How can creationists debunk a theory they don't even understand?

Question

Do they understand evolution is as well accepted in the scientific community as gravity?
why do they lie and try to distort the truth and constantly change and rearrange their story that earth is only 6000 years old or so? How could this possibly make any sense to them if they had even the most basic second grader understanding of science?

sean,
I'll make you a bet I know more about the bible than you do.
I was raised christian and wasted my time reading far TOO much of the bible, like so many others, we should be reading real science and real history. this is our problem
and I understand enough about geology to know a flood of water does not cause the grand canyon and enough about evolution to understand survival of the fittest-- and change according to need or die out-- a basic concept in understanding which has NEVER been refuted in any scientific body.

hey heir india:
who is presumptuous? the theory of punctuated equilibrium does not necessarily oppose gradualism, it is just a different form of it.
It is a common misunderstanding or flat out misrepresentation in the creationist pseudo-science faith system that it challenges the basic tenants of Darwinism. Which is still a rock hard theory of man's origins despite new and/or conflicting ideas and proof yet to be discovered.

H
you do not have to be a scientist to understand basic scientific ideas such as gravity and the way electricity works. the same is with the observation of animals and species. Just as Darwin observed, many of us use our brain power to discover and receive information which MAKES SENSE.
see, I don't need anyone to tell me science is right and bible is wrong, because I think for myself according to what makes sense through my own mind power and what applies to the reality which I observe.
LOL, if what you're reasoning really applied to me, I would be a nun! Since I was raised on religion. No one ever told me the religion was dumb. I embrace science because it makes sense. when I was only a girl it didn't take me long to figure out the bible was not a history book and should not be taken literally.
just for the record, evolutionary "theory" is as well accepted an explaination as the "theory" of gravity.

Answer 1

Creationists are unhindered by inconvenient distractions like a basic understanding of science and the ability to think rationally.

Answer 2

Jane, it is obvious that you are not a 'creationist.' That certainly is your perrogative and I applaud your decision to be 'different,' but are you a scientist?

I ask because scientists know that a theory is not factual until it is proven. When it is 'proven,' it becomes a fact and stops being taught as a 'theory'.

Evolution is just a theory and the way you are trying to apply the Theory of Evolution (that Man came from the apes), that theory is in fact, erroneous.

The Theory of Evolution decrees that when something evolves, it becomes 'something else;' presumably, something better. Applying these scientific principles you should ask yourself the following two questions:

#1: If Man came from the Apes, why do apes still exist?

Answer: Apes are a seperate species of 'creature' than humans. They only resemble each other superficially, the way that a cow and a horse resemble each other. They both have hair. They both have four legs. They both eat grass.

Additional differences: Apes do not have opposible thumbs as human do. Apes only appear to walk upright, they actually help themselves along with their knuckles. The skeletal system of each does not even have the same number of bones.

#2: Where is the so-called 'missing-link?'

Answer: It has never been found.

FACT: Scientific evidence seems to indicate that Homo Sapien (early Man) never cross-bred with any other earlier humanoid, for example, the Neanderthal Man. In fact, early humans probably feared those other humanoids and may have killed them off. Remember, we are a species that fears what is different, which is why we don't get along as well as we should with other humans. Look what Hitler tried to do less than sixty years ago. Look at what is going on today. Is it any wonder that benevolent visitors from the cosmos have not yet announced their presence to us!

So why do you insist that evolution is factual when it is only theory? Because someone told you that 'evolution' was smart and 'Creation' was dumb? Do you know that even scientists and other learned people use the word 'creature' when referring to Man and other animals? Do you know where we got the word 'Creature?' It is derived from... The Creator. Six-thousand years, to a Creationist, is simply a way of saying, "A very long time ago."

H

Answer 3

The answer lies in the various, (most) valid questions you already raised. Here's why: Truth exists in three forms: abstract (math), relative (people reacting differently to a sunset) and assumed.

Those to whom you refer, live in the world of assumed truth. An assumed truth is defined as a belief held without any basis in fact.

For example, there was once a popularly held view the earth was flat. Or, there are many who believe the universe had a specific beginning and will have a specific end.

The question therefore arises, at what point in time did these assumed truths take root? Well, you don't have to look far at all. Consider this, those same characters believe, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."

Now since the human mind can never conceive of the beginning of space and time, or its non-beginning, any effort to interpret this must lead into the domain of wrongful thinking.

And this is precisely what has happened. Their interpretation therefore is, something existed before anything and made everything out of nothing.

(Despite the fact we learned in kindergarten, you can't get something from nothing. Or scientifically, nothing derives from itself, so everything must have some antecedent)

Now this quote is from the first chapter of the Book of Creation. Reason will confirm therefore, any premise that's false, incomprehensible and inconceiveable, must have false conclusions throughout. Herein lies your answer.

They also hold Adam and Eve were two people. So when you ask them with whom did their kids have kids, and if their god sanctioned incest, they opine it was not called incest in those days. (Like that answers the question.)

Rest assured however, there're many bona fide creationists who, not only don't see the least bit of conflict with evolution, but just don't see how it could be any different. And here's why.

Bona fide creationists believe you can't enter the same river twice, because this one, infinite universe of energy is in perpetual evolutionary motion, producing infinite variety in all kingdoms, visible and invisible.

As a result, ALL LIFE FORMS WILL ONE DAY BE HUMAN!

And it took our current civilization 18 million years to evolve to this stage.

There's good, scientific reason why the foetus, in utero, displays the characteristics of the three kingdoms at various stages of its evolution: As above, so below. As below, so above

Peace,
Gondarite

Answer 4

well ya, there are creatinists who firmly believe that every word of the bible must be true.

Jesus used metaphores and somewhere in the bible it talks about 1000 years of our time being 1 year to God. If you take every single word of the bible exactly literaly it conflicts with science. If you take an intelliegent look at the bible and can say the truth which is "i honestly dont know" then it doesnt conflict with science.

Also, I have two questions for you. How much do YOU know about evolution and geology? How much do YOU know about Christianity? Not the church... or the people... or any of that. but the actual bible.

So how then are you so sure about what you know if you really dont know much at all?

Answer 5

Creationists are trying to facilitate a wider campaign of undermining reasoned, scientific thought by attempting to destabilize widely held, known scientific understanding. They aren't attacking evolution so much as the principle of scientific theory and the idea that the reason something is accepted in the scientific community is because there is more empirical evidence to support it.

Review any of the Creationist vs. Evolution debates and you will see that none of them present any scientific data that supports the idea that Creationism is true. Creationists believe that the complexity of biology is fundamental proof of a creator (the watch comparison). The flaw to that thought is that the complex things that humans make are entirely done by the hands of humans, and none grow, replicate or construct themselves from the molecules and atoms around them. We can readily observe the the biological creation of life every day, and it looks nothing like the creation of a watch or a jumbo jet. Living things start from a single cell which divdes. On their own power and by their own ability they grow into more complex forms from less complex forms, and it is all dependent on the available chemical resources around them. We know the properties of cells as facts; we know the properties of the genetics that drive those cells as facts; we know the properties of chemicals that form those genes as facts; and we know how those properties interact to develop complex living things. There are no hands involved. Creationists also can't substantiate their view scientifically because the entire point of a religious belief is to have faith and not ask questions. While science with the theory of evolution can account for billions of years using available empirical evidence, creationists start their timeline at the point of whatever religious texts they are using and however they chose to interpret it They say it all "just happened." But they can't account for how, why or where the entity that created everything came from. Creationist belief is no more substanitive than that of the Greek or Roman gods. Creationists also make a fundamentally flawed assumption that if evolution can't account for or complexity (or if they can get people to believe that) we default to a creationist belief. This is entirely untrue. In science the default is always the theory with the most empirical substantiation, and there is still no other theory with more data than evolution, even with their attacks. Creationists only want to undermine the theory of evolution even though the theory has decades of scientific data behind it.

But why would creationists and those who perpetuate this view wish to do so? Because it's good for business. If people start distrusting science and the scientific process, then they will be more likely to turn to whatever else says they have all of the answers. Would they do that if science was made to seem unstable? Certainly, look at American politics or any governing system, as there is less trust in the system more people turn away from it or become apathetic (the huge number of non-voters). No longer thinking that empirical evidence is fundamental, which scientific thought requires, there is no longer a reason to distrust them, even if they're making the whole thing up. People become more easy to manipulate and with the involvement of politics in the US as they are an organized group like the Christian Right has much to gain from perpetuating this. It is this political organization that is attempting to change scientific standards in states to perpetuate a poorer understanding of science. Look at the Kansas BOE, they reduced their definition of science to essentially include any idea independent of empirical evidence. We already have a school of belief for that, and it is philosophy. If kids can't understand it then they are more easily persuaded to apathy or fundamentalism.

But not ALL Creationists are consciously going this path. It is those who run the Creationist centers and those who give them money are perpetuating an obviously flawed logic. Others get caught up in it because it plays off of deeply emotional ideas such as fear of the eternal and unknown which can make people blank out any rational argument. They can do this even though the medication they take; insulin they use; and food they eat are all products of the understanding of evolution. Evolutionary psychology has shown us that self-denial is a palpable component of human psychology which allows humans to ignore the most fundamental facts to feel better.

Answer 6

Actually Darwin's theories have been found suspect. The evolution in scientific communities has been changed drastically. And yet, I hear a lot of argument based on these theories from supposed scientific based thought. BTW we are make opinions for our own lives based on what is common knowledge or what we have managed to pick up. No one is exempt from that type of behaviour.

Answer 7

You must not have much info from the scientist on the other side. Many scientist are now becoming christian because they tried to disprove what you believe and they found many undeniable facts that draw questions to what you believe. Do not just write off creation science as wack jobs just because others say so. It is based on valid science just as evolution is except with a different conclusion.

Answer 8

I assume that you're referring to Evolution. We must also rember that this is still just a theory. Like E=mc sq., it hasn't been proven yet. Creationists know this and use it as a basis for blunt denial rather than submitting educated arguments. Faith and science will always clash. I'm beginning to think that it should be incorporated into the laws of physics ;-)

Answer 9

OK their is micro and macro evolution... Micro exist, simply because it states that species change within a species.. Macro means the changing of a species... ok what micro means is we adapt to our everchanging enviorment but we still stay human even though we become really black or white..but we are human.... Macro simply can not work because it all deals with probability in the sense of chances happening repetitvely... i think it takes more faith in believing we are monkies considering their are no half links and when we are 99 percent similar in Dna that simply shows that out of 4billion genes there are 20 million quite diffrent genes.

Answer 10

The so-called Theory of Evolution remains a theory until proved otherwise. Who said the earth is only 6000 years old? You are confused with the history of man.

Answer 11

bonzo u stole my avatar. u look sharp man.

anyway, to answer the question, sure Biblical creation stories are just mythology, but I find it amusing when ppl like urself claim to even understand evolutionary theory. do u know abt concepts such as punctuated equilibrium? i doubt it. anyway, evolution theory is still being resolved. don't be so presumptuous.