Whats it going to take for creationists to understand that....?

Question

1. Evolution does NOT talk about the origin of the universe.

2. Evolution does NOT talk about the origin of life, it talks about how lifeforms change over a long period of time, sometimes into new species.

3. Evolution ONLY deals with already living things, it does NOT, in any way, deal with anything dead or non-living (like rocks).

4. Evolution does NOT say that mankind came from monkeys, it says that monkeys, apes, and mankind came from a common ancestor.

5. Evolution is not random.

6. Evolution does not happen by "chance".

7. Evolution did not happen by accident.

8. Evolution is simply not intelligence driven, but driven by environmental pressures.

If you can't understand ALL of those, how about understanding just ONE of those points?

9. Complexity is NOT an argument against Evolution, in fact, it supports Evolution.

10. Ill education, and inability to understand it, is NOT an argument against Evolution, its an argument against YOU.

What will it take for you to understand that instead of being told over and over and over again like a broken record?

primoa, the bible was written by mankind, it was not written by god, it was "inspired". Mankind are fallible, so why do you put so much stock in it? For all you know, even if god exists, mankind could easily have gotten the words wrong because any gods mind would be infinately more complex than a human beings.

Hmm? Or do you just want to dismiss that because its more comfortable to do so?

Thank you kc. Go ahead. I've had 2 years of university classes majoring in Biology, I think I understand it fairly well.

LX V, mutations are not Evolution.

just passing through, I've never seen a scientist say that. Not once. And on here, you get told constantly all those things but choose to deny them or say things that aren't true like you just did.

MissDeviance, you're implying a "will" behind whether they die or not. Its not about "meant to" die. There is no will. Evolution doesn't talk about "will". Evolution has nothing at all to do with that. It has to do with survival of the fittest. Those who can't survive, WILL die.

As well... religion has no place in schools UNLESS the religious allow all religions to be taught in equally. How many Christians do you know of that would want their kids to learn the facts about Wicca?

Randy, a single link does nothing. I was not pointing this out to the very few Christians that do understand it. I was pointing this out to those that don't, and aren't willing to learn to understand it, or just dismiss it sumarily.

The moment someone says "guess", "chance", or "accident" is the moment you know that a person DOES NOT understand the facts about Evolution or they wouldn't claim such things.

You cannot argue against something if you do not know the facts about it.

Most Creationists do not know the facts.

Jilith, are you just completely insane? Evolution isn't about hope. It isn't about your emotions. Its about FACT. Fact isn't always comforting.

Btw, you just invalidated everything you said because you're obviously not educated enough to argue against Evolution. Calling names is a childs behavior.

Jessica, this is not about philosophy is it? Its about fact. Its about science.

Tony, quite right.

Wiley,

1. So the big bang, steady state and multi-verse theories are not part of the Theory of Evolution?

A: No they are not. In any way actually. Evolution is different from the origins of life (Abiogensis) and the Origin of the Universe (Big Bang, etc).

2. Abiogenesis or Life from other planets is not part of the Theory of Evolution?

A: 1. Abiogenesis is NOT. 2. Life on other planets IS. Because ALL EXISTING LIFE undergoes Evolution.


5. Mutations are random which evolutionists use to try and explain how things become more complex so in that respect evolution is random.

A: So what? Mutations are simply a smaller part of Evolution. rofl... you really think this is enough space to explain how things become more complex in an Evolutionary system? Go back to school. I don't have the time to spend teaching youe verything you need to know to understand that over some web board.

6 & 7. The big bang and abiogenesis are chance and accidental occurences in that there was no intelligence or guidance behind them.

But they are not. There isn't intelligence behind them, that does not mean they are accidents or chance. If you think that, you don't know enough about Evolution to argue against it.

Buddy, if you have problems with Abiogensis and the Creation of the Universe, then THAT is what you should learn enough about to argue properly because it is NOT Evolution that you are concerned with. So learn what science actually says before you look even more the fool.

Morgana, well said.

Khard, brilliant.

Answer 1

Creationism is not supported in any way. Sure it would be nice to selfishly believe we were all created in God's image, but not if it's truth you are after. You cannot search for evidence in search of a particular conclusion (creationism), throwing out all other evidence and interpreting what you've found with extreme bias and call that science. Instead, include all evidence. The fossil record, our knowledge of DNA, comparitive anatomy and vestigial organs all point to one conclusion. Life changes, and this is fact. The methods in which is this happens is the "theory" part, and are still in debate.

Spreading lies and misconceptions about the theory of evolution make creationists more secure about their own beliefs, not realizing that 1. even if evolution was disproven, that would not prove the creation idea, and 2. if a lot of people believe in something (creationism), it doesnt make it true. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible for people to escape the bubble of ignorance surrounding them. Not everyone believes that facts guide us to truth; some think it's what you feel in your "heart", not realizing that these feelings are merely a result of interconnecting neurons providing them false conclusions.

Answer 2

Hi,
You need to get a book called "forbidden Archeology" It presents an age old debate between scientist about the origins of man. You'll find great scientific data that shows that man "Modern Man" appears much much older than some scientist would have us believe. You may come to a whole different conclusion about your belief system. If we are going to talk scientific methods here, we must look at all the science. Besides the math for evolution is impossible, and you'll figure that out if you study the discipline long enough. Also, look at both side of the debate so you can reach a full conclusion of the science involved. This place was engineered..... you'll also come to that conclusion, but the real question is.... why is God allowing us to stumble for awhile? What is the purpose, and how much longer will he allow it to go on? This is no joke.... and there's an answer to that question too! Are you willing to be a free thinker? You will be very surprised at the answer to that question too. But that's all up to you. Keep digging.

Answer 3

You have to love these kind of comments by evolutionists.

1. So the big bang, steady state and multi-verse theories are not part of the Theory of Evolution?

2. Abiogenesis or Life from other planets is not part of the Theory of Evolution?

5. Mutations are random which evolutionists use to try and explain how things become more complex so in that respect evolution is random.

6 & 7. The big bang and abiogenesis are chance and accidental occurences in that there was no intelligence or guidance behind them.

You see the evolution that you are defending is natural selection and creationists have no problems with that. The problems come from abiogenesis, the big bang and the evolution of a single celled organism into all the living things we have today, which is included in the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Answer 4

You mean what is it going to take for fundies to think logically? Perhaps a miracle...?

Truly, I think that nothing short of a total re-structuring of the way they think and how they teach their children will be necessary before fundies start to change as a group and join the human race in rational thought processes. I say fundies here bc there are Christians who are able to assimilate the ideas of evolution and Chirtian dogma into a way in which they accept both. That's all fine and good, but we are talking about people whoh are not either willing or able to do that.

Why are they unable to do that? A big part of it is, I think, fear. As I have hypothesized here on many occasions, they are so afraid of not existing after death that they have created this whole fiction about heaven and hell, and they have taught it to their kids, and the myth is perpetuated. They teach that if you deviate from the fundie program, you risk hell. So they are afraid to even consider the possibility that another way of perceiving the world and how we got here, like evolution, might be true. To do so they feel they risk their immortal souls, and fear of the flame is a great motivator, expecially when you get brainwashed with it really young.

I was once one of those tender young girls who was taught that if I considered evolution was true, I was damned to hell for defying God. I broke free, but it was scary, because now I am confronted with my own mortality. But I am also an adult human being who has the maturity to know that to see things as theyreally are is infinitely more satisfying.

Bright Blessings,
Lady Morgana )0(

Answer 5

I do not understand how complexity is an argument for Evolution. I hear people say that, but no one has ever explained it in a way that makes sense.

And what do you mean evolution doesn't happen by 'chance'? Isn't that the idea behind random mutations?

And please understand ONE thing:
Just because I believe in Divinely guided evolution it does not mean I am against science or that I am ignorant, ill-educated or and idiot.

EDIT:
But the idea behind evolution is that the random mutations are either kept or discarded according to how well they help the individuals pass on their genes, is it not?
So in my book that makes it 'chance.' There is a chance that some aspect of the creature will change, there is a chance that it will improve its odds of survival and breeding possibilities, and there is a chance its offspring will inherit the trait. Adaptability and all that.
Isn't evolution all about the accumulation of the mutations to change on creature into another. Or are we arguing different terms here?

Answer 6

These facts are dependent on which theory of evolution you are speaking of. There are several.

I only question the validity of many of evoutionists' findings.
There is so much contradicting information out there! Epecially in relation to the Earth's age. I have read through several science textbooks and four of them had different data regarding the very age of the Earth. One would think such a thing would be more official than it is.

I do believe in natural selection, and as a biology minor I believe that much of evolution is a very real part of our world.

I would also like to say, as delicately as possible, that you are wrong. Not wrong as in the sense of me telling you what to believe, but merely as an assertion of what is included in the evolution spectrum.
Many of the evolution theories involve speculation on the creation/origin of many different species as well as the Earth's atmosphere and other things. I realize that the Big Bang theory is not really connected to evolution theories, but most of those who belive in the one thing, believe in the other as well, causing the assumed connection between the two.
As far as the very senstive issue of how we all got here, well, evolution does cover that as well. The origin of life is intertwined with the evolution of simple organisms into more complex organisms. There is still much speculation, of course, as to which combination of molecules started everything, but each evolution theory has it's opinion on the matter.

I won't deign to respond to each of the numbered assertions that were posted in your question, as I already agree with some of them.(including points 3,5,6, and 7. though i would like to point out that the evidence supporting most theories is based on the findings of those non-living rocks, thank you very much!) Though if I were making an argument against creationists, i would not include the points 5,6 and 7, as that could easily be turned and used against you as proof of why evolution theories are wrong.

I am glad that you posted this, and hope you will post something just as uneducated in the future.

Signed, a "creationist"

Answer 7

Seems a great shame to spend so much time defending a deception. There is no life or hope in evolution which should rightly be spelled EVILution.

Evilution moves people away from faith in God to a more amazing faith in superstition made credible to the gullible with a few scientific facts thrown in, but none that are totally conclusive.

My favorite example is evolutionists trying to explain the source of the first cell at the base of Darwin's tree of life.
I have never heard one plausible answer on this yet, and all the websites claiming to have the answer are biased very heavily toward evilution and offer little hope in reality.

Even the most stauch proponent of chemical evilution has recanted his research and writing and acknowledges that creation is the best possibility along with over 700 secular and Christian scientists and about as many doctors.

Would you believe that so many intelligent men (who are being joined in growing numbers every day) could all be totally stupid after years and years of research? If so you place yourself on a scale far above what you have attained.

Fred Reed said, "Trying to ask questions to a Darwinist is like trying to give a prostrate exam to a bobcat."

The idea is that they are so stuck in the evilutionary rut that they respond with anger instead of examining evidence that could teach them what so many scientists have already acknowledged - evilution has no solid ground to stand on.

Answer 8

I'm not a creationist per se, but has it ever occurred to you that they DO understand all of these points? Check out the article at the link below.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make that person ignorant.

BTW, point number 4 seems to be mere semantics to the average person. And even if point numbers 6 & 7 are true, then the "environmental pressures" mentioned in point number 8 IS drive by random chance (who knew about the asteroid?), so by default, evolution is ultimately random as far as the average person is concerned. Sounds like semantics again. Just saying.

Answer 9

When will Evolutionists accept that natural selection means some people and animal species are meant to die? That means letting homeless people starve and die, letting complete cultures in the African deserts die, and letting endangered species die.

"But that's inhumane!" No that's evolution. You can't have it both ways.

To fall back on humanism is to say religion has a place when it helps counter the cruelties of nature, and that means allowing people to follow religious beliefs as a means of balance against the cruel realities of nature (and evolution) should not only be acceptable but should be encouraged.

What amazes me is how fearful evolutionists are to allow for OPEN EDUCATION of ALL theories in schools. I would have found it fascinating to learn ALL of the world religions, including ingineous tribal theories about the origins of life AND the theories of evolution, as part of my studies. ANY real education would include ALL. I had to wait until college to take such a class, and it was incredible.

The ignorance goes both ways.

Answer 10

Evolution doesn't explain every thing either. Creation is a theory for the simple people of the antiquity and middle age.
Truth is we need a new theory.