Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

y

You ask what atheists object to evolution? Many have and then they left it behind in the dust! Frantisek Vyskocil was one! He began questioning it, and later started believing in God!

It was probably the other way around. If an atheist rejects evolutionary theory, he has painted himself into a corner. He'll be a theist already when he starts to have such ideas. about evolution.

And it will almost always be evolution as the sole science he objects to. People simply don't find fault with gravitational, optical, hydrodynamic, or electrical science when they acquire a god belief. It's evolution. To the faithful, those scientists alone are wrong and incompetent.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution is absurd, but if you are intent on being spoon fed that lie, I will not stand in your way

You're being dogmatic again.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And therein lies the heart of this whole issue. There is a clearly delineated separation between these two "kinds" of "evolution". (pardon the pun) The fact is, scientists use one to explain away the impossibility of the other. No adaptive change in any creature produced a completely different kind of animal or bird or insect or bacteria. No morphing of creatures has ever been clearly established, since the "transitional" forms presented are many millions of years apart and nothing is seen in between to link them. The links are missing because they never existed.

This is incorrect. Speciation has been observed, and transitional fossils are abundant.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I find the notion that this is all "accidental" to be highly illogical and quite unintelligent.

What does "accidental" mean that is not also covered by undesigned and uncreated?

And what is illogical here? Life is here. There are only naturalistic (abiogenesis and evolution) and supernaturalistic possibilities to account for it. How is positing the existence of a god more logical than an explanation that doesn't require one?

 

[Darkstorn]

How is positing the existence of a god more logical than an explanation that doesn't require one?

For her to answer that in the way you expect, she would firstly have to take your viewpoint into account with equal measure to her own. And i think that's something that will never happen. Your question is fair; She won't treat it fairly.

 

[Deeje]

This is incorrect. Speciation has been observed, and transitional fossils are abundant.

I have not seen speciation turn one creature into another and neither has any scientist. Speciation simply creates variety within a species. I refer you to the examples in Wiki on speciation. The flies were still flies and would have remained so for the rest of whatever. The stickleback fish were still stickleback fish, only a new variety.
Darwin's finches were still the same fundamental creatures that he saw on the mainland....and the same applied to all the other creatures he observed. Not one of them had become something else.

Transitional fossils are missing altogether in the fossil record which science admits is incomplete.

You have no real evidence for what you believe, yet you cling onto it like your life depends on it.

What does "accidental" mean that is not also covered by undesigned and uncreated?

Can you tell me what piece of machinery humans might use that was not designed and made by an intelligent mind?
A motor vehicle...a wristwatch...a computer....power tools.....jet skis....radar....? All are made with many components, each individually designed, that must all work together in the right sequence, at the same time to perform their tasks.

The human body demonstrates amazing design. Think of all the components that must work to give us even our five senses. Think of the oxygen exchange between heart and lungs, then imagine the digestive system and how it extracts nutrients from food. Think of the hormonal system and the endocrine system, glands and filters and waste disposal.....think of our bone structure and how it forms the perfect framework for the rest of our body. If people think these components are 'undesigned' and 'uncreated' then I would consider them to be unintelligent and incapable of evaluating the magnitude of creation as a whole. We are made for the earth and the earth was designed to beautifully support life.

If you come upon an exquisite work of art, do you normally assume that there was no artist?

And what is illogical here? Life is here. There are only naturalistic (abiogenesis and evolution) and supernaturalistic possibilities to account for it.

"Life is here"....but where did it come from?

And it depends on what you consider "supernatural" to be. By the sounds of things, evolutionists seem to dismiss creation because they have some strange picture of a celestial magician 'poofing' things into existence with the wave of his hand in 7 days. That could not be further from the truth. That is not the way Genesis tells the story. It maybe in simple language, but what it describes is not simple at all....nor did it take a short time.

Are you so certain that no other life forms exist outside of earth? Are you sure that other dimensions don't exist where lifeforms, who are not like us, can carry on living in a form, not yet discovered by science? Are you that limited in your scope that you believe that humans are the most superior intelligence in existence? I have news for you....

How is positing the existence of a god more logical than an explanation that doesn't require one?

Unless you can produce something that is designed for a purpose that had no designer and maker, your question is rather silly.
Design requires a designer. Show me what complex organism does not exhibit design.

Even simple cells are not simple, they are very complex, operating much like small city.....According to Wiki, all organisms are made up of cells which are "the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms, that all cells come from preexisting cells, and that all cells contain the hereditary information necessary for regulating cell functions and for transmitting information to the next generation of cells."

That being the case, if "all cells come from pre-existing cells", where did the first cells come from? Life is here...but how did it get here?
If our cells contain hereditary information, whose information was the first cell transmitting? If evolution has no clue as to how life originated, what is the big deal about how life adapted? The most important question there is in science is how did life start....and yet they have no answer. Are you really sure that you can dismiss a Creator or Intelligent Designer?

 

[Derek500]

After all of this, please get to the subject involved.

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

 

[Derek500]

I have not seen speciation turn one creature into another and neither has any scientist.

I have. Personally. And I'm not even a biologist!

Speciation simply creates variety within a species

Nope. Speciation means speciation. Are you trying to create your create your "own special words"?

Let's get back to the original OP.

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

 

[Thumper]

Evolution is absurd, but if you are intent on being spoon fed that lie, I will not stand in your way

I didn't think you understood any of this --

1. That life on this planet changes over time is an observable fact and is referred to as evolution.
2. Our human understanding of the mechanisms which drive these changes is what we call the theory of evolution.

Until you learn to separate these 2 ideas, you will continue to be laughed at.

I also noticed you ignored the rest of my post about how much our understanding of biology helps us all live better, healthier lives.

 

[Thumper]

... "I dunno" is not a very scientific position, is it?

Actually it is a very scientific position. It is the start of the search for answers. Claiming to know something without evidence is not scientific.

 

[Derek500]

After all of this.

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

 

[shunyadragon]

Forgive me, but I must interject:

When was the last time you looked at the fossil record? It should be called "evolution of the gaps." Quite a lot of faith is required to believe in "descent with modification." It is not accurate science, it's fiction. As more of the Cambrian Explosion lägerstatten is examined, and the stratigraphy of the Precambrian and Ediacaran, more nails are being hammered into Darwinian evolution!

Essentially, you have to believe that an estimated 8 billion species, both flora and fauna with so many diversified body plans, developed in only c. 540 million years! At that rate, we should be seeing beneficial, structural, macromutations within observed species, every few years. Yet, it's never been observed! Oh, bacteria are adapting, becoming resistant to treatment, but they're still bacteria. (They're not growing appendages.)
And Darwin's finches, are still birds.

No, Macro evolution is the absurd pseudoscientific farce.

It is difficult to respond to aggressive combative tactics of YEC extremists. I may give it some thought and come back.

Comments:

(1) The Discovery Institute is at the forefront of an attempt to give a scientific explanation for Creationism focusing heavily on 'irreducible complexity.' The problem remains that the Discovery Institute has failed to provide falsifiable hypothesis that demonstrate 'irreducible complexty,' young earth, and the Creationist Theology in any aspect. Yes there are a few scientist in involved her, but very few, and they are the ones that have failed to provide the hypothesis.

(2) I have been a professional geologist for more than forty years specializing in soil science, geomorphology, and geochemistry. The biggest problem from my professional perspective the argument for a young earth. The stratigraphy of the earth has clearly falsified an earth billions of years old, with no evidence of a global nor regional flood that would fit the claim of the Biblical flood.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course he's entitled to an opinion. And you are entitled to disregard it.

He's not authoritative in evolutionary science, but he is knowledgeable and can explain much of it.

Did you see my comment on ethos? Polymath has a strong reputation earned on another discussion website where he had been for years as had I. When you see a person who can think clearly, has a large fund of knowledge, has never (or perhaps rarely) been shown to be wrong, and appears to be interested in teaching rather than indoctrinating, he becomes somebody that can be trusted based on his words alone. I have come to expect him to post only about what he knows well. We have a valuable asset in Polymath, although I must say that this thread has several stellar posters. Gnostic is one, as is Jose Fly, and so is sayak.

My apologies if I have overlooked anybody.

These people are assets if you'd like to learn.

You should include yourself in that list, by the way. Or, at least, *I* would include you in that list.

 

[sayak83]

It is difficult to respond to aggressive combative tactics of YEC extremists. I may give it some thought and come back.

Comments:

(1) The Discovery Institute is at the forefront of an attempt to give a scientific explanation for Creationism focusing heavily on 'irreducible complexity.' The problem remains that the Discovery Institute has failed to provide falsifiable hypothesis that demonstrate 'irreducible complexty,' young earth, and the Creationist Theology in any aspect. Yes there are a few scientist in involved her, but very few, and they are the ones that have failed to provide the hypothesis.

(2) I have been a professional geologist for more than forty years specializing in soil science, geomorphology, and geochemistry. The biggest problem from my professional perspective the argument for a young earth. The stratigraphy of the earth has clearly falsified an earth billions of years old, with no evidence of a global nor regional flood that would fit the claim of the Biblical flood.

Hi,
Since you are a geologist, maybe you should start a thread listing evidence regarding age of the earth and how we know radiometric dating provides accurate results regarding age of various epochs. A refutation of certain common objections to age of the earth and plate-tectonics by those who think "flood caused it all" will also be helpful.

 

[Thumper]

Hi,
Since you are a geologist, maybe you should start a thread listing evidence regarding age of the earth and how we know radiometric dating provides accurate results regarding age of various epochs. A refutation of certain common objections to age of the earth and plate-tectonics by those who think "flood caused it all" will also be helpful.

Why, did you forget how to use Google?

Maybe I can help get you started -- LMGTFY

 

[sayak83]

Why, did you forget how to use Google?

Maybe I can help get you started -- LMGTFY

Google cannot provide you with the 1-1 give and take and information in a logically coherent framework that a specialist can provide. The other thing is access to scientific literature where the scientific process by which a conclusion regarding a certain geological process is laid out, and these are generally inaccessible to non-scientists. So its always good to have a geologist curating one or two geology threads in the evolution-creation forum. There isn't one here currently.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi,
Since you are a geologist, maybe you should start a thread listing evidence regarding age of the earth and how we know radiometric dating provides accurate results regarding age of various epochs. A refutation of certain common objections to age of the earth and plate-tectonics by those who think "flood caused it all" will also be helpful.

First, I rely on stratigraphy and the concept of uniformity to establish the age of the earth. The use of various forms of radiometric dating does indeed confirm the argument from stratigraphy, but from my perspective it is not necessary.

One of the major interesting challenges from YEC fundamentalist is to question uniformity for which they provide no evidence for this objection. The gradual and continuous deposition in many locations going back millions of years, as well as recent lake varved annual sediment layers beginning in present annual sediment deposits going back 60,000 years without interruption. Vast similar varved deposits occur in the geologic strata covering hundreds of thousands of years in individual formationsin thousands of feet of cyclic formations of shale sandstone, and coal and limestone. The strata record shows many shales, aeolian silt deposits, sandstones and vast thick limestones containing coral reefs, which cannot be explained by a world nor a regional flood event. There is also vast salt, bauxite and gypsum deposits that can only form in arid conditions over a very long time.

There is more that I may go into later, but this is enough for now.

 

[sayak83]

First, I rely on stratigraphy and the concept of uniformity to establish the age of the earth. The use of various forms of radiometric dating does indeed confirm the argument from stratigraphy, but from my perspective it is not necessary.

One of the major interesting challenges from YEC fundamentalist is to question uniformity for which they provide no evidence for this objection. The gradual and continuous deposition in many locations going back millions of years, as well as recent lake varved annual sediment layers beginning in present annual sediment deposits going back 60,000 years without interruption. Vast similar varved deposits occur in the geologic strata covering hundreds of years. The strata record shows many shales, aeolian silt deposits, sandstones and vast thick limestones containing coral reefs, which cannot be explained by a world nor a regional flood event. There is also vast salt, bauxite and gypsum deposits that can only form in arid conditions over a very long time.

There is more that I may go into later, but this is enough for now.

Yes, I am simply suggesting. When you have time and after you have looked around the forum a bit.

 

[Jenny Collins]

I didn't think you understood any of this --

1. That life on this planet changes over time is an observable fact and is referred to as evolution.
2. Our human understanding of the mechanisms which drive these changes is what we call the theory of evolution.

Until you learn to separate these 2 ideas, you will continue to be laughed at.

I also noticed you ignored the rest of my post about how much our understanding of biology helps us all live better, healthier lives.

YOU: "I don't think you understand any of this" ME: What you THINK doesn't matter! You don't know me, nor do you know what I think! How presumptuous! Yes, I know that life on the planet changes over time and that is microevolution! I knew that as long as I can remember! Why do you think we have so many varieties of dogs? There are variations in kind, and people can breed animals to take on certain traits, or this can happen naturally! But whatever it is that "changes" still remains the species that it is! And when it goes too far, it often becomes sterile, as in the case of mules (and yes, I know that there are exceptions and that mules have had offspring! As far as me ignoring what you have told me because you think I am too chicken, I have several people on here who are debating with me and can't respond to everything, nor do I even read everything when they are long winded! And also, in order for me to reply to everything, I would need to do extensive research to give good answers! What I often do is later research things and I find good answers, but I don't necessarily return to explain them to the people who challenge me, because they could do the research themselves! I don't know how to share links, and I am not going to quote the people who give the explanations because it would be too time consuming! I have a life outside of this

 

[Jenny Collins]

I didn't think you understood any of this --

1. That life on this planet changes over time is an observable fact and is referred to as evolution.
2. Our human understanding of the mechanisms which drive these changes is what we call the theory of evolution.

Until you learn to separate these 2 ideas, you will continue to be laughed at.

I also noticed you ignored the rest of my post about how much our understanding of biology helps us all live better, healthier lives.[/QUOT As far as your condescending attitude and that I will "continue to be laughed at" that is what people like you do! You are haughty and derogatory! Propaganda uses the tool of derision! Somebody figured out that "laughing at people" will make others doubt them, and sometimes the people themselves will second guess themselves because nobody wants to be made fun of! That is why some scientists suppress their doubts about evolution! They are scared of the reaction