz you are getting zero respect or credibility with your
claim so far.

 

[Audie]

But of course your interpretation is 100% accurate?

Save your post coz-

He's gone like the buffalo
Like that boy from Tupelo
That old wall down in Jericho
Like Maybelle on the radio,
He's gone like the five and dime

 

[John53]

Save your post coz-

He's gone like the buffalo
Like that boy from Tupelo
That old wall down in Jericho
Like Maybelle on the radio,
He's gone like the five and dime

My brain guessed it was Brian Adams, then a remembered he bought his guitar at a five and dime so apologies to Emmylou Harris after a quick google search

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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 argument is assiduously avoided at all costs. Why? Because it lacks the power to convince. So, time and again those who champion evolution are subjected to chest-beating challenges such as, "You weren't there so you can't know," or "If we evolved from apes/monkeys, why are there still apes/monkeys 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 in evolution." Of course, few of us care if the creationist believe us or not--- evolutionists are mainly concerned with their attempt to insinuate creationism into public schools, and, secondarily, with their attempt to pass along misinformation to the unwary.

In short then, the creationist ploy is one of, "I can't prove my side so I'll give it credibility by tearing down evolution," which (1) is hardly a compliment to the intelligence of its audience, (2) falsely assumes that if evolution is wrong, by default creationism must be true.

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


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

For years I've been telling any creationists who will listen that even if they disproved evolutionary theory tomorrow, killed it dead, buried, never coming back, that still wouldn't prove creationism. They tend not to like being told this.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Uh-huh.

When you make claims like "critical thinking is a danger to science" without any explanation, it's kind of hard to disagree with her.

 

[Audie]

My brain guessed it was Brian Adams, then a remembered he bought his guitar at a five and dime so apologies to Emmylou Harris after a quick google search

And my apologies for re writing it a bit.

But anyway, your "Rothchild" whatever has left us to,
as he put it, "lick our wounds".

 

[Audie]

When you make claims like "critical thinking is a danger to science" without any explanation, it's kind of hard to disagree with her.

Like, totally get with the programme here!
He is gone (like the five and dime) and wont be back
no more no more!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

it has been my experience in religion and everything else that when fanatics can't stand the competition and insist, one way or another, that their take on the truth is exclusive, it's a definite red flag.

We are talking about science class, not truth class. Creationism isn't science which is why it isn't taught in science class. The only reason for teaching creationism in science class is religious indoctrination which runs afoul of the 1st Amendment when it comes to public schools.

One could suggest that the two contentions be taught only in college but those quasi sacred grounds are hardly bastions of free speech and independent thinking these days. There, once the alcoholic stupor and cannabis fog had subsided the political pontification may be exposed.

We certainly wouldn't want that. Critical thinking is such an obvious danger to the traditional modern day science and religion.

Given the conspiracy theories you spout, I don't think you should be complaining that other people lack critical thinking skills.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

By the way, the idea that a TED talk is banned makes me want to watch it!

Goes to show that old PR tactics still work. Want to make nonsense look more profound? Claim that it has been banned. 99.9% of the time it was discarded by someone because they don't want to be affiliated with garbage, but hey, "I was banned" sounds a lot more heroic.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Goes to show that old PR tactics still work. Want to make nonsense look more profound? Claim that it has been banned. 99.9% of the time it was discarded by someone because they don't want to be affiliated with garbage, but hey, "I was banned" sounds a lot more heroic.

"God's Not Dead was blackballed by the liberal atheist Hollywood Jewish elite, which is why it didn't win all the Academy Awards or get any of the popular acclaim it deserved" sounds better than "it was a badly written, worse acted, turgid flop that was less enjoyable than acute IBS at the beach".

But the great thing about conspiracy claims is they're unfalsifiable. Any evidence they're a load of horse manure is actually proof that the conspiracy is true, because the evidence that looks like horse manure was manufactured by the conspiracy!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But the great thing about conspiracy claims is they're unfalsifiable. Any evidence they're a load of horse manure is actually proof that the conspiracy is true, because the evidence that looks like horse manure was manufactured by the conspiracy!

People who push a conspiracy theory are rarely interested in the truth. It is much more about ideology than reality.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

People who push a conspiracy theory are rarely interested in the truth. It is much more about ideology than reality.

I believe most conspiracy theories are born from the desperate human need to find order in a random universe. To some people, the idea that a secret evil cabal causes earthquakes and kidnaps babies for their own evil purposes is more comforting than accepting that sometimes random bad stuff can just happen to anyone at any time.

Although there certainly is a subset of conspiracy theorists for whom conspiracy serves as a rationalisation to excuse their own failings or failings of their group, sure. "We didn't lose because we didn't know what we were doing with no preparation, we lost because of the conspiracy against us by forces beyond our control"