Creationists?

Question

Why do we let biologists walk all over us? Do you not realize that all of their evidence can also point to a Creator?

The fact that we share common genetics with apes is just as compatible with common design as it is with common ancestry.

" A designer might very well decide to use common building materials to create differet organisms, just as builders use the same materials, steel griders, rivets, and so forth, to build different bridges that end up looking very dissimilar to one another"~ Jonathan Wells PHD, Undergraduate at Berkley in geology and physics, with a minor in biology. Yale Graduate School where he specialized in the nineteenth century controversies surrounding Darwin....

"Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose accidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?"

Sir John Templeton

Everyone thinks we are a joke:

Nobal Nominee: Henry Schaefer
James Tour
Fred Figworth
Jonathan Wells
Stephen Meyer
Astronomer George Greenstein
Nobel laureate Arno Penzias
Michael J. Behe
William A. Dembski
and more

Answer 1

I think most creationist let biologists walk all over them because they do not feel they have the scientific knowledge to compete with the scientists. My solution I think creationist should study more science. I have and it has only made my belief in the creator stronger. My favorite argument is Darwin's Black Box.

Do not forget, we have 99% the same DNA as chimps and 88% the same DNA as Ragweed. Genetics proves nothing but that genes are similar it cannot be used to prove descent with modification.

Answer 2

That's a terribly weak argument. WHY would a supernatural designer use common building materials? There's absolutely no reason for it, since God is omnipotent and could choose just as easily to not use common building materials. The sole reason human builders use common materials is because it's more practical, because of the limitations on their abilities and resources; God would have no such limitations, so there is no reason for God to artificially limit himself in this way, especially since he should have known that it would strongly imply his own nonexistence to make creation so uniform (and thus non-miraculous in appearance).

Snowflakes demonstrate numerous shared characteristics, are very complex, very orderly, etc.; yet it is not reasonable to jump to the conclusion that they have a common designer, obviously, especially when we have an alternative explanation that actually tells us why snowflakes would have the physical properties they do, and arrange themselves in the orderly ways they do, without an intelligence guiding them every step along the way. It's certainly true that the existence of snowflakes is compatible with the idea that they were all individually created by God, and that their similarities are a result of their common creator rather than of their physical properties; but there's absolutely no reason to believe that this is true, and it doesn't even make any sense if you believe that the entire universe was created by God, because then why would snowflakes have shared features which other physical structures don't have, yet which are argued to be necessary to show that snowflakes have common design?

In the exact same way, it makes no sense to argue that God created both life and the rest of the universe, yet that the shared characteristics of life are evidence that they were created; if you argue, for example, that the presence of DNA or RNA in all life is evidence for God designing all life, then you have to explain why anything that doesn't have DNA or RNA in it would ALSO be created by God. Simply pointing to a similarity between a bunch of objects or organisms and saying "those similarities show there's a God!" is a vacuous argument, for the same reason that it's vacuous to appeal to the similarities between snowflakes (such as that they're cold, they're made of ice molecules, etc.) to prove that God created them.

Besides, if you're arguing that God "built" man and apes out of the same materials, you're essentially arguing for evolution, since evolution is the only mechanism that's been proposed so far to explain how chimpanzees and humans would have their DNA subtly modified in different ways to diverge into separate species, when they started in the same place (a common ancestor).

And there is nothing strange whatsoever about the idea that a purposeless universe would result in humans who believe in purpose, anymore than the idea that a universe without leprechauns would result in humans who believe in leprechauns, etc. Naturalistic science has already explained why humans seek a "purpose": because doing so has survival benefits, thus people who believe their life has purpose (even if they don't have a good REASON to believe this, as most people don't) are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who don't. Arguing that something is true just because humans believe that it's true is one of the weakest arguments imaginable.

Answer 3

Throw a rock into a pack of dogs. The one the yelps the loudest is the one that was hit. There's just a lot of yelping going on, that's all.

The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primordial soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. - Sir Fredrick Hoyle, Nature Nov. 1981

Answer 4

All creation is truth, but not all truth is creation. There is everything that came about through the power of the one reality, and then there is the still point in the middle that can never change, become disrupt, or pass into nonexistence. That Truth creates all and was created by nothing.

Answer 5

I agree. Did you know that the lug nut from a Pontiac will fit on a Chevy? That's because they have a COMMON DESIGNER...not because they evolved from a Honda 50 million years ago!

Answer 6

Creationists ARE a joke. Where is your international support? Where are the peer-reviewed publications and entries in science journals? Where are the grand theories, save for 'god diddit'?

Answer 7

why does there have to be either creation or evolution?

we can observe evolution but there may or may not have been the "creation" of life on earth through the intervention of some god

they do not deal with the same things, evolution explains how the diversity of life on earth arose, creationism tries to explain how life on earth started, really "creationism vs evolution" should be "creationism vs abiogenesis"

Answer 8

Because of seperation of church and state. But, it still is good to be informed about the problems with evolution.

Answer 9

if you can convince scientists that most american christians know the earth is billions of years old, then maybe you guys can talk. good luck.

Answer 10

Until you find some real evidence, please realise that no one in the scientific community (or anyone intelligent for that matter) thinks you (creationists) are anything other than a sad joke.