Why do creationists?

Question

Know so little about the theory they love to bash? This even goes to some athiests and agnostics as well. I would just like to clear some things up.

Yes there is evidence in favor of evolution, tons of it to be exact.

No..there is no evidence for a young earth creation (Earth being about 6000 years old)

No, evolution doesn't suggest we evolved from monkeys, they assert that we evolved from a common species.

No, evolution does not necessarily mean progression. A species today may not be more advance than his ancestors.

Yes, there is evidence of the Big Bang, however that does not mean scientists know everything about it. It is likely to be refined and change, as is the nature of all science, as we get new information. So no, science does not claim we came from nothing.

Finally NO, Darwin did not renounce his beliefs on his deathbed! That is an Urban Legend circulated by christians for their own gain. His children and wife both later wrote he did not convert.

Feel free to contact me as I love to discuss these things.

Jack, I do know and research creationists theories,and I know that not all of them agree with the young Earth. In fact that only incorporates two Creationist theories. I just put that in there because the majority of creationists I see in this forum believe in the young earth theory.

Answer 1

I've never met a creationist who actually understood evolution.

The WORST part of it, is that I've provided them with websites where they could educate themselves about evolution, but have never had one of them actually go and educate themselves about it.

they seem to prefer to parrot falsehoods about evolution promoted by people like the con artist and felon, Kent Hovind.

Answer 2

I certainly hope you weren't misquoting me when you said that creationists are circulating false stories of a deathbed confession by Darwin.
I did not ever say that. However, I have said, on many questions that Darwin knew the fossil record did not support his Tree of Life:
"The fossil record has caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion." Stephen Gould, The Panda's Thumb.
"The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Silurian (Cambrian) system is very great."
"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian (cambrian) stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed...and during these vast yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. to the question why we do not find these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
(one more hang on)
"These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads: first, why, if species have descended from other species by gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transition forms, why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the vast species being, as we see them, well defined?"
All quotes except the first come from
Charles Darwin, "On The Origin of the Species."
So you see, I did not randomly say Darwin knew the fossil record didn't support his theory, I saw it in a book I was reading, but that idea was not a direct quote, so I looked it up, and yep, there it was. it was Darwin's own words and the testimony of many scientist that knew Darwin made those statements that led to my comfort in saying "Darwin knew the fossil record did not support his theory of evolution." No deathbed conversion, just an observation of the fact of his own statement.
I have enough words of my own, please do not put any in my mouth, OK pumpkin?
And I am not bashing, I'm pointing out the fact that evolution is not signed sealed and delivered. Theres tons of research disputing evolution.
I know we don't agree and i'm ok with that, I'm simply saying stop stereotyping and start researching it for yourself.
I did.
OK HOLD EVERYTHING!!!!!!! I was just on another question, enjoying the answers and I saw the answer that probably spurned your question. UGH! I completely retract my statement about putting words in my mouth and I'm sorry for calling you pumpkin!! LOL
The statement about the deathbed conversion on the other question was misinformed, un researched and uneducated. Bashing allowed under those circumstances, i guess.
Why won't people take two seconds to look something up before spouting off (myself included!)

Answer 3

obviously u love to discuss these things, as ur obviously the type of person who studies a specific area just to be able to argue it.

anyway, what u dont seem to realize is that when we say that the world is 5766 years old, we are counting not from the creation of the world, but rather from the creation of man as we know it today.

do i think that dinosaurs existed, yes. do i think that there was life before man, yes. do i think that the world is older than 5766 years, yes. in fact i think its much older. however do i think that u r right? no.

the evidence which ive read about evolution isn't very convincing. and even if evolution is true, who said that G-d didn't create man through evolution, which is just like saying who said G-d didn't create the universe through the big bang.

and if u look at the five books of moses, the first chapter is very vague about the creation of the world. why? because it wasnt written as a history book as to how the world was created. thats why to say that the world is 15 billion years old works out fine, because when we say the world was created in 7 days - by what means are we counting days? the sun and moon werent created until the fourth "day."

we say that 5766 starts from the 6th "day," which was when the first man was created. so how he was created is certainly a matter of dibate, which i guess is what im doing with u right now.

Answer 4

wrong, much evidence exist for a young earth the following is for example"Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils are found in coal deposits. However, laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. These vast coal deposits are unsullied by other material. The conclusion is drawn that actual research indicates a young age to the Earth that contains such coalified materials."If coal takes millions and millions of years of heat and pressure to form, how is it possible that creationists are teaching that the earth is only a few thousand years old?" This is a commonly asked question among individuals seeking answers about the age of the earth and the universe. Research has been done by several creation organizations, as well as independent scientists, in order to answer such questions. The evidence actually shows that coal does not take millions of years to form, as is commonly asserted. In fact, the formation of coal has been proven to be a rapid process that can be duplicated in modern laboratories in a matter of days - or even hours.

Answer 5

One point that I suggest you go and research is the "6000 year old earth" thing. Creationists (at least informed ones) do not subscribe to this, namely because the bible does not teach it. You also seem to know little about the theory you are bashing.

Evolution itself can resemble a religion at times. The theory has its demi-gods, temples, denominations, reformers, believers, non-believers, lapsed believers, restored believers, icons, holy relics, protestants, puritans, canon and other sacred writings, preachers, saints, martyrs, heretics, excommunication for the apostate, devotions, rituals, evangelistic fervor, dogma, commandments, rewards, and punishments. Fascinating.

Love, Jack.

Answer 6

As an evolutionist, you must believe that from utter chaos (i.e., the Big Bang) came total order. You must also believe that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals (gases, star dust). Therefore, if something so advanced and orderly could come from something so chaotic and simple, then could we not repeat the process? Yet a magnificent painting must have a painter in order to exist. Someone had to have created it. Which is why I believe in creationism. You don't have to switch views, or even believe me if you wish not to, but this is what I believe to be truth. Thankyou for your question. :)

Answer 7

I've notice most people, religious or not, are rather dogmatic about their beliefs. I think the theory of evolution is interesting, but it is just a theory. Don't see why it matters so much, the spiritual world is much more important to me.

Answer 8

Creationists do not like anything that conflicts with their beliefs. As a result, they like to spread lies, no matter how ridiculous they are, about the subject since they know nothing about it. They like to think they know everything (although they never even researched the subject at all) when everyone else knows that they are just being stupid.

Answer 9

That's what I'd like to know! The "strongest" argument Creationists have is that monkey one. Geez! If you're going to argue it at least know what you're arguing against!

Answer 10

however, Darwin DID say that "To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Evolution has little suport. and alot of holes in it. those who suport evolution are ignorant enough to ignore this.

i'll restate my arguement again.


think about this.
life as we know it, everything that exsisted and is exsisting, canot come from nothing.
science agrees it would take somethign far more than the normal laws of science for matter to come out of nothign. The big bang theory is full of unlimited gaps as to how it even started.
neverm ind how it worked. Evolutionists argue that the universe as we know it was spontianuously done. not made, but just... appeared from some bizzare random explosion out of nothing.
that being said, they say that the form it is currently is is also randomly done. that the fact earth sustains life only by being in its exact spot, (no more than a couple hundred feet closer to the sun or farther) was pure chance. that the sun, by pure chance became the perfect sun to keep life on earth.
Infact, they state that the whole universe, which has been 'spontaniously exploded' into exsistance, finds a way to recycle and remake itself indeffinetly is 'Chance'.
Dark holes, super novas, stars, plantes, all act in a way to remake and distroy the universe, like the planet itself does. could a explosion make somethign so well?
the earth, as beign created in the genises account, is agreed by scientists as to thats the order the earth would have been formed to life. however, for this to be done in the exactly right order, the first time, spontainiously, is unimaginably rare. for example, say you have 10 blocks (the number of steps in the genises account for creation) and you take them out, and blindfolded, have to place them in order.
the chances, (doing th math) is roughly 1 in 3,628,800.
this is only one example of the vast improbeblities that haunt the evolution theory. the theory of evolution is nothing more than 'coincidence after coincidence. mistake after mistkae. accedent after eccedent, Luck after Luck, and chance after chance.' but all i've talked about is the universe and earth itself. lets talk about evolution shall we?

Evolution itself.
evolution is done from 'Mutations and accedents' so science says. these mutations, are very rare, yet happen. that much is agreed, however. mutations are rarely ever good, infact How do mutations originate? It is thought that most of them occur in the normal process of cell reproduction. But experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing “of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents.

'Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica.10 That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined.'

'Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”12 When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”13 They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage.'

'Geneticist Dobzhansky once said: “An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”15 Thus, ask yourself: Does it seem reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down?'

Heres the biggest thing.

'Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? No, they could not. A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new.
The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: “A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water.”But has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else.
Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. A person’s hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand. It never changes into something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever.'

even rare benificial mutations don't change the creature, or make it anything new. they just... mutate it.

'The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how “the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation” are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. The journal states: “In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.”
Thus, in the book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”'

if humans with complex labs and scientific knowledge couldnt make eveolution or life happen, how could a big random explosion do it?

'No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: “No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations.’”
Similarly, geneticist C. H. Waddington stated regarding the belief in mutations: “This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. . . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better.”
The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . . that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth'

so it's an imposiblity really to beleive life got here by such things as a big bang theory and evolution.
they are both theories that cannot be explained, in most ways they seem more impossible to comprehend than a god.
i only gave very FEW examples as to why these are horribly mistakening theorys.

my final conclusion is this.
not only is the fact life got her from a giant explosion erasional to beleive in the most sence, but also, that evolution cannot creat new organisms, it cannot do anythign but change a few aspects of a creature, and most of the time its bad, and when it isn't bad, it doesnt ever change the basic fact that a species is the same species, a human born without legs is still a human, a cat with 6 legs is still a cat, no matter what.
Even the mutations that do help, which are very rare, just end up beign erased, as teh genetic code corrects i tself, as that mutation spreads it's genes. theirs only a 50% chance that it would spread, to the next generation of that species, and it always is threatedned, even farther down the line, to completly elapse, that gene is never temporary, because its only a mutation. Evolution can never explain how life got here, how the universe got here, and certianly doesnt explain human life.