Will Creationism slowly fade away into oblivion?

[Shermana]

The gish gallop does not strengthen your case, it makes you look like a spambot.

What exactly makes it a spambot? Those links about the Peer Review process are not by Creationists. So basically you confirm what I'm saying, you want to stack the playing field as you see fit, and then if someone presents a list of links that specifically show where you're mistaken or that their point is not as wrong as you'd like to assert as matter of fact, then it becomes "spam bot".

And the purpose of listing the links of the arguments of Creationists for a Young Earth was to show you the list of arguments that they actually use. Now if you consider it Spam to merely present the arguments being presented, that only further demonstrates what I'm accusing the Evolutionists of doing, you want to just write off and dismiss even the issues they bring up without really acknowledging that they have a reason for why they're making such objections! It's even worse than religious people who say "My way is right, yours is wrong because it goes against the Bible, that's that!"

I don't think you understand what "spam" and "Spam bot" actually mean since you confuse legitimate links, some from peer reviewed sources with spam.

But thank you for further demonstrating the dismissive evasiveness and well poisoning. I guess it boils down to feeling empowered to arbitrarily decide if a link is "spam" or not, even when it doesn't remotely fit the definition of "spam". So basically, you want to assert your opinions as if matter of fact, and then if a stack of relevant links and sources which go against you are presented, you get to write them off as irrelevant and spam, how convenient!

I'm sure you guys are gonna be around for a while, but if you want people with opposing views to take you seriously then you can't just keep throwing piles of barely relevant information at the wall and taking whatever sticks. It's impossible to have a rational debate that way.

Barely relevant? If you want to actually make the Creationists eat their words, you may want to try harder than writing off links that agree with them as "Spam" and deciding what is and isn't "relevant" and actually go after the issues at stake. What's impossible to have a rational debate with is someone who refuses to acknowledge what actually does stick.

My rainbow unicorn idea would break several laws of physics and is based on wrong calculations and wishful thinking. There is also no way to detect them, therefor no way to disprove them.

So are you thus comparing it to the idea of a Designer and Intelligent Design which certain proponents here are saying that Evolutionism does NOT necessarily go against? Are you saying that by default, one cannot include a God and Design and Creation into even Theistic Evolution and that Evolution must be approached purely from a non-ID perspective? If so, thank you for validating my earlier points.

 

[sonofdad]

What exactly makes it a spambot? Those links about the Peer Review process are not by Creationists. So basically you confirm what I'm saying, you want to stack the playing field as you see fit, and then if someone presents a list of links that specifically show where you're mistaken or that their point is not as wrong as you'd like to assert as matter of fact, then it becomes "spam bot".

Let me give you an example. Imagine we are debating whether the fossil records supports the theory of evolution.

You claim that there are no transitional fossils.
To supposidely prove you wrong, I point you to this ginormous list of transitional fossils: talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Even if every single item on that list were wrong, it would most likely take you months in the least to gather enough information to refute every one of them.

For each one you counter, I counter with even more sources which you will have to counter as well.

Even if you confidently refute all but one, I still have that one giving me the benefit of the doubt.
You can see how this quickly spiral into a heap of nonesense, right?

You can picture this like me throwing 100 balls in the air and asking you to keep them all afloat and if you drop one, you lose.
I would basically be blinding you with "evidence".

A debate like this will be much more efficient if we tackle one subject at a time using only relevant to the point sources and examples.
You only need one strong piece of evidence to prove me wrong or you right, problem with your tactic is that if there is any in between the junk, it will be drowned out by noise.

So are you thus comparing it to the idea of a Designer and Intelligent Design which certain proponents here are saying that Evolutionism does NOT necessarily go against? Are you saying that by default, one cannot include a God and Design and Creation into even Theistic Evolution? If so, thank you for validating my earlier points.

What I will tell you is that to put god into science, you must first demonstrate the existance of god or god's effect on nature with verifiable evidence.
Just like my undetectable unicorns, entities we can't know whether exist or not can't be used for scientific explanations.
That has nothing to do with evolution and it has nothing to with fighting religion. It has to do with science building theories on facts and empirical evidence alone, without that little rule, people could just start making **** up, defeating the purpose of science alltogether.

 

[fantome profane]

Does that also apply to the Nobel prize winners who got rejected by Peer Review?

Ok, I'll bite. Is this Nobel prize winner you refer to someone who won the no Nobel prize for biology?

Did this person who won the Nobel prize in biology submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal that got rejected for illegitimate reasons?

Who was this person? What was the Nobel prize for? And what was the paper?

 

[dust1n]

I really didn't expect this thread to thrive like it has.

 

[painted wolf]

Umm, what sources are you using, because my sources say it's close to half that are specifically YEC, not 10%.
Nearly Half of Americans are Young Earth Creationists - American Beliefs About Evolution & Human Origins

Actually that figure varies quite considerably depending on how you ask the question and what kinds of follow up questions you ask.

And no... they aren't YEC's.... they answer that Humanity is less than 10,000 years old... not the earth. Big difference.

The Straight Dope: Nearly half the U.S. population believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Say it ain't so!

Currently only 30% of the population claims to interpret the Bible literally... and then they aren't actually being asked about the whole YEC thing. Because remember Old Earth Creationists and Gap Creationsists also claim to interpret the Bible literally.
In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally

It's a nice try to say that half of Americans are YEC's but it simply isn't true and frankly it's a very shoddy attempt to skew the numbers. :beach:

wa:do

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I always get a kick out of this recurring creationist routine. Failing to get their works peer reviewed by legitimate science journals they then try to show how flawed peer reviewing is anyway.


Hmmmm. Seems there's a word for this. Let's see . . .flower . . . dower. . . . . . .dower drapes. . . . nope. Sour drapes? WAIT!! I got it! it's . . . . . . it's

Sour grapes!!

​

Yeah, that's it!​

It's the same song all over again. Since science doesn't back up a religion's claims, it's not the religion that's at fault, it's a conspiracy on the part of science. And then they say they're the one's who "search for truth". But they don't do anything even remotely involving actual truth searches. They just want validation for their beliefs. People can become so deeply psychologically invested in a belief, that to have it shown wrong, would be greatly damaging to the believers psyche. So, instead of accept reality and truth, they make all kinds of claims, such as conspiracy.

 

[Skwim]

Does that also apply to the Nobel prize winners who got rejected by Peer Review?

Do you have someone in mind? If that's their attitude, then certainly it applies. Why wouldn't it? Sour grapes are sour grapes.

 

[John Martin]

Creationism and evolutionary theories are not contradictory but complementary. The Biblical narratives about creation are not scientific theories but they try to explain the place and the meaning of creation. They want to tell that the origin of creation is God. Creation is manifested in the image and likeness of God. Human beings are endowed with the capacity to become aware of the divine consciousness. The purpose of human beings is to live in harmonious relationship with God, with creation and with other human beings. The Bible says it is to be fruitful and multiply:it means to manifest the divine attributes of love and compassion in human relationships.
The scientific theory of evolution is true as far as it is concerned with material evolution. The consciousness is not the product of evolution. It comes directly from God. Human brain is evolved to be able experience this divine consciousness. The bible describes it: God breathed his spirit into nostrils of human beings. It means that the our body belongs to the process of billions of years of evolution but our consciousness is eternal. It was there 15 billions of years ago, before the big bang began. Mystics of all great religions bear witness to it.Jesus Christ said 'the Father and I are one'. He became aware of the consciousness before the creation began. The reflection of God is present in every creature. This reflection of the divine destined to return to the divine. In this process of returning to its source it is creating many forms of creation. This is what we call intelligent design, even though this process can make mistakes.
When we read the creation stories in the $bible we do not look for scientific theories but only the purpose of creation and the dignity of human beings. If evolution says that consciousness is the product of evolution then it is going beyond its limits. Hence the creation stories in the Bible and scientific evolutionary theory complement each other. If the Bible stories are taken as scientific explanations then it is going beyond its scope.

 

[johnhanks]

If evolution says that consciousness is the product of evolution then it is going beyond its limits.

Who sets and polices these limits, exactly, and with what authority?

 

[Skwim]

Creationism and evolutionary theories are not contradictory but complementary.

Not in the least. Creationism outright repudiates evolution. In fact, it's their main argument for creationism: evolution is false.

The Biblical narratives about creation are not scientific theories but they try to explain the place and the meaning of creation. They want to tell that the origin of creation is God.

With statements that many Christians take as fact, but are in direct conflict with evolution.

The scientific theory of evolution is true as far as it is concerned with material evolution. The consciousness is not the product of evolution. It comes directly from God.
Human brain is evolved to be able experience this divine consciousness.

And your incontrovertible evidence for this is . . . . . ?

The bible describes it: God breathed his spirit into nostrils of human beings. It means that the our body belongs to the process of billions of years of evolution but our consciousness is eternal. It was there 15 billions of years ago, before the big bang began. Mystics of all great religions bear witness to it.

You just destroyed all credibility with me. :run:

 

[LuisDantas]

While Creationism is usually little more than a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the findings of science, John Martin has a point; the word can be used, and arguably should, in a far more reasonable manner that in no way needs to deny scientific fact.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As far as I can tell, creationism is as big, if not bigger, than ever - and doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Combine this with the fact that people seem to be growing more superstitious and less able to think critically, and, if anything, creationism looks like it might continue to grow.

 

[4consideration]

As far as I can tell, creationism is as big, if not bigger, than ever - and doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Combine this with the fact that people seem to be growing more superstitious and less able to think critically, and, if anything, creationism looks like it might continue to grow.

Do you think it's evolving?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

As far as I can tell, creationism is as big, if not bigger, than ever - and doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Combine this with the fact that people seem to be growing more superstitious and less able to think critically, and, if anything, creationism looks like it might continue to grow.

I don't really think it's getting that much bigger, I think it's more in a tug-of-war with science and reason. It'll get bigger, then shrink, and back and forth, at least that's the way it seems to me. And it will probably continue this way for at least a while.

 

[painted wolf]

As far as I can tell, creationism is as big, if not bigger, than ever - and doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Combine this with the fact that people seem to be growing more superstitious and less able to think critically, and, if anything, creationism looks like it might continue to grow.

Really... because at best I see it being static.

wa:do

 

[sonofdad]

As far as I can tell, creationism is as big, if not bigger, than ever - and doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Combine this with the fact that people seem to be growing more superstitious and less able to think critically, and, if anything, creationism looks like it might continue to grow.

Ironic that evolution would favor creationists.

 

[johnhanks]

Do you think [creationism is] evolving?

Not only has it evolved, it's evolved adaptively - we might even say by memetic selection. Back in the 60s, few creationists would admit the possibility of speciation: change, they insisted, could occur only within species. Several decades later, when speciation has been so thoroughly observed and documented as to make credible denial harder work than it's worth, creationists have been forced to step back a pace and invent "kinds" as the unchangeable unit of creation. Given the selection pressure they're still subject to, they may even one day decide exactly what a "kind" is.

Memetic selection has also wiped out the more sluggish and slow-witted manifestations of creationism: we don't hear old favourites like "If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and "I'll believe in evolution when I see a cat give birth to a dog" any more. But, like coelacanths, some of the more venerable creationist mantras still cling on in the modern age: "There are no transitional fossils" still stubbornly resists extinction, as, ironically, does, "If evolution is true, why are there still coelacanths?"

 

[Skwim]

Memetic selection has also wiped out the more sluggish and slow-witted manifestations of creationism: we don't hear old favourites like "If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and "I'll believe in evolution when I see a cat give birth to a dog" any more. But, like coelacanths, some of the more venerable creationist mantras still cling on in the modern age: "There are no transitional fossils" still stubbornly resists extinction, as, ironically, does, "If evolution is true, why are there still coelacanths?"

Evidently you're not tuning in enough. Both of these surfaced here within the last year, and more than once.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

As far as I can tell, creationism is as big, if not bigger, than ever - and doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Combine this with the fact that people seem to be growing more superstitious and less able to think critically, and, if anything, creationism looks like it might continue to grow.

Really? This is what you honestly believe? Rewind 1000 years where creationism was pretty much 90%+ believed and accepted to today and you think creationism is just growing and will continue to grow?

What backs up this opinion?

As far as you can tell? What are you using as methods to compare percentage wise to conclude with your opinion?

TL;DR: I disagree and am not really sure why people would disagree and think creationism and bigger than ever and growing. (But we all lie right? (Dr.House!))

 

[Happyatheist83]

I really hope that it fades away, it's ********