Business & Finance2 mins ago
Why don't creationists explain creation?
51 Answers
Experts will explain evolution in as much detail as you want. They will admit to areas which are still unclear, but will often add "but we're working on it". The science claims to do nothing but explain how modern complex life evolved from very primitive life, and that it does with utter clarity and elegance. It claims nothing about the origins of the universe or (as yet) how that primitive life came about.
Not so creationists. Although their claim is the extravagant one of knowing how the whole universe came about, and all the life in it, they never offer a single word of explanation.
Ask a creationist what form his god takes, how he went about designing things, what materials and tools he used, and you'll be treated with indignant amazement. "For heavens sake," you'll be told, " you don't ask questions like that of God! Behave yourself! Just believe it, that's all!". No explanation even permitted.
Instead, creationists spend much of their time knocking evolution, though what they expect to gain by that is beyond me. If evolution were to be discredited tomorrow it would have to be replaced by something equally rational, equally logical, equally supported by masses of evidence and equally explicable!
The idea that the only alternative is creationism is absurd: thinkers, when stymied, do not turn to the supernatural.
So why don't creationists drop their pointless and hopeless sniping at evolution and tell us all about their own subject?
Not so creationists. Although their claim is the extravagant one of knowing how the whole universe came about, and all the life in it, they never offer a single word of explanation.
Ask a creationist what form his god takes, how he went about designing things, what materials and tools he used, and you'll be treated with indignant amazement. "For heavens sake," you'll be told, " you don't ask questions like that of God! Behave yourself! Just believe it, that's all!". No explanation even permitted.
Instead, creationists spend much of their time knocking evolution, though what they expect to gain by that is beyond me. If evolution were to be discredited tomorrow it would have to be replaced by something equally rational, equally logical, equally supported by masses of evidence and equally explicable!
The idea that the only alternative is creationism is absurd: thinkers, when stymied, do not turn to the supernatural.
So why don't creationists drop their pointless and hopeless sniping at evolution and tell us all about their own subject?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There are some scientists that believe original life began from outer space. Do you believe them too, or only the ones you have decided to believe?
Do you possess an open mind to listen, absorb and accept the opinion that different theories may have opposing views, however irrational it may seem to you? I think not.
Plenty of creationist websites that fully explain all their reasoning exist, but I presume you would never accept their view, so isn�t the question relatively futile? Or at the very least, encumbered religionist bear-baiting?
Do you possess an open mind to listen, absorb and accept the opinion that different theories may have opposing views, however irrational it may seem to you? I think not.
Plenty of creationist websites that fully explain all their reasoning exist, but I presume you would never accept their view, so isn�t the question relatively futile? Or at the very least, encumbered religionist bear-baiting?
Personally I take the idea of Panspermia (extra terrestrial origin of life) seriously.
On balance I'm not convinced but I take it seriously because they have a certain degree of evidence
1) The ability of extremophiles to survive harsh conditions including spaceflight
2) The relatively fast way that life arose on Earth shortly after the heavy bombardment period.
But I've said it before and I'll say it again
Rabbits in the Permian
Doesn't seem a lot to ask - if evolution is bunk we should see mammals cropping up all over the fossil record.
That's my criteria for re-evaluating my view on creationism.
Now what's their requirement for re-evaluating evolution?
Generally they don't have one because it's not a matter of science for them it's a matter of faith!
Though Octavious is right though, this is religionist-baiting really isn't it?
On balance I'm not convinced but I take it seriously because they have a certain degree of evidence
1) The ability of extremophiles to survive harsh conditions including spaceflight
2) The relatively fast way that life arose on Earth shortly after the heavy bombardment period.
But I've said it before and I'll say it again
Rabbits in the Permian
Doesn't seem a lot to ask - if evolution is bunk we should see mammals cropping up all over the fossil record.
That's my criteria for re-evaluating my view on creationism.
Now what's their requirement for re-evaluating evolution?
Generally they don't have one because it's not a matter of science for them it's a matter of faith!
Though Octavious is right though, this is religionist-baiting really isn't it?
"Plenty of creationist websites that fully explain all their reasoning exist"
Trouble is, I've never seen one that doesn't repeat the same old crappola Theland keeps trotting out on here. They're full of quote mining, demonstrably wrong science, poor methologies and outright lies.
If there is such a one as you say, please provide a link.
It's not just lazy sport at Theland's (et al) expense, despite what you apparently think. If it were simply a few people having an opinion that they kept to themselves, then fine, but it isn't.
There are people trying to get this mendacious bilge taught as science in schools, and every time someone - even someone as willfully ignorant on the subject as Theland (and he really is) - posts up one of their so-called smoking gun proofs that evolution doesn't work, there's a chance someone else might believe him because they don't have the knowledge to understand why it's wrong.
Trouble is, I've never seen one that doesn't repeat the same old crappola Theland keeps trotting out on here. They're full of quote mining, demonstrably wrong science, poor methologies and outright lies.
If there is such a one as you say, please provide a link.
It's not just lazy sport at Theland's (et al) expense, despite what you apparently think. If it were simply a few people having an opinion that they kept to themselves, then fine, but it isn't.
There are people trying to get this mendacious bilge taught as science in schools, and every time someone - even someone as willfully ignorant on the subject as Theland (and he really is) - posts up one of their so-called smoking gun proofs that evolution doesn't work, there's a chance someone else might believe him because they don't have the knowledge to understand why it's wrong.
I agree that the formation of life beginning from outer space is a definite possibility, and some scientists provide a fair and reasonable argument for this, some with �evidence�.
Perhaps I am slightly more convinced of the possibility than you Jake, but then that is personal opinion and willingness to accept that things are not always as clear as they may seem, or that scientists have led us to believe. It is a theory after all. One of many. Oh how we now laugh at those early scientists who thought and convinced our ancestors that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around earth.
�Attaching oneself to an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer�.
Perhaps I am slightly more convinced of the possibility than you Jake, but then that is personal opinion and willingness to accept that things are not always as clear as they may seem, or that scientists have led us to believe. It is a theory after all. One of many. Oh how we now laugh at those early scientists who thought and convinced our ancestors that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around earth.
�Attaching oneself to an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer�.
You'd have to ask Chakka - it's his question, but it 'sone arising from something said on another thread today (but not backed up (as usual)), and it's surely a valid question to ask, if there really is something to Creationism as we're repeatedly told?
All those us who are pro-evolution ever say is 'where's your evidence' and there never is any. Normally what happens is there is a complete failure to provide any evidence relevant to the question and then someone will usually try and deflect attention from the total lack of evidence for Creationism by attacking evolution with some ridiculous non-argument like Theland's 'information being added to the genes rather than it being depleted' point earlier today or whining '...but Darwin was racist' like it means something.
All those us who are pro-evolution ever say is 'where's your evidence' and there never is any. Normally what happens is there is a complete failure to provide any evidence relevant to the question and then someone will usually try and deflect attention from the total lack of evidence for Creationism by attacking evolution with some ridiculous non-argument like Theland's 'information being added to the genes rather than it being depleted' point earlier today or whining '...but Darwin was racist' like it means something.
The "quote" concerning Darwin's racist background, was agreed to by you and expressed in the context of bias' being inherent in evolutionist's dogmas as well as creatioinist's... so who's "quote mining" and using "poor methodologies and outright lies" in this instance?
As Octavius has explained, it's not for a lack of sources, including well presented, testable hypothisis and in many cases a falsifiable model that prevents expending the effort in demonstration, it's the atttitude of condecension... which I've already discussed...
As Octavius has explained, it's not for a lack of sources, including well presented, testable hypothisis and in many cases a falsifiable model that prevents expending the effort in demonstration, it's the atttitude of condecension... which I've already discussed...
"The "quote" concerning Darwin's racist background, was agreed to by you and expressed in the context of bias' being inherent in evolutionist's dogmas as well as creatioinist's... so who's "quote mining" and using "poor methodologies and outright lies" in this instance?"
Er... You are apparently. Trying to present Darwin's racism as having any relevance whatsoever to whether evolution is true in complete contradiction to what I have ever expressed here or elsewhere.
But thanks for proving the point about Creationists so ably, (even if you aren't strictly speaking one)...
Er... You are apparently. Trying to present Darwin's racism as having any relevance whatsoever to whether evolution is true in complete contradiction to what I have ever expressed here or elsewhere.
But thanks for proving the point about Creationists so ably, (even if you aren't strictly speaking one)...
I�m not party to the �other thread� but anyone sense a pattern to prove my point?
Oh, oh, Miss Octavius - over here miss! Me, me! Pick me.
Is it that they failed to provide evidence when asked for it, and their attacks on evolution are lazy and wrong and they don't like having it pointed out?
By the way miss, you need a shave.
Oh, oh, Miss Octavius - over here miss! Me, me! Pick me.
Is it that they failed to provide evidence when asked for it, and their attacks on evolution are lazy and wrong and they don't like having it pointed out?
By the way miss, you need a shave.
Lets not forget that creationalism in the form of intelligent design has already been examined by the American legal system and found to be:
Not science and an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intellig ent.design/index.html
Not science and an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intellig ent.design/index.html
I thought I better contribute somewhat different idea in this debate. Many would not like it but then many might not be right. people want to know the explanation about creation. You may find it here. But I know many here would look at who is the Scientist who wrote it. Instead of what it says.
http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/evol ution_quran/index.asp
http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/evol ution_quran/index.asp
You're at it again,Octavius. In two ways:
Firstly, you once again accuse me of not wanting to listen, to having a closed mind - an easy, flip, way of evading the question.
It is also an odd charge to make against a fellow who has spent decades studying the origins of Christianity and who has probably read as much about creationism as you have. On a thread just below this I quote a book in my collection which has 50 essays on the subject (which I have carefully read and with some of whose authors I have had correspondences). And from where I sit I can see another 5 books on the subject, with more elsewhere.
How else do you think I know that creationists never explain creation?
Secondly, once again you make vague reference to other people's writings without contributing a word of your own - just as you did in my Jesus thread.
Aw, come on, Octavius. Be a sport. Indulge me. Just for once. Answer the question.
Firstly, you once again accuse me of not wanting to listen, to having a closed mind - an easy, flip, way of evading the question.
It is also an odd charge to make against a fellow who has spent decades studying the origins of Christianity and who has probably read as much about creationism as you have. On a thread just below this I quote a book in my collection which has 50 essays on the subject (which I have carefully read and with some of whose authors I have had correspondences). And from where I sit I can see another 5 books on the subject, with more elsewhere.
How else do you think I know that creationists never explain creation?
Secondly, once again you make vague reference to other people's writings without contributing a word of your own - just as you did in my Jesus thread.
Aw, come on, Octavius. Be a sport. Indulge me. Just for once. Answer the question.
